[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3
scott at solarnetone.org
scott at solarnetone.org
Mon Nov 16 19:18:19 EST 2020
Hi Owen,
The contract I signed says otherwise, as was discussed further down this
thread.
Scott
>
> Nope… Andrew is correct. You are not considered an ISP for these purposes
> unless you are making reallocations or reassignments of the number resources
> registered to you by ARIN.
>
>
> Owen
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
> On 10/12/2020 12:26 PM,
> scott at solarnetone.org wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I wonder what
> percentage of
> 2x-small
> Resource holders
> have a /24 of
> v4, and would
> otherwise
> qualify for
> 3x-small status
> but for their v6
> allocations, and
> what percentage
> of all ASs
> registered with
> ARIN that
> represents.
> This represents
> the the total
> who could
> "downgrade" to a
> nano-allocation,
> were that a
> option. It
> would be easy to
> derive from
> that the maximum
> effect on ARIN's
> finances, if
> they all chose
> to take
> that option.
>
> Scott
>
> On Mon, 12 Oct
> 2020, Chris
> Woodfield wrote:
>
> Agreed.
> To
> be
> clear,
> I
> did
> not
> intend
> for
> my
> question
> to
> imply
> that
> the
> goal
> of
> keeping
> the
> proposal
> revenue-neutral
> was
> in
> any
> way
> dishonorable
> -
> ARIN’s
> financial
> stability
> is
> obviously
> in
> the
> community’s
> best
> interests.
> But
> we
> should
> have
> informed
> consent
> as
> to
> how
> that
> stability
> is
> achieved,
> and
> as
> such,
> clarifying
> the
> intention
> of
> the
> clause
> is
> helpful.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -C
>
> On
> Oct
> 12,
> 2020,
> at
> 11:06
> AM,
> scott at solarnetone.org
> wrote:
>
> Hi
> Chris,
>
> Indeed.
> To
> be
> fair,
> I
> think
> the
> price
> is
> fair
> for
> value
> received,
> speaking
> as
> a
> 2x-small
> ISP
> with
> a
> /36.
> I
> was
> able
> to
> lower
> my
> recurring
> costs
> and
> increase
> my
> available
> address
> pool
> by
> bringing
> up
> an
> AS
> at
> the
> 2x-small
> rate.
> Allowing
> the
> smallest
> ISPs
> to
> implement
> IPv6
> without
> additional
> financial
> cost
> seems
> a
> prudent
> way
> to
> overcome
> barriers
> to
> adoption.
>
> Scott
>
> On
> Sun,
> 11
> Oct
> 2020,
> Chris
> Woodfield
> wrote:
>
> Thanks
> Andrew,
> and
> good
> catch
> -
> both
> Scott
> and
> I
> missed
> that
> clause,
> obviously.
> It
> appears
> that
> this
> is
> in
> place
> in
> order
> to
> meet
> the
> stated
> goal
> of
> this
> proposal
> being
> revenue-neutral
> for
> ARIN?
> If
> so,
> it
> would
> be
> great
> to
> clarify
> so
> that
> community
> members
> can
> make
> a
> more
> informed
> evaluation
> as
> to
> whether
> or
> not
> to
> support
> the
> clause.
> If
> there
> are
> other
> justifications
> for
> the
> clause’s
> presence,
> I’d
> be
> interested
> to
> hear
> them.
>
> 2~>
> Thanks,
>
> -C
>
> On
> Oct
> 11,
> 2020,
> at
> 10:24
> AM,
> Andrew
> Dul
> <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> wrote:
>
> The
> current
> draft
> policy
> text
> disallows
> returns
> to
> lower
> than
> a
> /36,
> so
> I
> would
> say
> that
> organization
> which
> took
> a
> /36
> would
> not
> be
> permitted
> to
> go
> down
> to
> a
> /40.
>
> "Partial
> returns
> of
> any
> IPv6
> allocation
> that
> results
> in
> less
> than
> a
> /36
> of
> holding
> are
> not
> permitted
> regardless
> of
> the
> ISP’s
> current
> or
> former
> IPv4
> number
> resource
> holdings."
>
> Andrew
>
> On
> 10/9/2020
> 2:04
> PM,
> Chris
> Woodfield
> wrote:
> Hi
> Scott,
>
> Given
> that
> ARIN
> utilizes
> a
> sparse
> allocation
> strategy
> for
> IPv6
> resources
> (in
> my
> organization’s
> case,
> we
> could
> go
> from
> a
> /32
> to
> a
> /25
> without
> renumbering),
> IMO
> it
> would
> not
> be
> unreasonable
> for
> the
> allocation
> to
> be
> adjusted
> down
> simply
> by
> changing
> the
> mask
> and
> keeping
> the
> /36
> or
> /32
> unallocated
> until
> the
> sparse
> allocations
> are
> exhausted.
> Any
> resources
> numbered
> outside
> the
> new
> /40
> would
> need
> to
> be
> renumbered,
> to
> be
> sure,
> but
> that’s
> most
> likely
> less
> work
> than
> a
> complete
> renumbering.
>
> That
> said,
> I’ll
> leave
> it
> up
> to
> Registration
> Services
> to
> provide
> a
> definitive
> answer.
>
> -C
>
> On
> Fri,
> 9
> Oct
> 2020,
> scott at solarnetone.org
> wrote:
>
> Hi
> All,
>
> I
> am
> in
> favor
> of
> this
> draft,
> and
> am
> curious
> as
> to
> how
> resource
> holders
> who
> were
> not
> dissuaded
> by
> the
> fee
> increase
> will
> be
> impacted
> by
> the
> policy
> change.
> While
> they
> indeed
> have
> more
> address
> space
> than
> /40,
> they
> may
> also
> not
> need
> the
> additional
> address
> space.
> Some
> might
> prefer
> the
> nano-allocation
> given
> the
> lower
> cost.
> Will
> they
> be
> required
> to
> change
> allocations,
> and
> renumber,
> in
> order
> to
> return
> to
> 3x-small
> status
> and
> associated
> rate?
>
> Scott
> Johnson
> SolarNetOne,
> Inc.
> AS32639
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please
> contact
> info at arin.net
> if
> you
> experience
> any
> issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please
> contact
> info at arin.net
> if
> you
> experience
> any
> issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please
> contact
> info at arin.net
> if
> you
> experience
> any
> issues.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list