<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">David, Thanks for your comments. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/26/2020 4:08 PM, David Farmer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN-Dau1LoHiXiwdbMqukUbO6pOvh9swK_1DBM2L-2rHRToy9Vg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I support this policy as written. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, I recommend a minor editorial change and a small
change to the policy;</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. I would prefer to not use "smaller" or "less" when
referring to /24 or longer prefixes, such use is somewhat
ambiguous, this has been discussed many times on PPML.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Noted.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN-Dau1LoHiXiwdbMqukUbO6pOvh9swK_1DBM2L-2rHRToy9Vg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. I really like the idea of automatically increasing the
IPv6 allocation to /36 when the IPv4 allocation
increases beyond /24. How about also automatically
increasing the IPv6 allocation to /32 when the IPv4 allocation
increases beyond /22?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The goal of this policy is to create IPv6 allocation sizes such
that a current IPv4 organization which is currently 3X-small can
obtain an IPv6 allocation without their fees going up. Today this
issue only occurs with 3x-small. If we were to implement this
other change I believe this would cause the text to move beyond
the current problem statement. <br>
</p>
<p>I will also like to note, that this issue could also be remedied
by the board adopting a small change to the fee schedule such that
the 3x-small IPv6 holdings do not force a change in category for
3x-small organizations. This would cause 3x-small organization's
fees to be primarily determined by their IPv4 holdings not their
IPv6 holdings.</p>
<p>While the community doesn't have purview over fees we have input
into that process. If this is something that we would strongly
like to prefer as a solution to this problem. We can make this as
a strong suggestion to the board for their consideration.</p>
<p>Andrew<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN-Dau1LoHiXiwdbMqukUbO6pOvh9swK_1DBM2L-2rHRToy9Vg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at
12:22 PM ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations<br>
<br>
Problem Statement:<br>
<br>
ARIN's fee structure provides a graduated system wherein
organizations<br>
pay based on the amount of number resources they consume.<br>
<br>
In the case of the very smallest ISPs, if a 3X-Small ISP
(with a /24 or <br>
smaller of IPv4) gets the present minimal-sized IPv6
allocation (a /36), <br>
its annual fees will double from $250 to $500/year.<br>
<br>
According to a Policy Experience Report presented by
Registration <br>
Services to the AC at its annual workshop in January 2020,
this <br>
represents a disincentive to IPv6 adoption with a
substantial fraction <br>
of so-situated ISPs saying "no thanks" and abandoning their
request for <br>
IPv6 number resources when informed of the impact on their
annual fees.<br>
<br>
This can be addressed by rewriting subsection 6.5.2(b).
Initial <br>
Allocation Size to allow allocation of a /40 to only the
smallest ISPs <br>
upon request, and adding a new clause 6.5.2(g) to cause an
automatic <br>
upgrade to at least a /36 in the case where the ISP is no
longer 3X-Small.<br>
<br>
Reserving /40s only for organizations initially expanding
into IPv6 from <br>
an initial sliver of IPv4 space will help to narrowly
address the <br>
problem observed by Registration Services while avoiding
unintended <br>
consequences by accidentally giving a discount for
undersized allocations.<br>
<br>
Policy Statement:<br>
<br>
Replace the current 6.5.2(b) with the following:<br>
<br>
b. In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless
they<br>
specifically request a /36 or /40.<br>
<br>
In order to be eligible for a /40, an ISP must meet the
following <br>
requirements:<br>
* Hold IPv4 direct allocations totaling a /24 or less (to
include zero)<br>
* Hold IPv4 reassignments/reallocations totaling a /22 or
less (to <br>
include zero)<br>
<br>
In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial
allocation.<br>
<br>
Add 6.5.2(g) as follows:<br>
<br>
g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is
entitled to <br>
expand the allocation to any nibble aligned size up to /32
at any time <br>
without renumbering or additional justification. /40
allocations shall <br>
be automatically upgraded to /36 if at any time said LIR's
IPv4 direct <br>
allocations exceed a /24. Expansions up to and including a
/32 are not <br>
considered subsequent allocations, however any expansions
beyond /32 are <br>
considered subsequent allocations and must conform to
section 6.5.3. <br>
Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 are not
permitted <br>
regardless of the ISP's current or former IPv4 number
resource holdings.<br>
<br>
Comments:<br>
<br>
The intent of this policy proposal is to make IPv6 adoption
at the very <br>
bottom end expense-neutral for the ISP and revenue-neutral
for ARIN. The <br>
author looks forward to a future era wherein IPv6 is the
dominant <br>
technology and IPv4 is well in decline and considered
optional leading <br>
the Community to conclude that sunsetting this policy is
prudent in the <br>
interests of avoiding an incentive to request undersized
IPv6 allocations.<br>
<br>
Timetable for implementation: Immediate<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a
href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">info@arin.net</a>
if you experience any issues.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">===============================================<br>
David Farmer <a
href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>
Office of Information Technology<br>
University of Minnesota <br>
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br>
=============================================== </div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>