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
(Brian Jones)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Curran)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(William Herrin)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Curran)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:03:56 -0400
From: Brian Jones <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<canyqo+fwbdwuw-xrrvv1mgpxjfcgtjroxxqmwxnrreernvw...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
To echo what Jimmy Hess said;
"Therefore, it is a very bad idea for ARIN to be attempting to create
artificial IP address scarcity by billing more for "enough" IPv6.
It actually creates pressure to forego IPv6 technical standards, and
attempt to deploy the protocol in a manner that may be less
successful in the long run.
"
Maybe not so much from the billing perspective, but from the deployment
perspective. Allocations of IPv6 addresses should be consistent with
and a proponent
of a deployment methodology that allows for easy expansion of networks
without additional allocations and associated costs. Allocating blocks that
encourage /56 allocations from their block may not be the optimal solution
for many in the long run.
--
Brian
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]> wrote:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130328/4ad9ba85/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:01:40 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[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="iso-8859-1"
On Mar 28, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Brian Jones <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Maybe not so much from the billing perspective, but from the deployment
perspective. Allocations of IPv6 addresses should be consistent with and a
proponent of a deployment methodology that allows for easy expansion of
networks without additional allocations and associated costs.
Brian -
Under the present fee schedule, the smallest ISPs pay $1250 per
year if they have IPv4 and $1687 per year if they have IPv6 (the
fee is set to the maximum of your IPv4 fee and IPv6 annual fee.
It is correct that the IPv6 allocation for these ISPs has been a /32.
Under the revised fee schedule (as corrected), and with this policy
change, the smallest ISPs will be in XX-Small (if they only have
/22 IPv4 and /40 of IPv6) with $500 annual fee or X-Small (if they
have larger than /22 IPv4 and up to /36 of IPv6) with $1000/year fee.
On the actual Pending Fee Table (corrected), it looks like this:
Service Category Initial Registration or Annual Fee
(US Dollars) IPv4 Block Size IPv6 Block Size
XX-Small $500 /22 or smaller /40 or smaller
X-Small $1,000 Larger than /22, up to and including /20 Larger than
/40, up to and including /36
If this policy change is _not_ adopted, then the ISP will only have the option
of receiving down to a /36, and IPv6 ISPs will always be in X-small category
with a $1000 annual fee or greater (i.e. any xx-small ISPs will automatically
become x-small upon receive an IPv6 /36 minimum allocation per present policy)
If we don't want to have a disincentive for deployment of IPv6, we need to
have an minimum allocation for xx-small ISPs which does not move them
to x-small. As I noted to Owen, if we actually make /32 the minimum ISP
IPv6 allocation and not provide for differentiated pricing for smaller ISPs,
then we will end up having including the majority of ISPs in the category
and the fees will need be $1500 or more, even if we plan in significant cost
savings.
Allocating blocks that encourage /56 allocations from their block may not be
the optimal solution for many in the long run.
Any ISP that feels that way may obtain a /36, still be paying less than
today at $1000/year, and have significant room for /48 assignments.
Traditionally, this has been the type of decisions that each ISP makes
for themselves based on their market conditions and their perceived
customer needs, so providing the flexibility in policy for smaller IPv6
allocation makes sense unless the community feels it needs to decide
for those smaller ISPs on their behalf by not providing the policy option.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130328/da83a8f9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:34:05 -0400
From: William Herrin <[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:
<cap-gugvgqwvmo6u4v8hgtfycs13dsf9vle9mniraorbeuch...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:26 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> We certainly can have a fee table which ends at the bottom with a /32
> of IPv6 space, but given the number of ISPs in that size allocation then
> we would also likely have to carry with it very similar fees as today.
Hi John,
I'm not convinced that an ISP paying ARIN less than $200/month
represents a any kind of hardship. If there's an ISP out there for
which the difference between $2000/year and $500/year is big deal, I
want to know more about his service delivery infrastructure, because
he must have driven his costs down to something I'd desperately like
to emulate.
That or the supposed ISP consists of a guy in his garage doing wifi
with his neighbors.
On the other hand, I'm very much convinced that ARIN's fees should
encourage (or at least fail to discourage) immediate deployment of
IPv6 as designated by the presumptively technically sound number
policies. Whatever a registrant is paying for his IPv4, his fees
should not increase by a single nickle to gain what the number policy
suggests is a technically appropriate IPv6 registration.
I propose full cross-subsidy for IPv6 registration until IPv6 is ready
to stand on its own. If ever there was a reasonable time and place
for cross-subsidy, this is it. If it's important to you that IPv6 be
promptly and universally deployed (and who among you cares to stand up
and say that it's not) then damn it all, stop trying to bootstrap it
on its own revenues. Bootstrap = slow!
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:31:23 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[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 1:34 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that an ISP paying ARIN less than $200/month
> represents a any kind of hardship. If there's an ISP out there for
> which the difference between $2000/year and $500/year is big deal, I
> want to know more about his service delivery infrastructure, because
> he must have driven his costs down to something I'd desperately like
> to emulate.
We've actually heard exactly that concern from some folks on
this list; there are ISPs which are community-based or non-
profit efforts for whom ARIN fees represent a significant
hit to their non-volunteered capital.
> On the other hand, I'm very much convinced that ARIN's fees should
> encourage (or at least fail to discourage) immediate deployment of
> IPv6 as designated by the presumptively technically sound number
> policies. Whatever a registrant is paying for his IPv4, his fees
> should not increase by a single nickle to gain what the number policy
> suggests is a technically appropriate IPv6 registration.
Bill - that is precisely the benefit of the revised fee schedule;
every size ISP category now includes both IPv4 and IPv6, so every
ISP can add an IPv6 allocation and see _no_ change in fees at all.
(This does mean that we can get ISPs for whom there is a "mismatch"
between their IPv4 and IPv6 allocations, and they end up in a higher
category, but to be truly fair we'd need to have distinct proportional
fee for each of IPv4 and IPv6, and that's exactly what you don't want:
any addition of IPv6 means an additional fee.)
> I propose full cross-subsidy for IPv6 registration until IPv6 is ready
> to stand on its own.
Indeed, there is a full cross-subsidy in place for IPv6 under the new
fee schedule, and each IPv4 ISP can obtain an IPv6 allocation for their
size category without any change in fees. There is no distinct IPv4 or
IPv6 fee anymore; there is simply a ISP size category which includes
both in all cases.
Thanks,
/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 21
*****************************************
