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

[Frank Bulk (iname.com)]

+1

If we can encourage IPv6 adoption so that network folk don't have to talk to
the financial folk to begin tinkering with IPv6, and if we can make the
reserved size (/32) such that future and full adoption doesn't require them
to undergo any kind of re-numbering event, that's a good thing.

And the suggested verbiage, as David has written, keeps the administrative
costs down on both sides because there's no re-justification process that
has to be performed.

And when the network folk have done enough tinkering and/or become able to
make the business case with the financial folk to pay the "extra" ARIN costs
to be in a different category, then it won't be a financial hardship to move
to that category.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:51 PM
To: John Curran
Cc: ARIN PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for
ISPs

On 3/29/13 15:12 , John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:03 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/13 14:34 , John Curran wrote:
>>>
>>> Unless otherwise directed by policy, IPv6 /36 allocations shall be from
a reserved /32 and /40 would be from a reserved /36 (just as /32's come from
/28 reserved blocks)
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> That tells me if our policy intent is to have both /36 and /40
allocations for LIRs to be made from a /32 reserved block then we need to
explicitly state that in the policy and the last sentence is necessary.
>>
>> Any objection to it staying in the policy statement?
>
> David -
>
>     Can you explain why it is desirable
>     to allocate /40's from a reserved /32?
>
>      Should /36's be from a /28 as well?
>      (Or should all of them be from reserved /28's?)

In my opinion from a policy perspective, all ISPs or other LIRs are 
entitled to and should get a /32 allocation.  However, there are a 
number of entities where if we require them to take the whole /32 
allocation a finical hardship could be created.  Either on ARIN's part 
by requiring fees for a /32 to be too low, or by creating a barrier to 
entry for these very small entities with fees that are too high.

So, I'm not necessarily thinking of it as making /36 or /40 allocations, 
but as these organizations agreeing to only use a /36 or /40 portion of 
their /32 allocation in exchange for a reduction or discount in their 
fees.  This is why, I don't want them to have to justify expanding from 
/40 to /36 or /36 to /32, they are fully justified at /32 already.  This 
is a financial consideration and they should be able to change between 
/32, /36, and /40 based only on internal business needs.

Therefore, I feel it is a policy requirement that there is at least a 
/32 reserved for them in all cases.  I wouldn't be opposed to all ISP's 
having a /28 reserved regardless if they are using /32, /36, or /40. 
But, I believe /32 is a policy requirement and going to /28 is probably 
moving into an operational procedure realm.

I am rationalizing, ISPs getting smaller than a /32, by ensuring they 
will have a /32 when/if they need it, without having to change blocks.

Thanks

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.