[arin-ppml] Smalest ISP v6 Allocation

[John Curran]

On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:55 PM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com<mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com>> wrote:

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/

Indeed.   For the curious, my Reddit remarks were:

        "We will be reviewing several options for new fee at the ARIN Member Meeting which will be taking place in Montreal in October... removing disincentives for IPv6 deployment has been acknowledged as a prime consideration and so you should be pleased with the results.”

As I reviewed with the Advisory Council earlier this week, the Fee Structure Review Panel came out
with two clear principles (both of which were covered in the April 2015 Members Meeting in SFO)
<https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/wednesday/curran_fees.pdf>

These principles were:
• IPv4 Fairness: generally expressed that IPv4 fee categories should be lower for small address holders and larger for larger IPv4 address holders
• IPv6 Support: we should encourage deployment with minimal IPv6 fees and avoid disincentives resulting in smaller IPv6 allocations or fee increases

There are some open questions regarding end-user vs ISP, and about the right long-term revenue
model for ARIN in a world where IPv4 ceases to be relevant.   As a result, I am presently working
with the Board on several different options forward for discussion at the October ARIN Member
Meeting.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150814/2eef408a/attachment.htm>