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
(Chris James)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Brandon Ross)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Owen DeLong)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Owen DeLong)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(William Herrin)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Owen DeLong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:29:49 -0700
From: Chris James <[email protected]>
To: Brandon Ross <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<CALABLdZPxP=9XZTv6u+5DKm_=svqk23wqs5ouuketprtyyw...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I think this conversation is getting way off topic.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Brandon Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:52:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[email protected]>
To: Chris James <[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 Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Chris James wrote:
> I think this conversation is getting way off topic.
I strongly disagree. One of the core reasons, as I understand it, that we
have different fees for different sized organizations is based on their
ability to pay. Understanding how inexpensive it actually is to startup a
new ISP is critical to understanding how affordable the fees are to an
xx-small organization.
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Brandon Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:03:41 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[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=us-ascii
On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:45 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/27/13 18:00 , Michael Sinatra wrote:
>
>> Or, to put more bluntly, if ARIN's fee structure is itself creating
>> disincentives for proper IPv6 adoption, then let's go back and (re-)fix
>> that problem.
>>
>> Oppose 2013-3.
>
> Michael and others opposed,
>
> What about modifying the proposal to /40, require a minimum reservation of
> /32 (or maybe /28) be held for ISPs that elect for /40 or /36 allocations,
> allow subsequent allocations to expansion from /40 to /36 and then to /32
> without evaluating there current IPv6 usage. Thereby ensuring they can grow
> their allocation in place and allowing policy flexibility that enables the
> fee structure equity that the new xx-small category seems to provided.
>
I'm less opposed at /40.
I am strenuously opposed to anything longer than /40.
I remain opposed to anything longer than /32, including the /36s that I put in
the ISP policy I authored as an attempt to address this issue before. I didn't
like that, but it seemed the only way to solve the 1250->2250 problem in the
existing fee schedule.
Further, I would seek to do this in such a way that we know that this will not
turn into recursive bit-creep. This probably requires the board to commit to a
fee structure realignment prior to sending this for ratification.
> This policy doesn't change the fact anyone who whats it can get a /32. We
> already allowed a optional /36. If we added a /40 option with sufficient
> reservation and the ability to expand up to /32 without justification of
> subsequent allocations, then this allow all ISPs to deploy IPv6 for no change
> in their costs. Furthermore if their IPv6 growth causes them to need a
> larger allocation then by definition there should be a business case that
> easily justifies the fee increase.
I wrote the /36 into the current policy when I wrote the policy proposal in an
effort to address this problem as it existed in the current fee schedule. We
are now recursively shifting further to the right. The first time was a small
compromise to the ideal allocation size to attempt to provide a somewhat
equitable economic solution. Going further to the right is damaging.
> The idea would be every ISP is entitled to /32, but if you want financial
> flexibility you can start with /40 or /36 and grow your allocation as you
> need to. No one is forced to do this, but it ensures IPv6 is available to
> all ISPs without effecting there current costs.
ARIN should, IMHO, seek to avoid placing economic incentives for bad behavior
into their fee structure.
The combination of /40s in policy and the fee structure incentivizing their use
is just such an example of what we should not do.
> Finally, even if you continue to not support the proposal would you support
> making the changes to the text about for the text to discuss at the PPM?
I strongly support changing the text to /40. There is no rational reason to
discuss anything longer than /40.
I still remain opposed at /40, but much less opposed than at any longer prefix
length.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:08:32 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[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=windows-1252
On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:55 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 8:40 PM, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> Agreed.
>
> Now the ISP could indeed assign a /52 per customer, which means that
> /40 would provide for assignments for 4 thousand customers (and at
> /56 per customer, well, they can serve quite bit more from /40?)
True, but this locks the ISP into a /52 PAU for purposes of justifying
additional
space. This means that when it comes time to expand, if they have any customers
that received /48s, the ISP has to explain how each of them justified 16 /52s
instead of just giving them /48s.
> If we keep them serving 1024 customers, then a /40 provides them with
> the ability to serve all of them using /52 size assignments, and an
> ISP that feels strongly that a /48 is more appropriate for assignments
> could opt for a /36 allocation, and move up to the x-small category
> at $1000/year
Right? We can provide an economic incentive to get ISPs to give their
customers undersized allocations. It's probably little or no skin off the
ISP's nose and the customers probably won't care for years to come.
Instead, it reduces innovation in the home gateway space and stifles
product development for years (or decades) to come all in the name of
~300 ISPs saving $500/year (a total revenue difference to ARIN of
$150,000).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ARIN spend more than that on
outreach trying to get people to deploy IPv6 each year?
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 01:12:49 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGWZm=H=MmSTNceFXcD6qYaHeQGkFLM=5jg0r59zw_k...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> ARIN should, IMHO, seek to avoid placing economic incentives
> for bad behavior into their fee structure.
>
> The combination of /40s in policy and the fee structure
> incentivizing their use is just such an example of what we should not do.
Agree with both statements. Adjusting number policy to match billing
policy wags the dog.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:13:47 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: John Curran <[email protected]>, "[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=windows-1252
On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:34 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> 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.
Note, we don't really have an 80% rule in ISP IPv6? It's 75% at two levels, so
the number is actually 768.
/48s are realistic. We certainly have the opportunity to make them
non-realistic by discouraging development of gateways that support them by
having policies and/or fees that prevent ISPs from giving them out.
> 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.
You do realize that there are a number of ISPs that (quite legitimately)
provide /29s to residential customers.
Owen
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 18
*****************************************
