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

[David Farmer]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 4:20 PM John Santos <john at egh.com> wrote:

>
> On 4/19/2020 3:08 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM John Santos <john at egh.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there any way to ensure that an ISP requesting a /40 has fewer than
>> 250 customers, so they can assign each a /48 in order to be eligible for
>> the smallest allocation at commensurate cost with a /24 of IPv4?
>>
> I don't think there is anything ARIN can reasonably do to require that
> 3X-Small ISPs have fewer than 250 customers. However, I'll note that even
> 3X-Small ISPs probably wants to grow their business, eventually moving them
> into the 2X-Small ISP category. Once they have something like 150 to 200
> customers they should be able to justify an additional /24 moving them into
> the 2X-Small ISP category.* Further, even for an ISP with 150 to 200
> customers the additional $250 in ARIN fees annually shouldn't be a
> significant roadblock to their growth. *So, I think the natural
> incentives for the growth of their business will be sufficient to regulate
> this issue, and I don't think we need to micromanage this issue
> through policy.
>
> If the bolded statement is true, why did 26 out of 30 3X-Small ISPs elect
> not to double their fees?  I posit they all have significantly less than
> 150 to 200 customers to spread the cost over, and their customers are
> extremely cost-sensitive.  If they have, say, 150 customers on  average,
> the increased cost would be less than 14 cents per month.  If they only
> have 10 customers, then the annual ARIN fees for each customer would double
> from $25 to $50.
>
> It would be useful to hear from some of these 26 nano-ISPs about what
> their customer base is and why they are so cost-sensitive.  I suspect most
> of us techies are completely oblivious to the real-world concerns of these
> customers and that they aren't just being incredible cheapskates.  As in
> "$25, that won't even pay for a decent meal" vs. "$25, I could feed my
> family for a week!"
>
> --
> John Santos
> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
> 781-861-0670 ext 539
>
>
You asked, "If the bolded statement is true, why did 26 out of 30 3X-Small
ISPs elect not to double their fees?" I speculate because most of the
3X-Small ISPs that elected to not double their fees to get IPv6 have less
than 150 to 200 customers.

You asked, "Is there any way to ensure that an ISP requesting a /40 has
fewer than 250 customers". I'm suggesting that we don't need to worry about
that because once they exceed somewhere between 150-200 users, nature will
take its course, they will want to ensure they can continue to expand and
they will get an additional /24 of IPv4 moving them to the 2X-Small
category.  In this case, they are moving into the 2X-Small category because
they want to continue to expand their customer base, not because they want
to deploy IPv6, these are significantly different business cases.

As you point out if they are 3X-Small regardless of the size of their
customer base they don't want to double their fees to deploy IPv6 and they
shouldn't have too. I think we agree. I'm simply pointing out that once
they exceed 150 to 200 users they will want to ensure they can continue to
expand and are likely to get another /24 of IPv4 doubling their fees as a
result of their desire to ensure they can expand and not because they want
to deploy IPv6. Further, this policy will also automatically expand their
IPv6 allocation to /36 as a result of their desire to expand.

Thanks

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200419/5e5ddcc7/attachment.htm>