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

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Wed Mar 27 20:02:44 EDT 2013

On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Antoine Beaupré <anarcat at koumbit.org> wrote:

>> 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 
>> schedule too.
> That would make sense, although I still think that lowering the rates
> for IPv6 would be more enticing for wider adoption...

Antoine - 

There is no charge for the corresponding IPv6 allocation for the same
size category...  <https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html>

For example, on the previous fee schedule, the smallest category was
X-Small (any ISP with less than a /20 IPv4 space), and the annual fee
was $1250/year.

On the pending fee schedule, these ISP's are X-small (if they hold a 
/22 or small) or xx-small, with respective annual fees of $1000 and 
$500.  The smallest IPv6 fee was 75% of $2,250	(for those holding 
/40 to /32)   On the existing fee schedule, ISPs paid whichever IPv4 
or IPv6 was larger,

The new pending fee schedule is _significantly less_ for smaller ISPs,
but it does create a potential incentive for those ISPs that wish to 
optimize their costs to take a smaller IPv6 allocation (/36, and/or
potentially /40 if allowed by this proposed policy change.)

An x-small or xx-small ISP that has the same space as before will
always pay less under the revised fee schedule, but there is now
a potential for paying _even less_ if they want to take a smaller
IPv6 allocation.

The discussion is whether we should have a fee schedule and policy
which provides them the option to opt for the smaller IPv6 allocation
with further reduced annual fee.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list