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
(Steven Noble)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Curran)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Steven Noble)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Steven Noble)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(joel jaeggli)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Curran)
7. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(cb.list6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:58:05 -0700
From: Steven Noble <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[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 Apr 7, 2013, at 4:21 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It would be good to hear from ISPs who would qualify for the xx-small
> $500/year category about the resulting temptation that it poses for
> making smaller IPv6 customer assignments (and how they feel safer with
> the /36 IPv6 minimum and corresponding $1000/year annual fee), as they
> are the ones who are most affected by the outcome of this draft policy
> consideration.
I would love to have PI IPv6 space and as I have no IPv4 space from ARIN,
adding IPv6 will raise my fees. What is the proposal to get legacy holders to
adopt IPv6?
As noted before by others, I don't understand why a record has different costs
based on what the record is for. The difference in fees seems to go against
ARINs goal of allocating resources to the community.
Is the overhead of an IPv6 allocation record 5x an ASN record?
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:13:34 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Steven Noble <[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="us-ascii"
On Apr 7, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Steven Noble <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would love to have PI IPv6 space and as I have no IPv4 space from ARIN,
> adding IPv6 will raise my fees. What is the proposal to get legacy holders to
> adopt IPv6?
>
> As noted before by others, I don't understand why a record has different
> costs based on what the record is for. The difference in fees seems to go
> against ARINs goal of allocating resources to the community.
>
> Is the overhead of an IPv6 allocation record 5x an ASN record?
Actually, there is a significantly more registry operations
and development costs associated with IP address blocks than
AS numbers, if only because IP address blocks for ISPs end up
with subassignments to customers, and this ends up in Whois
via SWIP or restful interfaces. While we have lowered fees
(and doing so again with this change) for the smaller ISPs,
it still does not compare to either "free" or the nominal
$100 per record fee for legacy holders.
Do you have a view on whether or not policy should be changed
(as proposed in ARIN-2013-3) to allow ISPs to request an IPv6
allocation of /40 if they want to, or should they be limited
to at least a /36 allocation per current policy?
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:24:05 -0700
From: Steven Noble <[email protected]>
To: joel jaeggli <[email protected]>
Cc: John Curran <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[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
On Apr 7, 2013, at 10:16 AM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>> I would love to have PI IPv6 space and as I have no IPv4 space from ARIN,
>> adding IPv6 will raise my fees. What is the proposal to get legacy holders
>> to adopt IPv6?
> The notion that legacy holders should be treated iconsistenly with others
> with regard to new assignments doesn't seem very consistent with needs based
> allocation. If you don't need it, don't request the resources.
That is exactly my point, if ARIN says that someone requesting IPv6 will not
have higher fees, then how does that work with a legacy holder? Do we want
people to adopt IPv6 or not? A policy that makes it the same cost to request
and hold IPv4 and IPv6 works both ways. If I am charged the same as someone
who has both IPv4 and IPv6 resources, why would I not request IPv4 resources
too?
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:28:34 -0700
From: Steven Noble <[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=us-ascii
On Apr 7, 2013, at 10:13 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Actually, there is a significantly more registry operations
> and development costs associated with IP address blocks than
> AS numbers, if only because IP address blocks for ISPs end up
> with subassignments to customers, and this ends up in Whois
> via SWIP or restful interfaces. While we have lowered fees
> (and doing so again with this change) for the smaller ISPs,
> it still does not compare to either "free" or the nominal
> $100 per record fee for legacy holders.
This I understand, thank you John. I do not consider $100 nominal, when the
cost was $30 it was nominal, with the new fee schedule instead of lowering the
fee back to $30 and charging for each ASN, ARIN is raising the fees for ASNs to
$100 each. Why not make a sliding scale? Those who consume more resources as
a single ORG pay more: $30 for first ASN, $60 for second, etc.
>
> Do you have a view on whether or not policy should be changed
> (as proposed in ARIN-2013-3) to allow ISPs to request an IPv6
> allocation of /40 if they want to, or should they be limited
> to at least a /36 allocation per current policy?
I believe it will allow for more IPv6 deployment which is the end goal. I can
debate in my head paying $500 to have IPv6 PI space, I cannot justify paying
$1000+ yearly.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 10:16:30 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <[email protected]>
To: Steven Noble <[email protected]>, John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[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 4/7/13 9:58 AM, Steven Noble wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 4:21 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It would be good to hear from ISPs who would qualify for the xx-small
>> $500/year category about the resulting temptation that it poses for
>> making smaller IPv6 customer assignments (and how they feel safer with
>> the /36 IPv6 minimum and corresponding $1000/year annual fee), as they
>> are the ones who are most affected by the outcome of this draft policy
>> consideration.
> I would love to have PI IPv6 space and as I have no IPv4 space from ARIN,
> adding IPv6 will raise my fees. What is the proposal to get legacy holders to
> adopt IPv6?
The notion that legacy holders should be treated iconsistenly with
others with regard to new assignments doesn't seem very consistent with
needs based allocation. If you don't need it, don't request the resources.
> As noted before by others, I don't understand why a record has different
> costs based on what the record is for. The difference in fees seems to go
> against ARINs goal of allocating resources to the community.
>
> Is the overhead of an IPv6 allocation record 5x an ASN record?
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:35:49 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Steven Noble <[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="us-ascii"
On Apr 7, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Steven Noble <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 10:13 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Actually, there is a significantly more registry operations
>> and development costs associated with IP address blocks than
>> AS numbers, if only because IP address blocks for ISPs end up
>> with subassignments to customers, and this ends up in Whois
>> via SWIP or restful interfaces. While we have lowered fees
>> (and doing so again with this change) for the smaller ISPs,
>> it still does not compare to either "free" or the nominal
>> $100 per record fee for legacy holders.
>
> This I understand, thank you John. I do not consider $100 nominal, when the
> cost was $30 it was nominal, with the new fee schedule instead of lowering
> the fee back to $30 and charging for each ASN, ARIN is raising the fees for
> ASNs to $100 each.
Steve -
The prior fee was $100 per year for all your resources;
I am uncertain why you felt it was $30?
The revised fee schedule changes this for end-users and
legacy holders to $100 per year per resource record.
> Why not make a sliding scale? Those who consume more resources as a single
> ORG pay more: $30 for first ASN, $60 for second, etc.
It is a sliding scale under the revised fee schedule for
end-users and legacy holders, but at $100 per record not
$30 per record as you suggest.
>> Do you have a view on whether or not policy should be changed
>> (as proposed in ARIN-2013-3) to allow ISPs to request an IPv6
>> allocation of /40 if they want to, or should they be limited
>> to at least a /36 allocation per current policy?
>
> I believe it will allow for more IPv6 deployment which is the end goal. I
> can debate in my head paying $500 to have IPv6 PI space, I cannot justify
> paying $1000+ yearly.
That is helpful to know - Thank you!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:30:36 -0700
From: "cb.list6" <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<CAD6AjGTUR2wD3gVmUO8oKKPOPNVS6n8s+q=M0kKY=hwe3rr...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Apr 6, 2013 10:14 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 4/6/2013 12:00 PM, Michael Sinatra wrote:
>>
>> On 03/27/13 17:45, David Farmer wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/27/13 18:00 , Michael Sinatra wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or, to put more bluntly, if ARIN's fee structure is itself creating
>>>> disincentives for proper IPv6 adoption, then let's go back and (re-)fix
>>>> that problem.
>>>>
>>>> Oppose 2013-3.
>>>
>>> Michael and others opposed,
>>>
>>> What about modifying the proposal to /40, require a minimum reservation
>>> of /32 (or maybe /28) be held for ISPs that elect for /40 or /36
>>> allocations, allow subsequent allocations to expansion from /40 to /36
>>> and then to /32 without evaluating there current IPv6 usage. Thereby
>>> ensuring they can grow their allocation in place and allowing policy
>>> flexibility that enables the fee structure equity that the new xx-small
>>> category seems to provided.
>>
>> Sorry to be responding to an earlier part of the thread, but I was on
>> vacation and lost track of this thread, and you did ask me a direct
>> question. I owe you the courtesy of an answer.
>>
>> The answer to your question is no. If I start out with a /40 or /36 and
>> then rapidly grow into a /32 (and can justify the fees), then I am going
>> to end up with a largely organic addressing plan. We're giving
>> incentives for people to cram all of their addressing into a corner of
>> the total space that they should be using and it will create a really
>> messy IPv6 deployment.
>
>
> Worse, we're creating a messy IPv6 situation downstream... as Owen points
out, this type of financial pressure towards false conservation is going to
give us things like /64-per-household instead of something sensible that
lets the thermostat be on a different subnet than the Xbox.
>
> We should be telling ISPs of all sizes "IPv6 is huge... come get a /32 or
bigger... do sensible things when you make your addressing plans... do
sensible things when you sell service to your customers" and not "here's a
way to save a buck by pretending IPv6 is like IPv4"
>
> You're right (in the part below that I deleted)... the bug is the fee
structure and there's absolutely no reason to try to muck with the policy,
which can't possibly fix the real problem.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
Generally speaking we need to move away from conservation as goal for both
ipv4 and ipv6
Structurally there is no need in v6 and the market will force it in v4
conservation at the rir level creates costly externalities in routing and
other areas such as system design.
Ripe is on the right track
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03
CB.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130407/3e9861b3/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 16
*****************************************
