[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
bill at herrin.us
Fri Mar 29 13:59:05 EDT 2013
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:10 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 3/28/13 18:04 , William Herrin wrote:
>> "184.108.40.206(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.
> 220.127.116.11(g): An LIR that requested a /36 or /40 initial allocation is
> entitled to increase said allocation's size to /36 or /32. This change is
> not a subsequent allocation as described in 6.5.3. Additionally, a minimum
> of a /32 will be reserved for all such LIRs to facilitate this expansion.
Isn't that last line business process rather than number policy? The
first line effectively requires ARIN to reserve or take some other
action to keep the full /32 available for the LIR's expansion. But the
last line dictates how: by explicitly reserving the space.
>> 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.
> This is defiantly an issue and I support changes to fix it, but it is not
> related to the IPv6 assignment or allocation policies and is not a subject
> for the PDP.
Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but in this instance you propose
designing number policy around an issue that appears in the billing
policy. That brings billing policy (and our expectations thereof) into
scope when determining whether the change to number policy is
appropriate, does it not?
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