[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
farmer at umn.edu
Wed Mar 27 20:45:45 EDT 2013
On 3/27/13 18:00 , Michael Sinatra wrote:
> Or, to put more bluntly, if ARIN's fee structure is itself creating
> disincentives for proper IPv6 adoption, then let's go back and (re-)fix
> that problem.
> Oppose 2013-3.
Michael and others opposed,
What about modifying the proposal to /40, require a minimum reservation
of /32 (or maybe /28) be held for ISPs that elect for /40 or /36
allocations, allow subsequent allocations to expansion from /40 to /36
and then to /32 without evaluating there current IPv6 usage. Thereby
ensuring they can grow their allocation in place and allowing policy
flexibility that enables the fee structure equity that the new xx-small
category seems to provided.
This policy doesn't change the fact anyone who whats it can get a /32.
We already allowed a optional /36. If we added a /40 option with
sufficient reservation and the ability to expand up to /32 without
justification of subsequent allocations, then this allow all ISPs to
deploy IPv6 for no change in their costs. Furthermore if their IPv6
growth causes them to need a larger allocation then by definition there
should be a business case that easily justifies the fee increase.
The idea would be every ISP is entitled to /32, but if you want
financial flexibility you can start with /40 or /36 and grow your
allocation as you need to. No one is forced to do this, but it ensures
IPv6 is available to all ISPs without effecting there current costs.
Finally, even if you continue to not support the proposal would you
support making the changes to the text about for the text to discuss at
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