<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI Light";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The root problem expressed is one of fees. We should not make policy that presents inferior network engineering because of fees. The
root problem is for our Board to solve. According to John Curran on this list, the Board has done so, and will present an attractive fee schedule change in October.<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">David R Huberman</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><br>
Principal, Global IP Addressing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Microsoft Corporation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>David Farmer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 14, 2015 6:13 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mike Hammett <arin@ics-il.net><br>
<b>Cc:</b> arin-ppml@arin.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] Smalest ISP v6 Allocation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On Aug 14, 2015, at 05:19, Mike Hammett <<a href="mailto:arin@ics-il.net">arin@ics-il.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">If the smallest IPv6 allocation an ISP can get is a /36 (X-small or up to /20 in IPv4), but we have a fee established for XX-small (up to /40 IPv6 and /22 IPv4),
why don't we permit an ISP to get a /40? Small providers may not want to increase their ARIN fees to simply be able to get their own IPv6 allocation. Seems counter-intuitive in getting everyone on the IPv6 train. It also falls on a clean boundary, so there
shouldn't be any concerns with issued subnets.<br>
<br>
If there's no good reason why we're not doing this, how to we start the process to allow this?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">A little more than two years ago we considered a policy to do just that;<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.arin.net%2fpolicy%2fproposals%2f2013_3.html&data=01%7c01%7cdavid.huberman%40microsoft.com%7cb066d589a64a438228a308d2a4aa30ef%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=cgxSpN8%2bCrg9YM7OPQ1Vx5VocrAYmxNzwc7pLBcBi%2bY%3d">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2013_3.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The consensus at the time was that a /40 was too small for an ISP and that we should reconsider the fee structure instead. That has been in process with the fee committee that was discussed previously. However, if there is a new consensus
in support of allowing ISPs to receive a /40, I'd recommend the text of ARIN-2013-3 as a starting point.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">===============================================<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">David Farmer Email: <a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">
farmer@umn.edu</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Office of Information Technology<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">University of Minnesota <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2218 University Ave SE Phone: +1-612-626-0815<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: +1-612-812-9952<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">===============================================<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>