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

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:46 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>   2) The new fee schedule provides for ISPs the ability to effectively
>      get a corresponding IPv6 block for _no charge_, and this is one
>      of the reasons that we don't have distinct fees for IPv4 and
>      IPv6 but instead a size category which covers an amount of each.

Hi John,

Except we have ISPs seeking /36's and now /48's because their fees for
the IETF's requested standard /32 that we fully support in the number
policy aren't lining up as a no-charge. And I'll defer the obvious
points about end user fees for another day.


>   1) We had an IPv6 fee waiver which ramped out over 5 years, and
>      we extended it twice to reduce impact to IPv6 deployment.

ARIN gave folks uncertainty. ARIN would defer fees... but for how
long? Definitely until the end of the year. But how long would it
last? Until IPv6 was the real deal on the public Internet? Evidently
not.


Don't get me wrong - the new fees do a better job than the old fees.
But if they were well optimized in support of the sound number policy
in the NRPM, this policy proposal wouldn't be on the table and we
wouldn't be having this discussion.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004