[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations
owen at delong.com
Sat Apr 18 16:49:17 EDT 2020
> On Apr 18, 2020, at 06:10 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2020, at 5:32 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> Policy as written definitely favors /48s for everyone.
> Owen -
> To bring it back to the policy matter under discussion, do you expect that ISPs (who presently do not proceed with their IPv6 /36 application due to resulting increase of their annual fees from $250 to $500) would proceed if there were a fee waiver that prevented the increase? Also, do you believe that these ISPs would indeed be assigning /48’s to customers if given the larger /36 IPv6 allocation and should doing so be a provision of any such fee waiver?
It would depend on the nature of the fee waiver. If they perceived it as a temporary stall resulting in the same fee increase in 3-5 years, I think you’d get mixed results. If it was a permanent “we won’t charge you extra until your IPv4 holdings expand or 10+ years, whichever comes first”, I suspect you’d see a majority of takers.
As to /48s, hard to say… Certainly, with /40s, they are more likely to be hyper-conservative in their assignments than with /36s. I certainly would not mind making said waiver conditional on compliance with a /48 PAU.
More information about the ARIN-PPML