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

David Farmer 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 
the PPM?


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 mailing list