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

Mike Burns mike at iptrading.com
Wed Apr 15 08:05:39 EDT 2020


Hi John,

Thank you.
Are they both then subject to the 12 month waiting period before another receipt?

Regards,
Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: John Sweeting <jsweeting at arin.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 6:36 PM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

Sure Mike, they are approved on a case-by-case basis as described below:

Blocks swaps are conducted via 8.3 Specified Recipient Transfer process. Both parties need to submit two tickets each; a Source ticket to release a block and a Recipient to receive the other block. All four tickets need to be submitted and reviewed by the Director of RSD before approval. It is strongly recommended notation is made in each ticket that it is related to a block swap.

Note that their cannot be a net gain for either organization. 

On 4/14/20, 5:43 PM, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

    Hi John,
    
    Thanks for sharing the policy report.
    How do we do a block swap?
    Can you provide some more details on that process and its requirements?
    
    Regards,
    Mike
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of John Sweeting
    Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 5:29 PM
    To: arin-ppml at arin.net
    Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations
    
    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.
    
    




More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list