[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
farmer at umn.edu
Wed Mar 27 16:44:08 EDT 2013
On 3/27/13 15:29 , Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2013-03-27, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:20 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3
>>> Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
>>> Part 1 brings ARIN's allocation policies in line with the upcoming fee
>>> schedule so that it is possible to qualify as every level of ISP while
>>> holding IPv6 number resources.
>> This looks like a billing policy problem. The technical (i.e. number
>> policy) case for a smaller-than-/32 ISP allocation seems weak to me.
>> IMO, this problem could (and should!) be solved by billing
>> organizations with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses only for the IPv4
>> addresses until IPv6 is prevalent enough to support its own costs.
>> ARIN's board is -supposed- to optimize billing policy for the sake of
>> technically sound number policy, not the other way around.
> I agree with this. A /48 is .. really small (in the IPv6). ADSL
> providers basically give this away to their customers here in
A /48 is definitely to small but would would you think of a /40 for an
xx-small and /36 for a x-small. This requires a tweak in the fee
> As an aside, am I correct in thinking that we currently need to pay only
> the higher of the IPv4 vs IPv6 fee when we have two allocations with
> We are looking into enabling IPv6 here, but if it means extra annual
> fees, well that's a limit for adoption for us. We are currently using a
> /21 from ARIN, and would look at a /36 for IPv6.
With a /21 you are in the x-small category and /36 would be available to
you under current policy at the same cost as your /21, so no difference
in your annual fee.
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
More information about the ARIN-PPML