[arin-ppml] Smalest ISP v6 Allocation

[David Huberman]

I have been corrected privately (thank you), and wanted to set the record straight:

John Curran made the comments I wrote on Reddit (not PPML) during Wednesday’s Ask Me Anything:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3gqovv/i_am_john_curran_president_and_ceo_of_the/

David R Huberman
Principal, Global IP Addressing
Microsoft Corporation

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:18 AM
To: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>; Mike Hammett <arin at ics-il.net>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Smalest ISP v6 Allocation

The root problem expressed is one of fees.  We should not make policy that presents inferior network engineering because of fees.  The root problem is for our Board to solve.  According to John Curran on this list, the Board has done so, and will present an attractive fee schedule change in October.

David R Huberman
Principal, Global IP Addressing
Microsoft Corporation

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:13 AM
To: Mike Hammett <arin at ics-il.net<mailto:arin at ics-il.net>>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Smalest ISP v6 Allocation


On Aug 14, 2015, at 05:19, Mike Hammett <arin at ics-il.net<mailto:arin at ics-il.net>> wrote:
If the smallest IPv6 allocation an ISP can get is a /36 (X-small or up to /20 in IPv4), but we have a fee established for XX-small (up to /40 IPv6 and /22 IPv4), why don't we permit an ISP to get a /40? Small providers may not want to increase their ARIN fees to simply be able to get their own IPv6 allocation. Seems counter-intuitive in getting everyone on the IPv6 train. It also falls on a clean boundary, so there shouldn't be any concerns with issued subnets.

If there's no good reason why we're not doing this, how to we start the process to allow this?

A little more than two years ago we considered a policy to do just that;

Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2013_3.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.arin.net%2fpolicy%2fproposals%2f2013_3.html&data=01%7c01%7cdavid.huberman%40microsoft.com%7cb066d589a64a438228a308d2a4aa30ef%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=cgxSpN8%2bCrg9YM7OPQ1Vx5VocrAYmxNzwc7pLBcBi%2bY%3d>

The consensus at the time was that a /40 was too small for an ISP and that we should reconsider the fee structure instead.  That has been in process with the fee committee that was discussed previously.  However, if there is a new consensus in support of allowing ISPs to receive a /40, I'd recommend the text of ARIN-2013-3 as a starting point.

--
===============================================
David Farmer                          Email: farmer at umn.edu<mailto: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
===============================================


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150814/5831fc82/attachment.htm>