[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3

[scott at solarnetone.org]

Hi John,

Thanks.  I knew you would be the man with the data!  It appears that the 
4.10 carrot is working to encourage v6 deployment among new resource 
holders, from this data.  I can see the 2020-3 carrot as likely effective 
to transition existing resource holders.

A quick calculation; if all 189 2x-smalls listed below were to fall back 
to /40 from /36, the maximum reduction in revenue due to lowered fees 
would be $47,250/year.  My gut reaction?  There may be a few who would 
take this option, but likely not many.

Thank you all for entertaining my curiousity :)

Scott

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, John Sweeting wrote:

> In answer to the question below there are 189 2x-small resource holders that have a /24, of those 129 of them have a NRPM 4.10 (a /24 only issued for IPv6 deployment) which indicates that they received their IPv6 prior to obtaining their /24. It is possible that some of them may have opted for a smaller IPv6 allocation in order to maintain 3x-smaill status. Hope this answers your question.
>
>
>
> On 10/12/20, 3:25 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of scott at solarnetone.org" <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of 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.
>    >>>>
>    >>>>
>    >>>
>    >
>    >
>
>