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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

I look at it this way:

An ISP with only a /24 of IPv4 space only has 254 addresses to hand out to 
its customers.  If they receive a /40 of IPv6 space, they can assign up to 
256 /48's to its customers, almost an exact match. Someone with so little 
IPv4 either has few customers or is using CGnat.

Something needs to be done to stop that $250 to $500 increase for 
accepting IPv6 in this population, as the facts seem to show that these 
businesses are simply rejecting the future (IPv6) simply because of the 
current ARIN fee schedule. The provided data clearly show the majority are 
rejecting IPv6, likely because of the fees.  The population is so small 
that if there is a question as to why, why not drop them an email and ask?

I would have no problem instead simply giving this population a /36 or 
even a /32 at the same $250 price, simply because I think the goal of 
universal IPv6 is worth it.

I support this /40 policy simply because it addresses the identifed issue.

I would also support other ideas, such as going ahead and giving them the 
/36 and waving the price increase.

I also would not have a problem changing the fee schedule to be based 
solely on IPv4, or in the alternative maybe not considering IPv6 holdings 
at all in the fee schedule unless they exceed a /32, since a /32 is 
effectively the default for ISP members.

I realize that this would effectively make those with no IPv4 holdings fit 
in most cases into the 3x small bucket.

In the end, if we allow /40's, I have no problem allowing those above 3X 
Small to use them, even though they would be able to receive more under 
the fee schedules.  I am no understanding as to why they would want a 
smaller allocation, but who am I to question such a decision of others.

How many members of ARIN have no IPv4 holdings, but instead have only 
IPv6?

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Sat, 18 Apr 2020, John Curran wrote:

> On 18 Apr 2020, at 5:32 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> Policy as written definitely favors /48s for everyone.
>
> Owen -
>
> To bring it back to the policy matter under discussion, do you expect that ISPs (who presently do not proceed with their IPv6 /36 application due to resulting increase of their annual fees from $250 to $500) would proceed if there were a fee waiver that prevented the increase?  Also, do you believe that these ISPs would indeed be assigning /48’s to customers if given the larger /36 IPv6 allocation and should doing so be a provision of any such fee waiver?
>
> Thanks,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>