[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3

Andrew Dul andrew.dul at quark.net
Mon Oct 12 16:18:36 EDT 2020


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.

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



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list