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
(Seth Mattinen)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(David Farmer)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Seth Mattinen)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(David Farmer)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Gary Buhrmaster)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Brandon Ross)
7. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Brandon Ross)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:36:55 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]>
To: [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 3/27/13 6:34 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 3/27/13 19:40 , Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> On 3/27/13, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> How many customers does an typical xx-small ISP have today?
>>> (xx-small being those ISPs who hold a /22 of IPv4 space)
>>
>> Well, logically they could have up to approximately1000 customers,
>> assuming no NAT
>> and an average of one /32 per customer.
>>
>> The IPv6 equivalent of 1000 /48s = a /38
>
> Well technically 1024, but with an 80% rule that is 819 customers.
> However, with a residential ISP using customer pools and lets say one
> pool of /22 then 512 customers could justify more IPv4, I think. But
> with /29 pools you would justify more address space with 80% of the /29
> pools allocated or 103; and 50% or more usage in all pools, or 4
> addresses; So that could be as little as 103 * 4 = 412 residential
> customers. So the CPE for those residential customers are going to
> request what size blocks using DHCPv6-PD, probably /64s mostly today,
> but some might request /56s and hopefully some will request /48s.
> Obviously a /40 wouldn't provide enough /48s, but I'm not sure /48s are
> realistic.
>
> While on the other had, you would only need 103 /29 business customers
> to justify more IPv4 space. And a /40 provides more than enough /48s to
> cover this business customer scenario.
>
> So /40 isn't perfect, but it seems reasonable and would allow a business
> case to be built before IPv6 is likely to be the cause of a change in
> fee category.
>
> That's my run of the numbers.
>
One really nice thing about the IPv6 /32 /48 /56 /64 system is no arcane
math exercises. But who really needs simplicity.
~Seth
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:48:31 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: Seth Mattinen <[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 20:36 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
> One really nice thing about the IPv6 /32 /48 /56 /64 system is no arcane
> math exercises. But who really needs simplicity.
If you said /32 /48 /64, I'd agree. However, /56 isn't on a (16 bit)
boundary, its on a byte (8 bit) boundary, but so is /40 for that matter.
However, overall our IPv6 policy is aligned on nibble (4 bit)
boundaries, and /36 is aligned on a nibble boundary. For what its
worth, given the Hex representation used in IPv6 the math shouldn't be
that hard if you stay on nibble boundaries.
--
================================================
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: 3
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:52:38 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]>
To: [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 3/27/13 6:48 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 3/27/13 20:36 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>> One really nice thing about the IPv6 /32 /48 /56 /64 system is no arcane
>> math exercises. But who really needs simplicity.
>
> If you said /32 /48 /64, I'd agree. However, /56 isn't on a (16 bit)
> boundary, its on a byte (8 bit) boundary, but so is /40 for that matter.
> However, overall our IPv6 policy is aligned on nibble (4 bit)
> boundaries, and /36 is aligned on a nibble boundary. For what its
> worth, given the Hex representation used in IPv6 the math shouldn't be
> that hard if you stay on nibble boundaries.
>
I included /56 because if I'd said /32 /48 /64 someone would have told
me about /56 as a midway point between /64 and /48 for home users that
need more than one subnet. I personally stick to the /32 /48 /64 system.
~Seth
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:06:28 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: Seth Mattinen <[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 20:52 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> I included /56 because if I'd said /32 /48 /64 someone would have told
> me about /56 as a midway point between /64 and /48 for home users that
> need more than one subnet. I personally stick to the /32 /48 /64 system.
>
> ~Seth
I agree with you, but the questions is do we force everyone to use that
model? If you look at the costs of running even an ISP small enough to
run with a /22 of IPv4 $2000 a year really isn't that much. But, the
new fee schedule with both x-small and xx-small provides pretty good
equity in the fee structure on the lower end, that is really difficult
to make work with a one size fits all policy.
--
================================================
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: 5
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:02:16 +0000
From: Gary Buhrmaster <[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:
<camfxtqywbd6kus0waou9uhksjxblfjyseuvnhf6w_dns6bf...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:06 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
....
> I agree with you, but the questions is do we force everyone to use that
> model? If you look at the costs of running even an ISP small enough to run
> with a /22 of IPv4 $2000 a year really isn't that much. But, the new fee
> schedule with both x-small and xx-small provides pretty good equity in the
> fee structure on the lower end, that is really difficult to make work with a
> one size fits all policy.
I understand the money issue (I worry about my own personal funds too),
but I am reluctant to support policy changes that are basically needed due
the current ARIN fee schedule (since, as I have been told in the past, the
fee schedule is not a policy issue, and it may change at any time). And
we are talking about $500/yr difference between a /48 and a /36. That is
a lot of money for me, but if I decided to put an ISP title after my name,
that would seem to be a small cost compared to the lawyer fees per year
of adding that ISP title and incorporating a business.
So, what are the numbers of the ISPs that are currently harmed by
requiring them to pay an additional $500/yr?
Gary
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:24:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[email protected]>
To: Gary Buhrmaster <[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=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> And we are talking about $500/yr difference between a /48 and a /36.
> That is a lot of money for me, but if I decided to put an ISP title
> after my name, that would seem to be a small cost compared to the lawyer
> fees per year of adding that ISP title and incorporating a business.
I have recently incorporated several businesses. The filing fees were
less then $200 total. No lawyers were needed, everything I needed was
online. Other costs include a Google Apps account for web
site/email/etc., $5/mo, and a business checking account $14/mo. Tell me
again how $500 is lost in the noise of starting a very small business.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:21:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[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; format=flowed
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, John Curran wrote:
> 2) The new fee schedule provides for ISPs the ability to effectively
> get a corresponding IPv6 block for _no charge_, and this is one
> of the reasons that we don't have distinct fees for IPv4 and
> IPv6 but instead a size category which covers an amount of each.
I must be missing something. Once the pending fee schedule goes into
place, my ISP colleagues who have a /22 of space or less will pay
$500/year. The moment that they ask for IPv6, under current policy and
pending fee schedule, they will have to pay $1000/year. How is that "no
charge"?
I would like to see what you have described implemented, which is why I
submitted the policy proposal, but I don't see how it's no charge without
the change.
And yes, I am in contact with at least 2 very small service providers that
this potentially effects. At least one of them is poor enough that the
$500/year difference DOES make a difference and must be considered when
they decide if they are going to deploy IPv6.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 17
*****************************************
