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
(David Farmer)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(George Herbert)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Rob Seastrom)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(George Herbert)
5. Weekly posting summary for [email protected] (Thomas Narten)
6. Re: fee structure (William Herrin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:10:48 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[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 18:04 , William Herrin wrote:
> 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.
I'd change that a little and add another subsection;
6.5.2.1(g): An LIR that requested a /36 or /40 initial allocation is
entitled to increase said allocation's size to /36 or /32. This change
is not a subsequent allocation as described in 6.5.3. Additionally, a
minimum of a /32 will be reserved for all such LIRs to facilitate this
expansion.
6.5.2.1(h): An LIR that received a /32 initial allocation before the
availability of the /36 and /40 initial allocation sizes is entitled to
a one-time decrease of their allocation size to /36 or /40. Such an LIR
will retain the first (lowest numbered) subnet or the last (highest
numbered) subnet of their original block.
Anyone have other text suggestions?
> 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.
Yes, I believe that xx-small would be changed for both ISP and end users
to "/40 or smaller", this means the vast majority of end users will
receive their IPv6 assignment for $500, and only the largest end users
would pay more than $500.
> 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.
This is defiantly an issue and I support changes to fix it, but it is
not related to the IPv6 assignment or allocation policies and is not a
subject for the PDP.
Thanks
--
================================================
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: 2
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:41:04 -0700
From: George Herbert <[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:
<cak__kzsnqjkwsizz3vmowy2ma3ay-80tzectat7ydec7y9o...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Brandon Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Reply # 2 on this but...
The CORRECTED TABLE that John put out - apparently ARIN made a goof
somewhere - had a /40 for XX-small.
It's upthread.
With that correction, is there any need for a policy change?
--
-george william herbert
[email protected]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130328/fb854018/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:46:18 -0400
From: Rob Seastrom <[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=iso-8859-1
George Herbert <[email protected]> writes:
> The CORRECTED TABLE that John put out - apparently ARIN made a goof somewhere
> - had a /40 for XX-small.
>
> It's upthread.
>
> With that correction, is there any need for a policy change? ?
Yes.
The table is a FEE SCHEDULE, which is the province of the Board of
Trustees, not the Policy Process.
There is still no way to ALLOCATE a /40 unless there is a POLICY
CHANGE, to update the NRPM.
Therefore, there is still a need for a policy change to make billing
an XX-Small ISP with IPv6 possible.
I hope this serves to clarify the situation.
-r
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:20:48 -0700
From: George Herbert <[email protected]>
To: Rob Seastrom <[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:
<cak__kzty4vfyenjbnemko_oaxnwecqygttkkp9xygqwnuef...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Rob Seastrom <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> George Herbert <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > The CORRECTED TABLE that John put out - apparently ARIN made a goof
> somewhere
> > - had a /40 for XX-small.
> >
> > It's upthread.
> >
> > With that correction, is there any need for a policy change?
>
> Yes.
>
> The table is a FEE SCHEDULE, which is the province of the Board of
> Trustees, not the Policy Process.
>
> There is still no way to ALLOCATE a /40 unless there is a POLICY
> CHANGE, to update the NRPM.
>
> Therefore, there is still a need for a policy change to make billing
> an XX-Small ISP with IPv6 possible.
>
> I hope this serves to clarify the situation.
Yes, thank you. Enabling policy to allow that sized allocation is
obviously a proper policy change then.
--
-george william herbert
[email protected]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130328/e3721986/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 00:53:03 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Total of 76 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Mar 29 00:53:03 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
14.47% | 11 | 14.04% | 86452 | [email protected]
11.84% | 9 | 9.58% | 58980 | [email protected]
10.53% | 8 | 10.77% | 66328 | [email protected]
9.21% | 7 | 8.37% | 51559 | [email protected]
6.58% | 5 | 7.37% | 45383 | [email protected]
6.58% | 5 | 7.07% | 43554 | [email protected]
6.58% | 5 | 5.78% | 35570 | [email protected]
1.32% | 1 | 8.08% | 49765 | [email protected]
3.95% | 3 | 3.16% | 19444 | [email protected]
3.95% | 3 | 3.12% | 19201 | [email protected]
2.63% | 2 | 2.29% | 14099 | [email protected]
2.63% | 2 | 2.22% | 13663 | [email protected]
2.63% | 2 | 2.12% | 13046 | [email protected]
2.63% | 2 | 2.07% | 12766 | [email protected]
2.63% | 2 | 1.90% | 11705 | [email protected]
1.32% | 1 | 2.74% | 16881 | [email protected]
1.32% | 1 | 1.51% | 9277 | [email protected]
1.32% | 1 | 1.42% | 8758 | [email protected]
1.32% | 1 | 1.29% | 7935 | [email protected]
1.32% | 1 | 1.28% | 7885 | [email protected]
1.32% | 1 | 1.06% | 6546 | [email protected]
1.32% | 1 | 1.04% | 6379 | [email protected]
1.32% | 1 | 0.96% | 5923 | [email protected]
1.32% | 1 | 0.77% | 4761 | [email protected]
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% | 76 |100.00% | 615860 | Total
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:09:42 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Jimmy Hess <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<cap-gugwgcugowok3kfeytcamwvuzzlhs-t2jcnahqol0j6c...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Hi Jimmy,
For the past decade and a half, the claim has been that ISPs are more
expensive for ARIN to interact with because they SWIP and have other
frequent interactions with ARIN while end users mostly appear once and
except to pay their bills are never heard from again.
> 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.
That would indeed restore the status quo. Here's a more radical idea:
why not scrap the end-user $500 poll tax and let *every* holder or
ARIN resources under RSA or LRSA vote?
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 24
*****************************************
