[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
owen at delong.com
Fri Mar 29 17:11:42 EDT 2013
On Mar 28, 2013, at 14:48 , David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> 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 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.
I think this is vital.
More information about the ARIN-PPML