[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