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
(Michael Richardson)
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
(Brandon Ross)
4. Re: fee structure (Andrew Dul)
5. Re: fee structure (Joe Maimon)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Gary Buhrmaster)
7. Re: fee structure (Randy Carpenter)
8. Re: fee structure (Jimmy Hess)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:23:54 -0400
From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>>>>> "John" == John Curran <[email protected]> writes:
>> 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.
John> Bill - that is precisely the benefit of the revised fee schedule;
John> every size ISP category now includes both IPv4 and IPv6, so every
John> ISP can add an IPv6 allocation and see _no_ change in fees at
John> all.
Yes, assuming they had IPv4 and paid fees.
What's missing is the many organizations which are not ISPs, and might
not even have/need an AS (because they aren't announcing into the
default free zone), that could benefit from globally unique address
space.
Over in the [email protected] (Intelligent Transportation Systems) list,
which is not yet even a BOF, we talk about how to transform a Vehicle
Information Number (VIN) into a subnet ID. Can automobile manufacturers
afford $2000? Sure. That's the tip of the iceberg though.
>> I propose full cross-subsidy for IPv6 registration until IPv6 is ready
>> to stand on its own.
John> Indeed, there is a full cross-subsidy in place for IPv6 under the new
John> fee schedule, and each IPv4 ISP can obtain an IPv6 allocation for
their
John> size category without any change in fees. There is no distinct IPv4
or
John> IPv6 fee anymore; there is simply a ISP size category which includes
John> both in all cases.
That's not a cross-subsidy.
That's a buy 1, get 2.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:56:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[email protected]>
To: George Herbert <[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 Thu, 28 Mar 2013, George Herbert wrote:
> I think that the remaining question is whether there's any need for
> the policy proposal with the fixed table.
Absolutely there is a need for the policy. The minimum allocation needs
to be lowered to the smallest IPv6 block in the table (/40). Plus an ISP
that has already gotten a /32 needs to be allowed to return enough to fit
into a /40.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:56:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[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: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, David Farmer wrote:
> 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.
Yes.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:59:00 -0700
From: Andrew Dul <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sorry, but I don't believe the following are accurate calculations of
the new fee structure. I'll leave it to ARIN staff to confirm, please
see my calculations below.
Andrew
On 3/27/2013 10:35 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> 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
Taking out the 4 blocks under LRSA which have a specific clause in the
contract which defines how the fees can be increased.
This would be an x-small ISP (up to IPv4 /20 or IPv6 /36) = $1000
> End user
> voting member of ARIN
> 3 IPv4 /22's
> 4 IPv4 /24's under LRSA
> 1 IPv6 /36
> 1 AS number
> $1400/year
End user annual fees are based on the number of records. Here there are
9 records so the annual fee is 9*$100 = $900
>
>
> 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
I agree
> End user
> voting member of ARIN
> 1 IPv4 /24
> 1 IPv6 /48
> 1 AS number
> $800/year
3 records => 3*$100 = $300
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:51:46 -0400
From: Joe Maimon <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
William Herrin wrote:
> Glancing at the new fee structure, I noticed a result that seems a little off:
We discussed this in the public discussion phase, as length.
I do not recall any significance expressed to those discussions
following them.
Not a plus.
Joe
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 00:11:04 +0000
From: Gary Buhrmaster <[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:
<camfxtqxrvay9g64f0in9jh13dz-rzqdy4nvrmv9zttooyxf...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:31 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
....
> 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.
I seem to recall that the ARIN board explicitly choose not to
give 501(c)'s a break on fees (was that an Owen proposal?).
Does anyone know if the board gave 501(c)'s a "one size down"
fee this would solve the 80% issue?
Gary
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:05:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Carpenter <[email protected]>
To: andrew dul <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
You have to add the $500/year extra that it costs for an end-user to be a
member.
thanks,
-Randy
----- Original Message -----
> Sorry, but I don't believe the following are accurate calculations of
> the new fee structure. I'll leave it to ARIN staff to confirm, please
> see my calculations below.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 3/27/2013 10:35 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > 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
>
> Taking out the 4 blocks under LRSA which have a specific clause in the
> contract which defines how the fees can be increased.
>
> This would be an x-small ISP (up to IPv4 /20 or IPv6 /36) = $1000
>
> > End user
> > voting member of ARIN
> > 3 IPv4 /22's
> > 4 IPv4 /24's under LRSA
> > 1 IPv6 /36
> > 1 AS number
> > $1400/year
>
> End user annual fees are based on the number of records. Here there are
> 9 records so the annual fee is 9*$100 = $900
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> I agree
>
> > End user
> > voting member of ARIN
> > 1 IPv4 /24
> > 1 IPv6 /48
> > 1 AS number
> > $800/year
>
> 3 records => 3*$100 = $300
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 8
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:41:36 -0500
From: Jimmy Hess <[email protected]>
To: Randy Carpenter <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<caaawwbv6dmuetpxvzou1hhlhglxsngypf6ugwcsyajo5oxq...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 3/28/13, Randy Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
ISP's allocate IP addresses for use by other networks, therefore they
are part of the registry, they have to enforce criteria spelled out
by ARIN with regards to the
allocations they make. Most end users will get resources allocated
from an LIR/ISP,
so it makes sense for LIR/sISPs to definitely be members.
End users don't allocate number resources for other networks. They
just obtain resources for their own use -- their requirement for
resources based on just their network.
It certainly makes sense, that it could be more expensive on a
per-resource basis to be an End user, and go to ARIN, in some cases,
for a small amount of resources.
So I don't see your examples as a bug, but a feature.
But if concerned about it...
Perhaps the ARIN membership cost to be full member and have voting
rights; instead of being a $500/Year, extra fee for just end users,
should be a fee of whatever amount is required on top of the
resource, transfer, allocation fees during the year (for both end
users and ISPs), to bring the total annual amount to a minimum of
$1400 to initially establish membership, and $1200 a year thereafter
to maintain membership.
If the ISP or end user pays $1200 or more for resource maintenance, or holds
allocations/transfers that will have that, then no extra cost every
year to maintain their membership.
&c; &c;
--
-J
> You have to add the $500/year extra that it costs for an end-user to be a
> member.
>
> thanks,
> -Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Sorry, but I don't believe the following are accurate calculations of
>> the new fee structure. I'll leave it to ARIN staff to confirm, please
>> see my calculations below.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 23
*****************************************
