[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3
Chris Woodfield
chris at semihuman.com
Mon Oct 12 20:09:26 EDT 2020
Scott - can confirm from my own experience you are correct. An end-user that signs to the RSP is considered an ISP from both a fee and policy perspective, and as John stated, is a one-way conversion. As mentioned previously, the ability to utilize SWIP to reassign blocks need not be in an ISP-to-customer context; there are a number of reasons an organization may wish to publish SWIP data for blocks assigned internally.
Hope this clarifies things :)
-C
> On Oct 12, 2020, at 4:44 PM, scott at solarnetone.org wrote:
>
> 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.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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