[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3

Mon Oct 12 18:40:25 EDT 2020

Hi Andrew,

>>
>> 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.
>
>
> ARIN's definition of ISP/end-user is related to the services ARIN offers
> to an organization and may not be specifically tied to a "classic"
> definition of an ISP.

Precisely what I was trying, if failing, to express.  David's post 
clarified the delineation.  I see from the NRPM that there is a minor 
difference in fee schedule too.  For example, an end user with a /44 or 
/48 of v6, a /24 of v4, and an ASN would pay approximately $200/year more 
than a 3x-small, and $50 less than a 2x-small.

This applies, however, only to those who do not subscribe to the 
Registration Services Plan, if I understand correctly, as subscribing to 
said plan converts one from End User to ISP automatically.  Needless to 
say, there are organizations that are end users by functional definition 
here, but subscribe to the service plan, and/or choose to be an ISP for 
other reasons.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>

True, but I was referring to protocol version agnostic multi-homing. 
Would an end user also qualify for 4.10 v4 space by requesting a /44 or 
/48 directly from ARIN?

>>>
>>> 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.
>
> I disagree, others feel free to correct me. 

You are right.  Pardon my confusion.

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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>