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

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> 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.


So, what you're suggesting is:

"6.5.2.1(b): In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32
allocation unless they specifically request a /36 or /40. In no case
shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation.

6.5.2.1(g):  A LIR which received a /36 or /40 initial allocation is
entitled to increase said allocation's size to /36 or /32. The change
is not a subsequent allocation as described in 6.5.3."

Interesting.



Two points:

1. If we're willing to give an ISP a /40 for $500, fairness dictates
that we be willing to give an end user a /40 for $500 as well.

2. If we're willing to give an ISP voting membership in ARIN for a
total fee package of $500/year, fairness dictates that we do the same
for end users... not the $800 that an end user holding one IPv4 block,
one IPv6 block and one AS number would be called on to pay.

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