[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
owen at delong.com
Thu Mar 28 01:03:41 EDT 2013
On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:45 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> 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.
I'm less opposed at /40.
I am strenuously opposed to anything longer than /40.
I remain opposed to anything longer than /32, including the /36s that I put in the ISP policy I authored as an attempt to address this issue before. I didn't like that, but it seemed the only way to solve the 1250->2250 problem in the existing fee schedule.
Further, I would seek to do this in such a way that we know that this will not turn into recursive bit-creep. This probably requires the board to commit to a fee structure realignment prior to sending this for ratification.
> 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.
I wrote the /36 into the current policy when I wrote the policy proposal in an effort to address this problem as it existed in the current fee schedule. We are now recursively shifting further to the right. The first time was a small compromise to the ideal allocation size to attempt to provide a somewhat equitable economic solution. Going further to the right is damaging.
> 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.
ARIN should, IMHO, seek to avoid placing economic incentives for bad behavior into their fee structure.
The combination of /40s in policy and the fee structure incentivizing their use is just such an example of what we should not do.
> 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?
I strongly support changing the text to /40. There is no rational reason to discuss anything longer than /40.
I still remain opposed at /40, but much less opposed than at any longer prefix length.
More information about the ARIN-PPML