Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(William Herrin)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Michael Richardson)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Antoine Beaupr?)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(William Herrin)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(David Farmer)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Antoine Beaupr?)
7. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(David Farmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:16:18 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGXjLAP-hHKqifvbT=gwtdpe3wgg+oxq-0h_0aqsurk...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:20 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3
> Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
>
> Part 1 brings ARIN's allocation policies in line with the upcoming fee
> schedule so that it is possible to qualify as every level of ISP while
> holding IPv6 number resources.
This looks like a billing policy problem. The technical (i.e. number
policy) case for a smaller-than-/32 ISP allocation seems weak to me.
IMO, this problem could (and should!) be solved by billing
organizations with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses only for the IPv4
addresses until IPv6 is prevalent enough to support its own costs.
ARIN's board is -supposed- to optimize billing policy for the sake of
technically sound number policy, not the other way around.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:35:15 -0400
From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>>>>> "William" == William Herrin <[email protected]> writes:
William> IMO, this problem could (and should!) be solved by billing
William> organizations with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses only for the IPv4
William> addresses until IPv6 is prevalent enough to support its own costs.
William> ARIN's board is -supposed- to optimize billing policy for
William> the sake of
William> technically sound number policy, not the other way around.
What should the cost for IPv6-only be?
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:29:57 -0400
From: Antoine Beaupr? <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On 2013-03-27, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:20 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3
>> Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
>>
>> Part 1 brings ARIN's allocation policies in line with the upcoming fee
>> schedule so that it is possible to qualify as every level of ISP while
>> holding IPv6 number resources.
>
> This looks like a billing policy problem. The technical (i.e. number
> policy) case for a smaller-than-/32 ISP allocation seems weak to me.
>
> IMO, this problem could (and should!) be solved by billing
> organizations with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses only for the IPv4
> addresses until IPv6 is prevalent enough to support its own costs.
> ARIN's board is -supposed- to optimize billing policy for the sake of
> technically sound number policy, not the other way around.
I agree with this. A /48 is .. really small (in the IPv6). ADSL
providers basically give this away to their customers here in
Montreal...
As an aside, am I correct in thinking that we currently need to pay only
the higher of the IPv4 vs IPv6 fee when we have two allocations with
arin?
We are looking into enabling IPv6 here, but if it means extra annual
fees, well that's a limit for adoption for us. We are currently using a
/21 from ARIN, and would look at a /36 for IPv6.
A.
--
Man really attains the state of complete humanity when he produces,
without being forced by physical need to sell himself as a commodity.
- Ernesto "Che" Guevara
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130327/5d250a57/attachment-0001.bin>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:40:33 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<cap-gugxqvcmhjvs+kxxg1tzmw-h+baxrcplppp9rbf7axma...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> "William" == William Herrin <[email protected]> writes:
> William> IMO, this problem could (and should!) be solved by billing
> William> organizations with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses only for the IPv4
> William> addresses until IPv6 is prevalent enough to support its own
> costs.
> William> ARIN's board is -supposed- to optimize billing policy for
> William> the sake of
> William> technically sound number policy, not the other way around.
>
> What should the cost for IPv6-only be?
In my opinion? $100/year for any prefix /32 or longer. Current fee
schedule for anything /31 or shorter. *Until* IPv6 traffic on the
public Internet based on some reasonable measure of packet flows hits
the 50% mark. Once IPv4 traffic falls into the minority on the public
Internet, the current fee schedule (or one like it) should take
effect.
In my opinion.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:44:08 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: Antoine Beaupr? <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 3/27/13 15:29 , Antoine Beaupr? wrote:
> On 2013-03-27, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:20 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3
>>> Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
>>>
>>> Part 1 brings ARIN's allocation policies in line with the upcoming fee
>>> schedule so that it is possible to qualify as every level of ISP while
>>> holding IPv6 number resources.
>>
>> This looks like a billing policy problem. The technical (i.e. number
>> policy) case for a smaller-than-/32 ISP allocation seems weak to me.
>>
>> IMO, this problem could (and should!) be solved by billing
>> organizations with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses only for the IPv4
>> addresses until IPv6 is prevalent enough to support its own costs.
>> ARIN's board is -supposed- to optimize billing policy for the sake of
>> technically sound number policy, not the other way around.
>
> I agree with this. A /48 is .. really small (in the IPv6). ADSL
> providers basically give this away to their customers here in
> Montreal...
A /48 is definitely to small but would would you think of a /40 for an
xx-small and /36 for a x-small. This requires a tweak in the fee
schedule too.
> As an aside, am I correct in thinking that we currently need to pay only
> the higher of the IPv4 vs IPv6 fee when we have two allocations with
> arin?
Yes.
> We are looking into enabling IPv6 here, but if it means extra annual
> fees, well that's a limit for adoption for us. We are currently using a
> /21 from ARIN, and would look at a /36 for IPv6.
With a /21 you are in the x-small category and /36 would be available to
you under current policy at the same cost as your /21, so no difference
in your annual fee.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:11:43 -0400
From: Antoine Beaupr? <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On 2013-03-27, David Farmer wrote:
> On 3/27/13 15:29 , Antoine Beaupr? wrote:
>> I agree with this. A /48 is .. really small (in the IPv6). ADSL
>> providers basically give this away to their customers here in
>> Montreal...
>
> A /48 is definitely to small but would would you think of a /40 for an
> xx-small and /36 for a x-small. This requires a tweak in the fee
> schedule too.
That would make sense, although I still think that lowering the rates
for IPv6 would be more enticing for wider adoption...
A.
--
While the creative works from the 16th century can still be accessed
and used by others, the data in some software programs from the 1990s
is already inaccessible.
- Lawrence Lessig
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130327/75f14ade/attachment-0001.bin>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:14:58 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 3/27/13 15:16 , William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:20 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3
>> Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
>>
>> Part 1 brings ARIN's allocation policies in line with the upcoming fee
>> schedule so that it is possible to qualify as every level of ISP while
>> holding IPv6 number resources.
>
> This looks like a billing policy problem. The technical (i.e. number
> policy) case for a smaller-than-/32 ISP allocation seems weak to me.
>
> IMO, this problem could (and should!) be solved by billing
> organizations with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses only for the IPv4
> addresses until IPv6 is prevalent enough to support its own costs.
> ARIN's board is -supposed- to optimize billing policy for the sake of
> technically sound number policy, not the other way around.
The xx-small category was created to lower the costs of the smallest
ISPs to something more equatable with what large end users would pay.
There are only a few hundred ISPs (~400) in the XX-small category, with
a /22 or less for IPv4. A /48 is not reasonable for an IPv6 allocation
even for these xx-small ISPs, but A /40 while not the best seems
reasonable. This would require both a modified version of this policy
change and a fee schedule tweak of the xx-small fee category to "/40 or
smaller" for IPv6.
Changing xx-small to "/40 or smaller" for IPv6 has added advantages for
most end users as well. The vast majority of end user assignments would
fall under the xx-small category, something like 98%, at least looking
at the data provided at the Dallas PPM. And most importantly an end
user that could qualify for a /44 or /40 wouldn't be tempted to only ask
for a /48 just to save $500.
So as shepherd for this policy, I would propose to change it from /48 to
/40 and change the rational suggesting that the board tweak the proposed
fee schedule to have "/40 or smaller" for IPv6 in the xx-small fee
category. If there is consensus for this change by next week I will get
the change put in before the April 5th publication freeze for the
Barbados PPM materials. Let me know what you think.
Thanks
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 14
*****************************************
