[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3

Mon Oct 12 18:01:04 EDT 2020

You don't have to be an ISP to have an ASN, thousands of end-users have
ASNs assigned to them by ARIN, in ARIN policy the difference between an ISP
(AKA an LIR) and an end-user is the ability to reassign address space to
other entities.  Since an end-user doesn't assign address space to other
entities a /44 or even a /48 assignment directly from ARIN makes sense,
such a small allocation to an ISP makes no sense since they
couldn't reassign /48s to a sufficiently large number of customers. The
point of this policy is to allow extremely small ISPs to receive a /40,
providing 256 /48s for reassignment, which is a viable IPv6 allocation for
the very smallest ISPs.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

Thanks.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 4:30 PM <scott at solarnetone.org> wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Andrew Dul wrote:
>
> > On 10/12/2020 1:29 PM, scott at solarnetone.org wrote:
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Andrew Dul wrote:
> >>
> >>> The partial returns language is also intended to promote best practices
> >>> for IPv6 addressing, that is giving big blocks to allow ISPs to assign
> >>> /48s to all customers.
> >>
> >> True, but not all resource holders are operating ISP's for public use.
> >> For example, my local City Government has an ASN, and v4 address
> >> block. They provide no internet services, neither network, to eyes,
> >> nor content other than for their own use.  This is the case with many
> >> resource holders not in the primary business of being an ISP.
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> > The organization you describe here sounds more like an end-user, but I
> > do understand various organizations have switched from being an end-user
> > to ISP and vise-versa over the years for various reasons.
>
> Unfortunately, the only way to have redundancy in your upstream while
> keeping connectivity to your network address is to be an ISP by this
> definition, even if you offer no network services to other organizations.
> This is because an AS is required to perform BGP, which is critical to
> maintaining connectivity to a multi-homed network through outage of one
> or more connected circuits.
>
> >
> > An end-user organization who would be eligible to obtain an /48 under
> > 6.5.8 of the NRPM.
> >
> >
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-8-direct-assignments-from-arin-to-end-user-organizations
> >
> > This draft policy ARIN-2020-3 is specifically related to ISPs.
>
> I believe you are making a misclassification here.  Once these
> organizations have AS and/or address resources, they are considered an ISP
> for these purposes, despite their end use case.
>
> 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.
>

-- 
===============================================
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/20201012/c16b613f/attachment.htm>