[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3

Andrew Dul andrew.dul at quark.net
Mon Oct 12 18:00:53 EDT 2020


On 10/12/2020 2:30 PM, scott at solarnetone.org wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Andrew Dul wrote:
>
>> 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. 
>
> 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.


>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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. 

An ARIN end-user customer can have an ASN as part of their number
resources and can be multihomed.  We specifically added the 6.5.8
section so that IPv6 end-users could multihome.  Prior to the addition
of this section in the the IPv6 policy it was assumed that end-users
couldn't/shouldn't? multihome so they either had to get an ISP sized
allocation or use some other (SHIM6/etc) method to multihome.

I have worked & consulted for organizations who were ARIN end-users and
had AS and number resources.

Andrew



>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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