[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3

Andrew Dul andrew.dul at quark.net
Mon Oct 12 16:41:31 EDT 2020


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. 

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.


>>
>> 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