[arin-ppml] Smalest ISP v6 Allocation

[Paul]

+1 What Mike is saying!


On 8/14/2015 7:03 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> *nods* I think a lot of times people forget about the little ISP that 
> only has a /23 of IPv4. Heck, I know one guy that owns at least a half 
> dozen ISPs, none of them more than 1k customers, most under 300. I 
> think people get caught up in the scale of global carriers, nationwide 
> ISPs, etc.
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu>
> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <arin at ics-il.net>
> *Cc: *arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Sent: *Friday, August 14, 2015 8:13:26 AM
> *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
>
> 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
> ===============================================
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150814/558a551a/attachment.htm>