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
(David Farmer)
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
(Brian Jones)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Seth Mattinen)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Seth Mattinen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[email protected]>
To: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]>
Cc: [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 Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> I see no reason to have a policy motivated strictly by fees to remain after
> fee changes that may or may not negate it, and to determine that it should go
> back through the PDP. Otherwise we're just cluttering the NRPM with
> irrelevant policy.
But the problem is that you don't know how the fee schedule might change
in the future, and it would be nearly impossible to capture every possible
permutation and create a rational outcome.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:47:49 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]>
Cc: [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 4/5/13 11:37 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 4/5/13 9:31 AM, David Farmer wrote:
>> On 4/5/13 11:24 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> On 4/4/13 3:53 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If the lower ones go a way then, as was said no one in their right mind
>>>> would choose /36 or /40. I can't imagine anything smaller, I just
>>>> don't
>>>> see room for more changes one the smaller side. At least without
>>>> changing the IPv6 architecture and the /64 subnet standard, and that
>>>> would be a big enough change that a whole bunch of assumptions need to
>>>> change not just this one.
>>>
>>> I would want to see verbiage in the policy that would immediately
>>> revoke/revert it if any fee schedule changes are made. If we're going to
>>> start making policy based on the fees then we should have to rerun them
>>> through the them the PDP anytime the fees they are based on change.
>>
>> I'm not going to include that right now but I will raise that question
>> at the Barbados meeting.
>
> I see no reason to have a policy motivated strictly by fees to remain
> after fee changes that may or may not negate it, and to determine that
> it should go back through the PDP. Otherwise we're just cluttering the
> NRPM with irrelevant policy.
This would essentially be a sunset-clause, we had issues the last time
we tried on of those. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't do it but
that I want more input before I add one into this policy.
Note: we can't adopt this after Barbados it has to come back to the
policy consultation at NANOG in June as a Recommended Draft Policy
before it can be adopted.
--
================================================
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, 05 Apr 2013 12:12:19 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Cc: [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; format=flowed
On 4/5/13 11:07 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>> a. The end result is not an increase in the number of aggregatable blocks
>> held by the organization.
>>
>
> This is problematic. This would allow an increase in the number of
> non-aggregatable blocks. While I'm not 100% sure that it is possible to
> create such a situation, I would rather see us express the direct intent. How
> about:
>
> a. The resulting number of aggregate retained blocks must not increase.
Ok, I'll go with that.
>> The fundamental argument against this draft policy is that the primary
>> problem being solved is a billing or fee structure issue and not a number
>> resource policy issue in itself. A significant minority of the community
>> would prefer /32 be the sole minimum allocation size for ISPs and other
>> LIRs, and they feel there is no need for smaller /36 or /40 allocations.
>> They would prefer to solve the problem with changes in the fee structure
>> rather than contorting number resource policy to solve the problem.
>> However, there are to many ISPs that fit into the /32 allocation category
>> for the fee level associated with the XX-Small category to be fiscally
>> responsible and sustainable for ARIN. Furthermore, there are no obvious
>> solutions to this problem within the fee structure domain that are fiscally
>> responsible and sustainable for ARIN, especially in the long-term.
>
> I would not call this "A significant minority". Rather, I would say that a
> significant minority are adamant to the extent they oppose this policy. I
> believe the vast majority of the community would prefer to see /32 be the
> sole minimum, but that most are willing to accept the tradeoffs incorporated
> into this policy. I believe that if we had an effective way to solve the
> problem through fee structure changes that was acceptable to the vast
> majority, it would be the preferred solution. I encourage anyone who has
> ideas of such a solution to please make them known to the community either
> here or on arin-discuss. While fees are outside of the policy process, at
> the point we start contorting policy to address problems with the fee
> structure, I certainly think it is appropriate to discuss the problems with
> the fee structure directly in that context.
