[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations
hostmaster at uneedus.com
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Thu Apr 16 10:37:37 EDT 2020
Looks to me not some but MOST. I agree, we should not put a fee doubling
in the way of these 3x folks doing the right thing and getting IPv6.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, Brian Jones wrote:
> Looking at the numbers John posted concerning this issue, it tends to look like some of these 3x small folks decided to drop their request once they
> encountered the price increase. If this is the case then we should move forward with this proposal. We do not want to create a situation where folks are
> continuing to use only IPv4 because of costs.
>
> I support this proposal.
>
> —
> Brian
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:19 AM <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
> Is that very much because they found out if they accepted the IPv6 space,
> their fees would double???
>
> If so, this PROVES the need to adopt this plan. We should not have things
> in place that prevent IPv6 adoption. We have already decided that IPv6
> should be cost neutral. Lets fix this glitch and let these 3x small
> people have IPv6 without doubling their cost.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, John Sweeting wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
>
>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list