[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
bill at herrin.us
Thu Mar 28 19:04:37 EDT 2013
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> 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 allocations process.
> 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.
So, what you're suggesting is:
"126.96.36.199(b): In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32
allocation unless they specifically request a /36 or /40. In no case
shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation.
188.8.131.52(g): A LIR which received a /36 or /40 initial allocation is
entitled to increase said allocation's size to /36 or /32. The change
is not a subsequent allocation as described in 6.5.3."
1. If we're willing to give an ISP a /40 for $500, fairness dictates
that we be willing to give an end user a /40 for $500 as well.
2. If we're willing to give an ISP voting membership in ARIN for a
total fee package of $500/year, fairness dictates that we do the same
for end users... not the $800 that an end user holding one IPv4 block,
one IPv6 block and one AS number would be called on to pay.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML