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
(John Curran)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(David Farmer)
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
(Owen DeLong)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Owen DeLong)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(David Farmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:34:21 +0000
From: John Curran <[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"
On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:10 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, probably. I added the last sentence to make it abundantly clear, that is
> the intended effect of the first sentence. If John and staff interpret the
> first sentence as requiring ARIN to reserve a /32 for anyone with a x-small
> or xx-small IPv6 allocation, then I would be happy to remove the last
> sentence. But, if there is anyway to interpret the first sentence as not
> requiring the a hard reservation of a /32 then I think I'd prefer to leave
> the sentence in.
Unless otherwise directed by policy, IPv6 /36 allocations shall be from a
reserved /32 and /40 would be from a reserved /36 (just as /32's come from /28
reserved blocks)
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:03:15 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: John Curran <[email protected]>, 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 3/29/13 14:34 , John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:10 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, probably. I added the last sentence to make it abundantly clear, that
>> is the intended effect of the first sentence. If John and staff interpret
>> the first sentence as requiring ARIN to reserve a /32 for anyone with a
>> x-small or xx-small IPv6 allocation, then I would be happy to remove the
>> last sentence. But, if there is anyway to interpret the first sentence as
>> not requiring the a hard reservation of a /32 then I think I'd prefer to
>> leave the sentence in.
>
> Unless otherwise directed by policy, IPv6 /36 allocations shall be from a
> reserved /32 and /40 would be from a reserved /36 (just as /32's come from
> /28 reserved blocks)
Bill,
That tells me if our policy intent is to have both /36 and /40
allocations for LIRs to be made from a /32 reserved block then we need
to explicitly state that in the policy and the last sentence is necessary.
Any objection to it staying in the policy statement?
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: 3
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:12:42 +0000
From: John Curran <[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"
On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:03 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/29/13 14:34 , John Curran wrote:
>>
>> Unless otherwise directed by policy, IPv6 /36 allocations shall be from a
>> reserved /32 and /40 would be from a reserved /36 (just as /32's come from
>> /28 reserved blocks)
>
> Bill,
>
> That tells me if our policy intent is to have both /36 and /40 allocations
> for LIRs to be made from a /32 reserved block then we need to explicitly
> state that in the policy and the last sentence is necessary.
>
> Any objection to it staying in the policy statement?
David -
Can you explain why it is desirable
to allocate /40's from a reserved /32?
Should /36's be from a /28 as well?
(Or should all of them be from reserved /28's?)
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:30:31 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[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=windows-1252
On Mar 28, 2013, at 02:04 , John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
No, it's ISPs that have a /22 or less of IPv4 space. Any ISP that has more than
that is already subject to higher fees based solely on their IPv4 holdings.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that is currently approximately 300 ISPs.
I agree that this may be a different situation later, when IPv4 is being
deprecated,
but I doubt seriously that there will not be another ARIN pricing change between
now and that time.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:33:31 -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 28, 2013, at 04:45 , Brandon Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
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.
>
Correct.
> 3. $1000/year is double $500/year
>
Correct.
> 4. Some service providers will either not request IPv6 space or will return
> IPv6 space to set their costs at $500/year.
>
Perhaps...
However, since those providers are currently paying $1,250, your argument that
their revenues are insufficient to support a payment of $1,000 per year in the
previous message to which I responded is the part that perplexes me. If they
can afford $1,250 today, how can they not afford $1,000 tomorrow?
> 5. As a community, it is bad to have incentives in place that encourage
> service providers to avoid requesting or return IPv6 address space
To some extent, yes. However, it is even worse to have incentives that
encourage providers to save a few dollars by creating an address poverty
situation for their end users.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:50:35 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[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 3/29/13 15:12 , John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:03 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/13 14:34 , John Curran wrote:
>>>
>>> Unless otherwise directed by policy, IPv6 /36 allocations shall be from a
>>> reserved /32 and /40 would be from a reserved /36 (just as /32's come from
>>> /28 reserved blocks)
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> That tells me if our policy intent is to have both /36 and /40 allocations
>> for LIRs to be made from a /32 reserved block then we need to explicitly
>> state that in the policy and the last sentence is necessary.
>>
>> Any objection to it staying in the policy statement?
>
> David -
>
> Can you explain why it is desirable
> to allocate /40's from a reserved /32?
>
> Should /36's be from a /28 as well?
> (Or should all of them be from reserved /28's?)
In my opinion from a policy perspective, all ISPs or other LIRs are
entitled to and should get a /32 allocation. However, there are a
number of entities where if we require them to take the whole /32
allocation a finical hardship could be created. Either on ARIN's part
by requiring fees for a /32 to be too low, or by creating a barrier to
entry for these very small entities with fees that are too high.
So, I'm not necessarily thinking of it as making /36 or /40 allocations,
but as these organizations agreeing to only use a /36 or /40 portion of
their /32 allocation in exchange for a reduction or discount in their
fees. This is why, I don't want them to have to justify expanding from
/40 to /36 or /36 to /32, they are fully justified at /32 already. This
is a financial consideration and they should be able to change between
/32, /36, and /40 based only on internal business needs.
Therefore, I feel it is a policy requirement that there is at least a
/32 reserved for them in all cases. I wouldn't be opposed to all ISP's
having a /28 reserved regardless if they are using /32, /36, or /40.
But, I believe /32 is a policy requirement and going to /28 is probably
moving into an operational procedure realm.
I am rationalizing, ISPs getting smaller than a /32, by ensuring they
will have a /32 when/if they need it, without having to change blocks.
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
================================================
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 29
*****************************************
