[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

John Sweeting jsweeting at arin.net
Thu Apr 16 07:08:57 EDT 2020


Yes that is exactly what it means. After approval they decided for whatever reason they no longer wanted the resource. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 1:56 AM, John Santos <john at egh.com> wrote:
> 
> What does "closed with no action" mean?  Does it mean the RSP abandoned the request?
> 
> 
>> On 4/15/2020 7:18 PM, John Sweeting wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> 
>> The numbers around this are:
>> 
>> 320 3x small RSPs
>> 30 have applied and been approved for IPv6 of which 26 closed with no action to complete by the requester. The other 4 are currently still open and pending action.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> John S.
>> 
>> On 4/15/20, 11:30 AM, "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> 
>>     John,
>>          Could you provide the community with a rough magnitude of this issue?
>>          Approximately how many of these 3x-small ISP organizations have come to
>>     ARIN and requested IPv6?  How many accepted the block and how many
>>     refused because of the fee issue?  How many 3x-small ISP organizations
>>     does ARIN currently serve.
>>          Thanks,
>>     Andrew
>>          On 4/14/2020 2:29 PM, John Sweeting wrote:
>>     > All,
>>     >
>>     > For anyone interested in the content of the "Policy Experience Report presented by Registration
>>     > Services to the AC at its annual workshop in January 2020" referenced in the problem statement you can see that report here:
>>     >
>>     > https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/ac/meetings/2020_0124/policy_experience_report.pdf
>>     >
>>     > Thank you.
>>     >
>>     > On 3/24/20, 1:22 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of ARIN" <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of info at arin.net> wrote:
>>     >
>>     >     On 19 March 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
>>     >     "ARIN-prop-285: IPv6 Nano-allocations" as a Draft Policy.
>>     >
>>     >     Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3 is below and can be found at:
>>     >
>>     >     https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_3/
>>     >
>>     >     You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
>>     >     evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft
>>     >     policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as
>>     >     stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these
>>     >     principles are:
>>     >
>>     >     * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>>     >     * Technically Sound
>>     >     * Supported by the Community
>>     >
>>     >     The PDP can be found at:
>>     >     https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
>>     >
>>     >     Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>>     >     https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
>>     >
>>     >     Regards,
>>     >
>>     >     Sean Hopkins
>>     >     Policy Analyst
>>     >     American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >     Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations
>>     >
>>     >     Problem Statement:
>>     >
>>     >     ARIN's fee structure provides a graduated system wherein organizations
>>     >     pay based on the amount of number resources they consume.
>>     >
>>     >     In the case of the very smallest ISPs, if a 3X-Small ISP (with a /24 or
>>     >     smaller of IPv4) gets the present minimal-sized IPv6 allocation (a /36),
>>     >     its annual fees will double from $250 to $500/year.
>>     >
>>     >     According to a Policy Experience Report presented by Registration
>>     >     Services to the AC at its annual workshop in January 2020, this
>>     >     represents a disincentive to IPv6 adoption with a substantial fraction
>>     >     of so-situated ISPs saying "no thanks" and abandoning their request for
>>     >     IPv6 number resources when informed of the impact on their annual fees.
>>     >
>>     >     This can be addressed by rewriting subsection 6.5.2(b). Initial
>>     >     Allocation Size to allow allocation of a /40 to only the smallest ISPs
>>     >     upon request, and adding a new clause 6.5.2(g) to cause an automatic
>>     >     upgrade to at least a /36 in the case where the ISP is no longer 3X-Small.
>>     >
>>     >     Reserving /40s only for organizations initially expanding into IPv6 from
>>     >     an initial sliver of IPv4 space will help to narrowly address the
>>     >     problem observed by Registration Services while avoiding unintended
>>     >     consequences by accidentally giving a discount for undersized allocations.
>>     >
>>     >     Policy Statement:
>>     >
>>     >     Replace the current 6.5.2(b) with the following:
>>     >
>>     >     b. In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless they
>>     >     specifically request a /36 or /40.
>>     >
>>     >     In order to be eligible for a /40, an ISP must meet the following
>>     >     requirements:
>>     >       * Hold IPv4 direct allocations totaling a /24 or less (to include zero)
>>     >       * Hold IPv4 reassignments/reallocations totaling a /22 or less (to
>>     >     include zero)
>>     >
>>     >     In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation.
>>     >
>>     >     Add 6.5.2(g) as follows:
>>     >
>>     >     g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to
>>     >     expand the allocation to any nibble aligned size up to /32 at any time
>>     >     without renumbering or additional justification.  /40 allocations shall
>>     >     be automatically upgraded to /36 if at any time said LIR's IPv4 direct
>>     >     allocations exceed a /24. Expansions up to and including a /32 are not
>>     >     considered subsequent allocations, however any expansions beyond /32 are
>>     >     considered subsequent allocations and must conform to section 6.5.3.
>>     >     Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 are not permitted
>>     >     regardless of the ISP's current or former IPv4 number resource holdings.
>>     >
>>     >     Comments:
>>     >
>>     >     The intent of this policy proposal is to make IPv6 adoption at the very
>>     >     bottom end expense-neutral for the ISP and revenue-neutral for ARIN. The
>>     >     author looks forward to a future era wherein IPv6 is the dominant
>>     >     technology and IPv4 is well in decline and considered optional leading
>>     >     the Community to conclude that sunsetting this policy is prudent in the
>>     >     interests of avoiding an incentive to request undersized IPv6 allocations.
>>     >
>>     >     Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>     >
>>     >     _______________________________________________
>>     >     ARIN-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:
>>     >     https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>     >     Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > ARIN-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:
>>     > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>     > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>               
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-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:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> -- 
> John Santos
> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
> 781-861-0670 ext 539
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list