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

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Sun Apr 19 00:38:32 EDT 2020


I support this policy as written, as I said previously, I recommend a
couple of changes, but I won't repeat the details of those changes here.

Regarding the current discussion of /48 assignments to
residential customers, that is the architecture as defined by the IETF, and
ARIN policy MUST NOT create situations where its necessary or that
incentivizes ISPs to make assignments longer than /48. Further, this policy
is at least minimally consistent with the IPv6 architecture, and /48 IPv6
assignments, when considering a 3X-Small ISP, with a /24 of IPv4 and a /40
of IPv6, both address families will reasonably support 250 or fewer
customers.

The number of customers and the size of IPv6 customer assignments actually
deployed in reality are outside the scope and control of ARIN, the other
RIRs, and even the IETF. It is solely in the scope and control of the ISP
deploying a network. Furthermore, RFC 6177 recognizes longer end-site
assignments between /48 and /64 could be reasonable.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6177

So can we please stop arguing about things that are outside of the scope
and control of ARIN policy.

ARIN's IPv6 policy needs to enable all ISPs to make /48 assignments if they
wish to do so, what size assignments they actually make are outside the
scope and control of ARIN policy and mostly irrelevant to this discussion.
What is relevant to this discussion is that this policy enables 3X-Small
ISPs to make a minimally sufficient number of /48 IPv6 assignments, without
incurring additional fees, based on the current ARIN fee structure.

If a 3X-Small ISP tries to support significantly more than about 250
customers, the size of the IPv6 assignments they are making will be the
least of their problems, at least in my opinion.

While I fully support this policy, I would also support, and probably even
prefer, a permanent fee waiver for 3X-Small ISPs to receive a /36 of IPv6
at no additional cost based on the current IPv6 policy.

However, one way or another this needs to get fixed, NOW! It should have
been fixed a long time ago, and it's not been from a lack of trying by many
of us. Please support this policy as it fixes the problem, is in the scope
of the Policy Development Process (PDP), and in the ARIN policy community's
control. Whereas, the alternative of a fee waiver, while possibly
preferred, is not in the scope of the PDP or the policy community's
control.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200418/a086b76d/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list