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

Andrew Dul andrew.dul at quark.net
Sat Apr 18 15:02:36 EDT 2020


On 4/18/2020 9:40 AM, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> I look at it this way:
>
> An ISP with only a /24 of IPv4 space only has 254 addresses to hand 
> out to its customers.  If they receive a /40 of IPv6 space, they can 
> assign up to 256 /48's to its customers, almost an exact match. 
> Someone with so little IPv4 either has few customers or is using CGnat.
>
> Something needs to be done to stop that $250 to $500 increase for 
> accepting IPv6 in this population, as the facts seem to show that 
> these businesses are simply rejecting the future (IPv6) simply because 
> of the current ARIN fee schedule. The provided data clearly show the 
> majority are rejecting IPv6, likely because of the fees.  The 
> population is so small that if there is a question as to why, why not 
> drop them an email and ask?
>
> I would have no problem instead simply giving this population a /36 or 
> even a /32 at the same $250 price, simply because I think the goal of 
> universal IPv6 is worth it.
>
> I support this /40 policy simply because it addresses the identifed 
> issue.
>
> I would also support other ideas, such as going ahead and giving them 
> the /36 and waving the price increase.
>
> I also would not have a problem changing the fee schedule to be based 
> solely on IPv4, or in the alternative maybe not considering IPv6 
> holdings at all in the fee schedule unless they exceed a /32, since a 
> /32 is effectively the default for ISP members.
>
> I realize that this would effectively make those with no IPv4 holdings 
> fit in most cases into the 3x small bucket.
>
> In the end, if we allow /40's, I have no problem allowing those above 
> 3X Small to use them, even though they would be able to receive more 
> under the fee schedules.  I am no understanding as to why they would 
> want a smaller allocation, but who am I to question such a decision of 
> others.
>
> How many members of ARIN have no IPv4 holdings, but instead have only 
> IPv6? 

There are a number of organizations which only have IPv6.  Likely 
because they are legacy organizations and their IPv4 is held as legacy 
and their IPv6 is held in a different org-id.  Slide 9 & 10 from this 
presentation from the last meeting has some details about the number of 
orgs with various holdings.

https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_44/PDF/MEM/sweeting_rsd.pdf

Hope this helps,

Andrew



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list