[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3

scott at solarnetone.org scott at solarnetone.org
Mon Oct 12 19:44:45 EDT 2020


Thanks for the clarification, John.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, John Sweeting wrote:

>
>
> On 10/12/20, 7:09 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of Andrew Dul" <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>
>    On 10/12/2020 3:40 PM, scott at solarnetone.org wrote:
>    > 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.
>
>    My understanding is that subscribing to 'Registration Services Plan'
>    does not change you from an end-user to ISP, it just gives you access to
>    the services available under that plan and the resulting fee schedule.
>    You can presumably decide to go back to classic 'pay by the resource
>    option' as an end-user if you didn't need the extra services or
>    preferred the alternate fee calculation.
>
> (JS) Converting to an Registration Services Plan is a one time, one way action. There is no converting back to EU 'pay by the resource option' once an organization has completed actions necessary to convert to Registration Services Plan.
>
>
>    >
>    >>
>    >>
>    >>>
>    >>>>
>    >>>> 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?
>    >
>    I believe the answer is yes, 4.10, is agnostic to your ISP/End-user
>    status w/ 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.
>    >>>>>>>>>>>
>    >>>>>>>>>>>
>    >>>>>>>>>>
>    >>>>>>>>
>    >>>>>>>>
>    >>>>>>
>    >>>>>>
>    >>>>
>    >>>>
>    >>
>    >>
>
>    _______________________________________________
>    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