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
(Owen DeLong)
2. fee structure (William Herrin)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Curran)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Curran)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Brandon Ross)
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
(Rob Seastrom)
8. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Curran)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:17:37 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: Brandon Ross <[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=us-ascii
On Mar 27, 2013, at 9:21 PM, Brandon Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
But they are already paying $1,250/year now for their IPv4. Under the proposed
structure, they could get a /36 and pay $250 less than they are paying now.
I am perplexed by your argument.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 01:35:11 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGUqj93j47=b+g1fqhesrlbhe2yndow6li86rxv9n28...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Glancing at the new fee structure, I noticed a result that seems a little off:
ISP
voting member of ARIN
3 IPv4 /22's
4 IPv4 /24's under LRSA
1 IPv6 /36
1 AS number
$1000/year
End user
voting member of ARIN
3 IPv4 /22's
4 IPv4 /24's under LRSA
1 IPv6 /36
1 AS number
$1400/year
Yeah, I had to contrive the holdings a little bit to get an
unreasonable result. Now reduce the ISP minimum IPv6 allocation to /48
and you get:
ISP
voting member of ARIN
1 IPv4 /22
1 IPv6 /48
1 AS number
$500/year
End user
voting member of ARIN
1 IPv4 /24
1 IPv6 /48
1 AS number
$800/year
Oops.
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:50:45 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Brandon Ross <[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"
On Mar 28, 2013, at 12:21 AM, Brandon Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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"?
Brandon -
I believe that the "/48 or smaller" line on the pending fee
schedule is incorrect and in the process of being fixed.
The correct number in the series should read "/40 or less"
Once corrected, your ISP colleagues who are in the xx-small
category (with a /22 of IPv4 or less) can would be able to
obtain a corresponding /40 of IPv6 (if the policy proposal
being discussed were adopted) and there would be 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.
You are correct; it requires the correction to the pending fee
schedule (which is underway), and then adoption of the policy
proposal.
> 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.
Understood. The current fee schedule would be far worse in
this respect, hence the one of the reasons for the change.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:04:08 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[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 28, 2013, at 1:08 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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).
Owen - It's not 300 ISPs; it really has to be all ISPs with the same holdings
and with /32 as the lower bound, then that will be the _majority of all ISPs_.
Even with some aggressive efficiencies baked into ARIN's operating costs, the
fees would be $1500 or more per year as a result. This is truly a question of
trying to achieve the lowest fees for these smaller providers, and being able
to have some amount of stratification allows their fees to be lower than the
average otherwise.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:45:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[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=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
> But they are already paying $1,250/year now for their IPv4. Under the
> proposed structure, they could get a /36 and pay $250 less than they are
> paying now.
>
> I am perplexed by your argument.
Which of these statements do I have wrong or is unclear:
1. Under the new fee policy, an IPv4-only /22 holder will pay $500/year
2. Under the new fee policy, and under the current allocation policy, an
IPv4 /22 holder will pay $1000/year starting at the time that they receive
IPv6 space because the minimum IPv6 allocation size puts them into
x-small.
3. $1000/year is double $500/year
4. Some service providers will either not request IPv6 space or will
return IPv6 space to set their costs at $500/year.
5. As a community, it is bad to have incentives in place that encourage
service providers to avoid requesting or return IPv6 address space
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:51:45 -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 Thu, 28 Mar 2013, John Curran wrote:
> I believe that the "/48 or smaller" line on the pending fee
> schedule is incorrect and in the process of being fixed.
Now that makes all the difference in the world if that were to happen.
> The correct number in the series should read "/40 or less"
> Once corrected, your ISP colleagues who are in the xx-small
> category (with a /22 of IPv4 or less) can would be able to
> obtain a corresponding /40 of IPv6 (if the policy proposal
> being discussed were adopted) and there would be no charge.
I very much agree and would be very happy to see that happen. If it does,
I would support a change to the policy proposal to move the minimum
allocation to /40.
--
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 08:44:19 -0400
From: Rob Seastrom <[email protected]>
To: Brandon Ross <[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=us-ascii
Brandon Ross <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, John Curran wrote:
>
>> I believe that the "/48 or smaller" line on the pending fee
>> schedule is incorrect and in the process of being fixed.
>
> Now that makes all the difference in the world if that were to happen.
>
>> The correct number in the series should read "/40 or less"
>> Once corrected, your ISP colleagues who are in the xx-small
>> category (with a /22 of IPv4 or less) can would be able to
>> obtain a corresponding /40 of IPv6 (if the policy proposal
>> being discussed were adopted) and there would be no charge.
>
> I very much agree and would be very happy to see that happen. If it
> does, I would support a change to the policy proposal to move the
> minimum allocation to /40.
+1 - I applaud the changes to make number resources less expensive at
the small ISP end, but will be even happier when the upcoming
"discount for not implementing IPv6" situation is fixed.
-r
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:17:24 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Brandon Ross <[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"
On Mar 28, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Brandon Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Which of these statements do I have wrong or is unclear:
>
> 1. Under the new fee policy, an IPv4-only /22 holder will pay $500/year
Correct.
> 2. Under the new fee policy, and under the current allocation policy, an IPv4
> /22 holder will pay $1000/year starting at the time that they receive IPv6
> space because the minimum IPv6 allocation size puts them into x-small.
Also correct. If the fee schedule xx-small category were to be fixed for
IPv6 to read ("/40 or smaller"), and this 2013-3 is adopted then there
would be a more reasonable option for the very smallest ISPs.
> 3. $1000/year is double $500/year
Yes.
> 4. Some service providers will either not request IPv6 space or will return
> IPv6 space to set their costs at $500/year.
Correct.
> 5. As a community, it is bad to have incentives in place that encourage
> service providers to avoid requesting or return IPv6 address space
Agreed, and hence a very good reason for fixing the Pending Fee
schedule which does not have a sensical xx-small IPv6 line at
present. That was my fault, and the correction is in progress.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 19
*****************************************
