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

John Santos john at egh.com
Thu Apr 16 01:56:11 EDT 2020


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



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list