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

[John Curran]

On Mar 28, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Brian Jones <bjones at vt.edu<mailto:bjones at vt.edu>> wrote:
Maybe not so much from the billing perspective, but from the deployment perspective. Allocations of IPv6 addresses should be consistent with and a proponent of a deployment methodology that allows for easy expansion of networks without additional allocations and associated costs.

Brian -

 Under the present fee schedule, the smallest ISPs pay $1250 per
 year if they have IPv4 and $1687 per year if they have IPv6 (the
 fee is set to the maximum of your IPv4 fee and IPv6 annual fee.
 It is correct that the IPv6 allocation for these ISPs has been a /32.

 Under the revised fee schedule (as corrected), and with this policy
 change, the smallest ISPs will be in XX-Small (if they only have
 /22 IPv4 and /40 of IPv6) with $500 annual fee or X-Small (if they
 have larger than /22 IPv4 and up to /36 of IPv6) with $1000/year fee.

 On the actual Pending Fee Table (corrected), it looks like this:
Service Category        Initial Registration or Annual Fee
(US Dollars)    IPv4 Block Size IPv6 Block Size
XX-Small        $500    /22 or smaller  /40 or smaller
X-Small $1,000  Larger than /22, up to and including /20        Larger than /40, up to and including /36

 If this policy change is _not_ adopted, then the ISP will only have the option
 of receiving down to a /36, and IPv6 ISPs will always be in X-small category
 with a $1000 annual fee or greater (i.e. any xx-small ISPs will automatically
 become x-small upon receive an IPv6 /36 minimum allocation per present policy)

 If we don't want to have a disincentive for deployment of IPv6, we need to
 have an minimum allocation for xx-small ISPs which does not move them
 to x-small.  As I noted to Owen, if we actually make /32 the minimum ISP
 IPv6 allocation and not provide for differentiated pricing for smaller ISPs,
 then we will end up having including the majority of ISPs in the category
 and the fees will need be $1500 or more, even if we plan in significant cost
 savings.

 Allocating blocks that encourage /56 allocations from their block may not be the optimal solution for many in the long run.

 Any ISP that feels that way may obtain a /36, still be paying less than
 today at $1000/year, and have significant room for /48 assignments.
 Traditionally, this has been the type of decisions that each ISP makes
 for themselves based on their market conditions and their perceived
 customer needs, so providing the flexibility in policy for smaller IPv6
 allocation makes sense unless the community feels it needs to decide
 for those smaller ISPs on their behalf by not providing the policy option.

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/da83a8f9/attachment.htm>