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

[John Curran]

On Mar 27, 2013, at 8:50 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:

/32, just as the IETF recommends. Given sound technical reasons to
diverge from the IETF's suggestion, I'll lead the charge. But what
sound technical reason do we have for discouraging ISPs, any ISPs of
any size, from starting with at least a /32?

Bill -

  The IETF does indeed note in RFC 4029 "Scenarios and Analysis for
  Introducing IPv6 into ISP Networks" that the typical ISP would get
  a /32, but also recognizes this might not be true for smaller ISPs:

"This document is not aimed at covering small ISPs, hosting providers,
or data centers; only the scenarios applicable to ISPs eligible for
at least a /32 IPv6 prefix allocation from an RIR are covered."

We certainly can have a fee table which ends at the bottom with a /32
of IPv6 space, but given the number of ISPs in that size allocation then
we would also likely have to carry with it very similar fees as today.
By recognizing smaller categories for smaller ISPs, we are enabling them
to get an IPv6 allocation with far lower fees than would otherwise be
possible, and would be quite ironic to deny them that opportunity in
the name of "encouraging IPv6" via one size fits all.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130328/6a3dac2f/attachment.htm>