[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
farmer at umn.edu
Thu Mar 28 17:48:33 EDT 2013
On 3/28/13 13:54 , George Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 2013, at 1:34 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> I'm not convinced that an ISP paying ARIN less than $200/month
>>> represents a any kind of hardship. If there's an ISP out there for
>>> which the difference between $2000/year and $500/year is big deal, I
>>> want to know more about his service delivery infrastructure, because
>>> he must have driven his costs down to something I'd desperately like
>>> to emulate.
>> We've actually heard exactly that concern from some folks on
>> this list; there are ISPs which are community-based or non-
>> profit efforts for whom ARIN fees represent a significant
>> hit to their non-volunteered capital.
> I think that the remaining question is whether there's any need for
> the policy proposal with the fixed table.
Yes, we still need to change policy to allow a /40 optional smaller
allocation, the current policy only allows for /36 optional smaller
allocation. Unless I here opposition, as shepherd I will modify this
draft policy to allow /40 instead of /48 as the current text has, and
some other minimal changes.
One question I have, do we want to allow an ISP that choose a /40 or /36
optional smaller allocation to increase from /40 to /36 and/or /36 to
/32 at their discretion, without going through the subsequent
Basically, this says all ISPs automatically justify a /32, therefore
growing from one of the optional smaller allocations doesn't require any
justification. These optional smaller allocations only exist to enable
scalability in the fee structure on the lower end.
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