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
(George Herbert)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Steven Ryerse)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(David Farmer)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(George Herbert)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(William Herrin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:54:49 -0700
From: George Herbert <[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:
<cak__kztdme5guajkin_o-ma_1iameq7g6mqry1eefatq+s_...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
+1
I think that the remaining question is whether there's any need for
the policy proposal with the fixed table.
Is there an approval required for the fixed table?
--
-george william herbert
[email protected]
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:38:51 +0000
From: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>, 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:
<5b9e90747fa2974d91a54fcfa1b8ad12012f5a3...@eni-mail.eclipse-networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Amen! I applaud Bill's comments. I think that anyone who get an ipv4 address
should get an IPv6 address if they want it - probably at the same or a nominal
cost. ARIN's mission is to find ways to get IP addresses out there and not to
find ways to stop getting them out there. I believe this is the mission for
both IPv4 & IPv6 - not just IPv6. I think many are so worried about IPv4
depletion that they lose sight of ARIN's primary mission to ASSIGN addresses.
How about a pricing strategy that gives us a discount on IPv4 numbers if we
actually deploy (and you can verify) the IPv6 we receive as well. How about
making available IPv6 addresses for free if we already have a contract with
ARIN for IPv4 addresses and we actually deploy the IPv6 addresses. My
Grandmother taught me that you can get a lot farther with honey than with
vinegar.
Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
??????? Conquering Complex Networks?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of William Herrin
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:34 PM
To: John Curran
Cc: [email protected] PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for
ISPs
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 _______________________________________________
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: 3
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:48:33 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: George Herbert <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN 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=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 3/28/13 13:54 , George Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> +1
>
> I think that the remaining question is whether there's any need for
> the policy proposal with the fixed table.
Yes, we still need to change policy to allow a /40 optional smaller
allocation, the current policy only allows for /36 optional smaller
allocation. Unless I here opposition, as shepherd I will modify this
draft policy to allow /40 instead of /48 as the current text has, and
some other minimal changes.
One question I have, do we want to allow an ISP that choose a /40 or /36
optional smaller allocation to increase from /40 to /36 and/or /36 to
/32 at their discretion, without going through the subsequent
allocations process.
Basically, this says all ISPs automatically justify a /32, therefore
growing from one of the optional smaller allocations doesn't require any
justification. These optional smaller allocations only exist to enable
scalability in the fee structure on the lower end.
--
================================================
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: 4
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:28:47 -0700
From: George Herbert <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<cak__kztk3dhpfsbc3y6x-c3wpujvaxrdx91muu8skpdfxci...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/28/13 13:54 , George Herbert wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I think that the remaining question is whether there's any need for
>> the policy proposal with the fixed table.
>
>
> Yes, we still need to change policy to allow a /40 optional smaller
> allocation, the current policy only allows for /36 optional smaller
> allocation. Unless I here opposition, as shepherd I will modify this
draft
> policy to allow /40 instead of /48 as the current text has, and some other
> minimal changes.
>
> One question I have, do we want to allow an ISP that choose a /40 or /36
> optional smaller allocation to increase from /40 to /36 and/or /36 to /32
at
> their discretion, without going through the subsequent allocations
process.
>
> Basically, this says all ISPs automatically justify a /32, therefore
growing
> from one of the optional smaller allocations doesn't require any
> justification. These optional smaller allocations only exist to enable
> scalability in the fee structure on the lower end.
How is that different than the corrected table John sent out a little while
ago?
I read that as /40 for xx-small and /36 for x-small.
Quoting John's earlier message:
> 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
--
-george william herbert
[email protected]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130328/6574f5d6/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:04:37 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<cap-gugxmjwqk4pq0odhidkcshodunhcjold-_vrgf6mkei1...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, we still need to change policy to allow a /40 optional smaller
> allocation, the current policy only allows for /36 optional smaller
> allocation. Unless I here opposition, as shepherd I will modify this draft
> policy to allow /40 instead of /48 as the current text has, and some other
> minimal changes.
>
> One question I have, do we want to allow an ISP that choose a /40 or /36
> optional smaller allocation to increase from /40 to /36 and/or /36 to /32 at
> their discretion, without going through the subsequent allocations process.
>
> Basically, this says all ISPs automatically justify a /32, therefore growing
> from one of the optional smaller allocations doesn't require any
> justification. These optional smaller allocations only exist to enable
> scalability in the fee structure on the lower end.
So, what you're suggesting is:
"6.5.2.1(b): In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32
allocation unless they specifically request a /36 or /40. In no case
shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation.
6.5.2.1(g): A LIR which received a /36 or /40 initial allocation is
entitled to increase said allocation's size to /36 or /32. The change
is not a subsequent allocation as described in 6.5.3."
Interesting.
Two points:
1. If we're willing to give an ISP a /40 for $500, fairness dictates
that we be willing to give an end user a /40 for $500 as well.
2. If we're willing to give an ISP voting membership in ARIN for a
total fee package of $500/year, fairness dictates that we do the same
for end users... not the $800 that an end user holding one IPv4 block,
one IPv6 block and one AS number would be called on to pay.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 22
*****************************************
