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

John Osmon josmon at rigozsaurus.com
Sun Apr 19 13:28:09 EDT 2020


On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:32:40AM -0400, Brian Jones wrote:
> Looking at the numbers John posted concerning this issue, it tends to *look
> like* some of these 3x small folks decided to drop their request once they
> encountered the price increase. If this is the case then we should move
> forward with this proposal. We do not want to create a situation where
> folks are continuing to use only IPv4 because of costs.


I support then intent of ARIN-2020-3.

As a data point, I thought I'd get my story in here.  The point to the
story is that there are entities that have legitimate need for
resources, but are stymied by the costs.  Even at 3x and 2x small sizes.


Onto my story:

I'm often asked to work on interesting projects.  I have used my
resources to bootstrap a number of organizations.  It's never been a lot
of money, and has has lost money in many years.

I was originally an end-user, not an ISP, due to financial issues.  I
often used the resources I had to help other bootstrap their services
until they were ready to obtain their own.  I held an ASN, a /22 of
IPv4, and a /48 of IPv6 by 2007.

End-user fees went from a flat $100/year to $100/resource and I dropped
the IPv6 block to reduce my costs in 2014.  (So, while I'm an
aberration, it should be noted that ARIN policies drove IPv6 adoption
lower with the fee increase.)

When End-User fees went up to $150/resource, I was very happy to see the
3x-small category.  I was able to pickup a /44, transfer my /22 to a
a client that needed the space more than I did, and pickup a /24 to
continue the work I'd been doing.  Plus, the new designation gave me
voting privileges I didn't formerly have.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list