Ok how about this then;
The fundamental argument against this draft policy is that the primary
problem being solved is a billing or fee structure issue and not a
number resource policy issue in itself. A significant minority are
adamant on this issue to the extent they oppose this policy. The
majority of the community recognizes this issue, and would prefer /32 be
the sole minimum allocation size for ISPs and other LIRs. However, the
majority are willing to accept the tradeoffs incorporated into this
policy. As there are too many ISPs that fit into the /32 allocation
category for the fee level associated with the XX-Small category to be
fiscally responsible and sustainable for ARIN. Furthermore, there are no
obvious solutions to this problem within the fee structure domain that
are fiscally responsible and sustainable for ARIN, especially in the
long-term.
>> Everyone agrees making /36 or /40 allocations to ISPs seems less than ideal
>> from a number resource policy perspective. However, this is mitigated by
>> ensuring that all ISPs have a /32 available to them without renumbering or
>> additional justification and from a number resource policy perspective the
>> selection of /36 or /40 allocations is completely voluntary. This allows
>> each ISPs to make the decision to select from a /32, /36 or /40 initial
>> allocation based solely on their own internal business justifications, and
>> eliminating structural disincentives in the fee schedule for IPv6 adoption.
>> This seems like the best balance available at this time of number resource
>> policy, fiscal responsibility and sustainability for both ARIN and the ISPs
>> that it servers.
>
> I would rather see the reservation set to a minimum of /28, personally, but
> /32 is better than smaller.
In the comments section there is a suggestion that /28 reservations
should be made, that is an operational issue. The policy issue is that
they can get up to /32 for sure without renumbering. So from my
perspective, a /32 reservation is a policy imperative, /28 is a
recommendation for operational practice.
> Is there anyone in the community that objects to a minimum /28 reservation
> (which is the current situation for recipients of /32s)?
I haven't heard anyone object.
> Owen
>
>
--
================================================
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: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:21:58 -0400
From: Brian Jones <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<canyqo+gku32jsv+z+qnwzujz+whsfqekp-s8norvnz5rd_+...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
This seems like a reasonable and sensible approach from my perspective. It
maintains the current practice and therefore creates less opportunity for
confusion or error.
--
Brian
E Jones
Director
Converged Network Operations
NI&S Virginia Tech
[email protected]
> Is there anyone in the community that objects to a minimum /28
>> reservation (which is the current situation for recipients of /32s)?
>>
>
> I haven't heard anyone object.
>
> Owen
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ==============================**==================
> 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
> ==============================**==================
> ______________________________**_________________
> 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<http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130405/577d306d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:26:43 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]>
To: [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 4/5/13 9:46 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>> I see no reason to have a policy motivated strictly by fees to remain
>> after fee changes that may or may not negate it, and to determine that
>> it should go back through the PDP. Otherwise we're just cluttering the
>> NRPM with irrelevant policy.
>
> But the problem is that you don't know how the fee schedule might change
> in the future, and it would be nearly impossible to capture every
> possible permutation and create a rational outcome.
>
That's why I oppose fee-motivated policy in the first place.
~Seth
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:29:37 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]>
To: [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 4/5/13 9:47 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 4/5/13 11:37 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>> I see no reason to have a policy motivated strictly by fees to remain
>> after fee changes that may or may not negate it, and to determine that
>> it should go back through the PDP. Otherwise we're just cluttering the
>> NRPM with irrelevant policy.
>
> This would essentially be a sunset-clause, we had issues the last time
> we tried on of those. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't do it but
> that I want more input before I add one into this policy.
>
> Note: we can't adopt this after Barbados it has to come back to the
> policy consultation at NANOG in June as a Recommended Draft Policy
> before it can be adopted.
>
I'm thinking more drastic, as in "fee schedule changed, instantly
struck". The policy proposal is dependent on fees, nothing more. So let
it be dependent on the possibly of those fees changing and force it to
go back through the PDP as soon as that happens.
~Seth
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 11
*****************************************
