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

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 28, 2013, at 10:01 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Mar 28, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Brian Jones <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.
>  

I believe that should read "or up to /36 of..."

>  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

>>  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.
> 

The problem is that it's more the end-users that feel that way than the
ISPs. The ISPs just want to spend as little as possible to deliver enough
that the end-users buy their products. To make matters worse, the end-
users mostly don't understand the technical nuance of the situation, so
they won't know enough to balk at undersized assignments. Unfortunately,
this means that product development will be driven by the assumptions
inherent in this undersized assignment world and we will never see
products that can take full advantage of how IPv6 is supposed to work.

If you want a concrete example, consider the number of applications for
IPv4 that have the following assumptions baked in:

	1.	Houses are behind NAT.
	2.	Houses contain only 1 subnet and all devices on that subnet
		can be discovered by means of subnet-local broadcast packets.

Neither of those assumptions is valid in a number of homes including
mine. Unfortunately, because these assumptions are baked into
numerous products, I am unable to use many of those products.
Examples include:

	TiVO App (iPad/iPhone)
	Yamaha Home Theater Remote (iPad/iPhone)
	A number of other remote control Apps
	Certain features in Smart TVs and Blu Ray players

Thus, my concern is that creating misplaced economic incentives, while
well intentioned may cause tremendous harm in the long run.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130329/79bcd663/attachment.htm>