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
(Brandon Ross)
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 (Seth Mattinen)
5. Re: fee structure (Milton L Mueller)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Milton L Mueller)
7. Re: fee structure (John Curran)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:05:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[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: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1303301901540.546@brugal>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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?
Then that's why you are perplexed. I never said that their revenues were
insufficient to support a payment of $1000 per year. All I ever said is
that the $500/year difference in fees was a significant cost to their
business and that it would influence their decisions about IPv6
deployment.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:09:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[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: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1303301907150.546@brugal>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, William Herrin wrote:
> I think an ISP holding multiple IPv6 blocks should have to return full
> blocks before it can return a partial of it's sole remaining block.
> NRPM 6.3.8, "aggregation is considered to be the most important."
I disagree. As long as the return isn't creating MORE deaggregation it
should be good enough. I believe the policy proposal as written already
takes care of that.
> I think the ISP's remaining partial block after a return should fall
> on a nibble boundary. No dropping from /32 to /33, it's /32 to /36 or
> /40 or /44, etc.
But why would anyone do that? The fee schedule is on nibble boundaries
already.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:06:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[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: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1303301905390.546@brugal>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, David Farmer wrote:
> After thinking about it for a while, if we even need any policy at all, we
> should just have a general policy describing how IPv6 block can be reduced by
> returning only part of a block, it should probably be very generic and apply
> to allocations and end user assignments. It might even be better if it we a
> separate proposal all together.
Agreed, which is why the language in this proposal allows for that, and
that was done on purpose.
I don't want to see that separated to a separate policy proposal because
it is critical to making this one function as intended.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 16:53:40 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
It seems you are still confused about how this all works because ARIN
did not create the policies that didn't cater to your IPv4 request. The
rules were created by the community.
~Seth
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:25:09 +0000
From: Milton L Mueller <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>, William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> -----Original Message-----
> > 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?
[Milton L Mueller] An intriguing idea
> We want to make sure that we have an electorate which is actually
> interested in participating in governance of the registry and many end-
> users are not (at least, once they get their address block.) To this
> end, we'll likely always have a nominal fee for membership for end-user,
> but I believe it should be reviewed to see if $500 is the right amount.
[Milton L Mueller] So the end user membership fee is intended to be a payment
of "earnest money" to prove that they are really interested? Is the fear that
without this speed bump end user members will become "rotten boroughs" whose
votes are manipulated by others (who?). Is there a concern that some little
organization with a /24 has the same voting power as an ISP with 2 /8s? Should
voting power reflect "share" holding the way it does in stock ownership? Just
some random thoughts...
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:36:01 +0000
From: Milton L Mueller <[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"
I love it when ARIN folk get defiant. ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
>
> 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.
>
> ================================================
> David Farmer Email: [email protected]
> Office of Information Technology
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 03:18:14 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Milton L Mueller <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Mar 30, 2013, at 10:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [Milton L Mueller] So the end user membership fee is intended to be a payment
> of "earnest money" to prove that they are really interested?
No, it is to provide equitable engagement for all those participating
in the ARIN corporate governance matters.
> Is the fear that without this speed bump end user members will become "rotten
> boroughs" whose votes are manipulated by others (who?).
No, it is not a "speed bump" but simply a choice available to end-users;
having an equal voice includes taking on some equal responsibility.
> Is there a concern that some little organization with a /24 has the same
> voting power as an ISP with 2 /8s? Should voting power reflect "share"
> holding the way it does in stock ownership? Just some random thoughts...
Random thoughts indeed; I almost didn't know if they even warranted
reply, but have done so for clarity.
The idea was to keep the end-user fees at low and simple as possible
(for end-users that simply want maintenance of ARIN registry services.)
The result is that end-user fees add up to a fraction of the registry
costs compared to the ISPs (approximately $970K/year compared to $11.3M
per year, for approximately the same number of organizations)[1], whereas
including the recovery of ARIN's non-registry costs would have raised
all end-user fees significantly and regardless of whether they wished
to be a member or not.
Membership provides an equal vote to every member, yet ISPs pay on
average $2500/year to ARIN. Asking end-users to pay that same amount
in order to be a member with equal vote would likely be considered
unreasonable by many, but a contribution similar to the the _smallest_
ISPs provides for comparable standing for all those who participate
with the same say in ARIN corporate governance matters.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
[1] ARIN Dallas Revised Fee Presentation with referenced numbers, page 14
<https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/curran_fee_schedule.pdf>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 33
*****************************************
