[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Sat Apr 18 17:11:22 EDT 2020
On 18/04/2020 17:49, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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.
My view is that this type of waiver should not exist and this type
situation should not be incentivized.
I see the mentioned "we won't charge you extra until your IPv4 holdings
expand or 10+ years" as something more interesting.
It is necessary to differentiate when an organization has really grown,
justify for more space and is able to be paying a higher fee than when
they just request more and more Ipv6 space because they are giving away
/48 to everyone indistinctly which in my view is an exaggeration. We
cannot base ourselves on future technology that maybe will make use of
that for most cases, otherwise we will be treating the vast majority of
exceptions as the rule.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML