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
(William Herrin)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Gary Buhrmaster)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Blake Dunlap)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(CJ Aronson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:33:19 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[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 4/5/13 10:58 , Owen DeLong wrote:
> How about "...expand the allocation to any nibble aligned size up to /32
> without renumbering or additional..."
>
> Owen
OK, That was a helpful suggestion. How about this;
g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to
expand the allocation to any nibble aligned size up to /32 at any time
without renumbering or additional justification. ...
> On Apr 5, 2013, at 06:45 , David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/13 08:31 , William Herrin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:23 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to
>>>> expand the allocation to /32 or /36 at any time without renumbering or
>>>> additional justification.
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> This could be misread to mean "/32 or /36 respectively" instead of
>>> "either /32 or /36 as the registrant chooses."
>>
>> That's was bugging me too, but I wasn't sure how to fix it. How about;
>>
>> g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to
>> expand the allocation to either /32 or /36 at any time without renumbering
>> or additional justification. ...
>>
>> Does that cover it without getting to wordy?
>>
>>>> e. All returned block(s) must not be in use by the organization or its
>>>> customers.
>>>
>>> This verbiage is a little clumsy. I'm not sure how to word it better.
>>
>> How about;
>>
>> e. All block(s) returned must not be in use by the organization or its
>> customers.
>>
>> Not a big change but it read a little better.
--
================================================
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: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:27:20 -0400
From: William Herrin <[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:
<CAP-guGU7sG1B3ieBjA9k66hHHixS7TkN8aQPfi7vm2fGqo=l...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:12 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Hi David,
The obvious solutions within the fee structure are:
1. The non-profit discount
2. No-fee IPv6 for IPv4 holders until IPv6 becomes dominant
#2 solves the short-term problem of folks who won't spend money on a
protocol that won't yet make them money while #1 addresses the
community network need. Both meet the fiscal responsibility test: #2
goes away before IPv4's ability to fund ARIN wanes and the
general-purpose appropriateness of discounting services on behalf of
non-profits is long established.
For the for-profit ISPs after IPv6 becomes the dominant protocol...
$2000/year to be in the for-profit Internet business is no hardship.
So, it's not exactly accurate to say that, "there are no obvious
solutions to this problem within the fee
structure domain." That the board resists the obvious solutions
doesn't make them any less obvious.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 18:37:51 +0000
From: Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<CAMfXtQwt7F=mok+yubkcnzkojfksrjz0v7nur6rq9lrr6w_...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:27 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
....
> The obvious solutions within the fee structure are:
>
> 1. The non-profit discount
>
> 2. No-fee IPv6 for IPv4 holders until IPv6 becomes dominant
>
>
> #2 solves the short-term problem of folks who won't spend money on a
> protocol that won't yet make them money while #1 addresses the
> community network need.
NRPM section 6.5.9 already (to some extent) addresses the
community network need, which allows community networks
to request a /48 (/44 with justification).
I have previous pointed to the boards decision to not provide
a non-profit discount schedule, and while I can understand
their reasoning, I also think in reality to get 501(c) qualified
it can easily take $1000/yr (opportunity costs, if not out
of pocket), so it is not really a solution for many to achieve
a substantive savings in ARIN fees. [And 501(c) (or country
equivalent) should be the requirement, not yet another
definition by ARIN of what a non-profit might be.]
Gary
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:20:53 -0500
From: Blake Dunlap <[email protected]>
To: Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<CAJvB4tnJvGqaYDmMi75gj=3qrs5u+vhxvzg8panqyeyxevm...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I also opposed minimums for ISPs below /32 based on an issue of business
model for ARIN. Fix the billing problem, or the board membership problem,
don't try to make this a technical solution to a business problem.
-Blake
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Gary Buhrmaster
<[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:27 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> ....
> > The obvious solutions within the fee structure are:
> >
> > 1. The non-profit discount
> >
> > 2. No-fee IPv6 for IPv4 holders until IPv6 becomes dominant
> >
> >
> > #2 solves the short-term problem of folks who won't spend money on a
> > protocol that won't yet make them money while #1 addresses the
> > community network need.
>
> NRPM section 6.5.9 already (to some extent) addresses the
> community network need, which allows community networks
> to request a /48 (/44 with justification).
>
> I have previous pointed to the boards decision to not provide
> a non-profit discount schedule, and while I can understand
> their reasoning, I also think in reality to get 501(c) qualified
> it can easily take $1000/yr (opportunity costs, if not out
> of pocket), so it is not really a solution for many to achieve
> a substantive savings in ARIN fees. [And 501(c) (or country
> equivalent) should be the requirement, not yet another
> definition by ARIN of what a non-profit might be.]
>
> Gary
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130405/7cf582d7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:08:59 -0600
From: CJ Aronson <[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:
<cac6jzktx0_kt7_yxgfrxy6yszyparn0p-uefgscndayhtbd...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The policy can always be changed if circumstances change by anyone in the
community submitting a proposal to make a change. I don't think we have to
put text in this policy that says if or when it should change the policy in
the future. This far in my life I have been unsuccessful at predicting the
future. Maybe folks on this list have better luck :-)
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Seth Mattinen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> 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/20130405/4520e577/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 12
*****************************************
