[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

Frank Bulk (iname.com) frnkblk at iname.com
Sun Mar 31 12:07:36 EDT 2013


If we can encourage IPv6 adoption so that network folk don't have to talk to
the financial folk to begin tinkering with IPv6, and if we can make the
reserved size (/32) such that future and full adoption doesn't require them
to undergo any kind of re-numbering event, that's a good thing.

And the suggested verbiage, as David has written, keeps the administrative
costs down on both sides because there's no re-justification process that
has to be performed.

And when the network folk have done enough tinkering and/or become able to
make the business case with the financial folk to pay the "extra" ARIN costs
to be in a different category, then it won't be a financial hardship to move
to that category.


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:51 PM
To: John Curran
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for

On 3/29/13 15:12 , John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:03 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> On 3/29/13 14:34 , John Curran wrote:
>>> Unless otherwise directed by policy, IPv6 /36 allocations shall be from
a reserved /32 and /40 would be from a reserved /36 (just as /32's come from
/28 reserved blocks)
>> Bill,
>> That tells me if our policy intent is to have both /36 and /40
allocations for LIRs to be made from a /32 reserved block then we need to
explicitly state that in the policy and the last sentence is necessary.
>> Any objection to it staying in the policy statement?
> David -
>     Can you explain why it is desirable
>     to allocate /40's from a reserved /32?
>      Should /36's be from a /28 as well?
>      (Or should all of them be from reserved /28's?)

In my opinion from a policy perspective, all ISPs or other LIRs are 
entitled to and should get a /32 allocation.  However, there are a 
number of entities where if we require them to take the whole /32 
allocation a finical hardship could be created.  Either on ARIN's part 
by requiring fees for a /32 to be too low, or by creating a barrier to 
entry for these very small entities with fees that are too high.

So, I'm not necessarily thinking of it as making /36 or /40 allocations, 
but as these organizations agreeing to only use a /36 or /40 portion of 
their /32 allocation in exchange for a reduction or discount in their 
fees.  This is why, I don't want them to have to justify expanding from 
/40 to /36 or /36 to /32, they are fully justified at /32 already.  This 
is a financial consideration and they should be able to change between 
/32, /36, and /40 based only on internal business needs.

Therefore, I feel it is a policy requirement that there is at least a 
/32 reserved for them in all cases.  I wouldn't be opposed to all ISP's 
having a /28 reserved regardless if they are using /32, /36, or /40. 
But, I believe /32 is a policy requirement and going to /28 is probably 
moving into an operational procedure realm.

I am rationalizing, ISPs getting smaller than a /32, by ensuring they 
will have a /32 when/if they need it, without having to change blocks.


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
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list