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

[George Herbert]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 3/28/13 13:54 , George Herbert wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 28, 2013, at 1:34 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not convinced that an ISP paying ARIN less than $200/month
>>>> represents a any kind of hardship. If there's an ISP out there for
>>>> which the difference between $2000/year and $500/year is big deal, I
>>>> want to know more about his service delivery infrastructure, because
>>>> he must have driven his costs down to something I'd desperately like
>>>> to emulate.
>>>
>>>
>>> We've actually heard exactly that concern from some folks on
>>> this list; there are ISPs which are community-based or non-
>>> profit efforts for whom ARIN fees represent a significant
>>> hit to their non-volunteered capital.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I think that the remaining question is whether there's any need for
>> the policy proposal with the fixed table.
>
>
> Yes, we still need to change policy to allow a /40 optional smaller
> allocation, the current policy only allows for /36 optional smaller
> allocation.  Unless I here opposition, as shepherd I will modify this
draft
> policy to allow /40 instead of /48 as the current text has, and some other
> minimal changes.
>
> One question I have, do we want to allow an ISP that choose a /40 or /36
> optional smaller allocation to increase from /40 to /36 and/or /36 to /32
at
> their discretion, without going through the subsequent allocations
process.
>
> Basically, this says all ISPs automatically justify a /32, therefore
growing
> from one of the optional smaller allocations doesn't require any
> justification.  These optional smaller allocations only exist to enable
> scalability in the fee structure on the lower end.

How is that different than the corrected table John sent out a little while
ago?

I read that as /40 for xx-small and /36 for x-small.

Quoting John's earlier message:

>  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




-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130328/6574f5d6/attachment.htm>