[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations
bill at herrin.us
Mon Apr 13 13:15:57 EDT 2020
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:22 AM ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> 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.
This strikes me as an ass-backwards solution to a small fragment of a
Is the problem that we think existing IPv4 registrants shouldn't
generally be asked to pay more to enter the IPv6 space? Do we think
seeking extra money is counterproductive?
If so, let's solve that problem. Directly, cleanly, and for all of our
registrants. Not by wagging the dog: jiggering technical details to
fit a faulty billing scheme.
bill at herrin.us
More information about the ARIN-PPML