[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

[John Curran]

On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Antoine Beaupré <anarcat at koumbit.org> wrote:

>> A /48 is definitely to small but would would you think of a /40 for an 
>> xx-small and /36 for a x-small.  This requires a tweak in the fee 
>> schedule too.
> 
> That would make sense, although I still think that lowering the rates
> for IPv6 would be more enticing for wider adoption...

Antoine - 

There is no charge for the corresponding IPv6 allocation for the same
size category...  <https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html>

For example, on the previous fee schedule, the smallest category was
X-Small (any ISP with less than a /20 IPv4 space), and the annual fee
was $1250/year.

On the pending fee schedule, these ISP's are X-small (if they hold a 
/22 or small) or xx-small, with respective annual fees of $1000 and 
$500.  The smallest IPv6 fee was 75% of $2,250	(for those holding 
/40 to /32)   On the existing fee schedule, ISPs paid whichever IPv4 
or IPv6 was larger,

The new pending fee schedule is _significantly less_ for smaller ISPs,
but it does create a potential incentive for those ISPs that wish to 
optimize their costs to take a smaller IPv6 allocation (/36, and/or
potentially /40 if allowed by this proposed policy change.)

An x-small or xx-small ISP that has the same space as before will
always pay less under the revised fee schedule, but there is now
a potential for paying _even less_ if they want to take a smaller
IPv6 allocation.

The discussion is whether we should have a fee schedule and policy
which provides them the option to opt for the smaller IPv6 allocation
with further reduced annual fee.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN