[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3

scott at solarnetone.org scott at solarnetone.org
Mon Oct 12 18:41:39 EDT 2020


Thanks for this clarification, David!

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, David Farmer wrote:

> 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
> ===============================================
> 
>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list