[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
mcr at sandelman.ca
Thu Mar 28 19:23:54 EDT 2013
>>>>> "John" == John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> writes:
>> On the other hand, I'm very much convinced that ARIN's fees should
>> encourage (or at least fail to discourage) immediate deployment of
>> IPv6 as designated by the presumptively technically sound number
>> policies. Whatever a registrant is paying for his IPv4, his fees
>> should not increase by a single nickle to gain what the number policy
>> suggests is a technically appropriate IPv6 registration.
John> Bill - that is precisely the benefit of the revised fee schedule;
John> every size ISP category now includes both IPv4 and IPv6, so every
John> ISP can add an IPv6 allocation and see _no_ change in fees at
Yes, assuming they had IPv4 and paid fees.
What's missing is the many organizations which are not ISPs, and might
not even have/need an AS (because they aren't announcing into the
default free zone), that could benefit from globally unique address
Over in the ITS at ietf.org (Intelligent Transportation Systems) list,
which is not yet even a BOF, we talk about how to transform a Vehicle
Information Number (VIN) into a subnet ID. Can automobile manufacturers
afford $2000? Sure. That's the tip of the iceberg though.
>> I propose full cross-subsidy for IPv6 registration until IPv6 is ready
>> to stand on its own.
John> Indeed, there is a full cross-subsidy in place for IPv6 under the new
John> fee schedule, and each IPv4 ISP can obtain an IPv6 allocation for their
John> size category without any change in fees. There is no distinct IPv4 or
John> IPv6 fee anymore; there is simply a ISP size category which includes
John> both in all cases.
That's not a cross-subsidy.
That's a buy 1, get 2.
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
More information about the ARIN-PPML