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

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Fri Apr 17 16:24:17 EDT 2020

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 8:42 AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> ARIN tries to provide as much flexibility as possible in dealing with requests, so it is important that the community document the reasoning behind policy language that constrains the choices available to those requesting resources.   ARIN staff will certainly get asked about such restrictions, so we best understand the motivation.

Hi John,

My problem with the proposal is that it extends an ARIN practice which
is not technically sound, namely allocating less than 2^96 IPv6
addresses to ISPs, all in order to solve what is frankly a stupid
billing problem. With it's fee selection, ARIN has needlessly
exacerbated a chicken-and-egg problem where the fees obstruct the
adoption of IPv6 which prevents the resources from gaining the value
that would justify the fees. The correct solution to the problem is:
don't do that. Just stop.

ARIN has itself twisted in a knot around the idea that IPv6 billing
has to be equitable in relation to the other number resources *right
now*. It does not, and these goofy efforts to make it so have harmed
the community for something like a decade now.

Bill Herrin

William Herrin
bill at herrin.us

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list