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
(Gary Buhrmaster)
2. Re: Fee Philosophy (was: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny
IPv6 Allocations for ISPs) (Owen DeLong)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Paul Vixie)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Paul Vixie)
5. Re: Fee Philosophy (was: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny
IPv6 Allocations for ISPs) (cb.list6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:40:38 +0000
From: Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]>
To: Steven Noble <[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:
<camfxtqx2htwqfvrvbekwt7yyltxvtjoe7wwqm37cgpp7p8s...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:58 PM, 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?
The community has been fairly clear that Legacy holders are going to
have to come into the tent (of ARIN or equivalent RIR) to register
additional numbers of any type (ASN, IPv4, or IPv6). That includes
the new fees and agreements.
Interestingly, most of the legacy holders were, at the time, the
early adopters (of the Internet). One would likely have expected
that most would have wanted to be early adopters of IPv6, and
recognized that as the Internet grew up, fees and regulations
would also change, and they would have to change with those
new realities. The "free lunch" of legacy holders has long been
digested, and it is going to cost for the next meal (IPv6).
So, the reason for legacy holders to adopt IPv6 is not because
it will (again) be free (or nearly so), but because that is where
one should be.
Gary
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 12:41:42 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fee Philosophy (was: Re: Draft Policy
ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>> I am not saying it needs
>> to be right now, but I have a hard time understanding why we need to
>> contort the NRPM to patch over bad incentives in the fee schedule.
>
> No NRPM change is needed because of the Revised Fee schedule; fees under
> the new schedule will be lower for smallest ISPs in any case.
>
> The question is whether the community also provide support for a xx-small
> category which is even lower ($500/year) but distinguished by only a /40
> IPv6 allocation. This is being discussed in Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3, and
> while it is enabled by the Revised Fee schedule, it is an independent item
> for the community to consider and can be adopted or not based on its merits.
>
No, that is not the only question. Because of the situation created by the
restructuring of the fee schedule, we have several negative incentives
newly created. It is true that we can choose one negative incentive[1] by
not modifying the NRPM. Policy 2013-3 attempts to replace that negative
incentive with a different negative incentive[2].
No matter what, the fee schedule as it currently stands creates negative
incentives and I believe that is what Michael is calling into question here.
[1] The fee structure and policy as currently adopted will create the
negative incentive for organizations in the xx-small IPv4 category to
not deploy IPv6 in order to save $500/year.
[2] The combination of the adopted fee structure (assuming it is modified
to /40 instead of /48) and proposal 2013-3, if adopted would replace [1]
with the negative incentive for those providers in the XX-Small category
to obtain massively undersized allocations in order to save the same
amount of money, allowing them to deploy IPv6 without additional
address space cost, but very likely inflicting undue limitations on the
space issued to their customers. This negative incentive already
exists in both policy and the fee schedule for the X-Small category
in the form of support for /36s.
>> Moreover, that standard is called into question by the fact that ARIN
>> charges based on the larger of the two address family allocations, with
>> no regard to the situation where there are radical differences between
>> IPv4 size and IPv6 size.
>
> Correct, and this has been covered on this mailing list before
> <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2013-March/026396.html> -
>
> "that is precisely the benefit of the revised fee schedule;
> every size ISP category now includes both IPv4 and IPv6, so every
> ISP can add an IPv6 allocation and see _no_ change in fees at all.
> (This does mean that we can get ISPs for whom there is a "mismatch"
> between their IPv4 and IPv6 allocations, and they end up in a higher
> category, but to be truly fair we'd need to have distinct proportional
> fee for each of IPv4 and IPv6, and that's exactly what you don't want:
> any addition of IPv6 means an additional fee.)"
Another alternative would be to base all revenues on IPv4 until a flag
day to be determined by the board at a later date with at least 12 months
notice to the community after which flag day, all revenue calculations
would shift to IPv6. Organizations which did not hold IPv6 after the flag
day would have the option of maintaining their IPv4 records either by
obtaining an IPv6 allocation or by continuing based on their IPv4 fee
category.
I'm sure there are also other possible ways to avoid some or all of the
issues of mismatch. In fact, have we considered the possibility that
instead of MAX(IPv4,IPv6) we charge based on MIN(IPv4,IPv6)?
I'm not sure that would be a good idea, either, but I think it may not
have ever been considered and I would be interested to see what
the implications of such a structure might be.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:49:39 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <[email protected]>
To: Steven Ryerse <[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="utf-8"
Steven Ryerse wrote:
>
> I agree with Mathew and CB. We do need to move away from conservation
> at the RIR level as a goal for both ipv4 and ipv6. Ripe is definitely
> on the right track with
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 and I strongly
> support that. The same changes should happen for the Arin RIR.
>
i know that it's a popular viewpoint -- many folks feel that the time
for needs based allocation is over and that the invisible hand of the
market is now capable of optimizing the holding of address space and the
aggregation level of that space into routing table entries.
so i thought i'd chime in: i consider that case to be extremely unmade
as yet. even though i am in most other ways a free-marketeer. as
stewards of a public resource ARIN has always been guided by RFC 2050
which requires recipients of these public resources to justify their
need, no matter whether these resources are coming from a central pool
or a private transfer.
paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/2bf168ca/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:55:39 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <[email protected]>
To: Gary Buhrmaster <[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"
Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:58 PM, 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?
>
> The community has been fairly clear that Legacy holders are going to
> have to come into the tent (of ARIN or equivalent RIR) to register
> additional numbers of any type (ASN, IPv4, or IPv6). That includes
> the new fees and agreements.
indeed, "legacy holder" is not an exclusive property. one can be a
"legacy and non-legacy holder", and that's what the community driven
policies in the ARIN region have encouraged. if ipv6 space is needed,
it's available. i can see how it might seem unfair to have received one
kind of resource without fee and to then be asked to pay a fee for some
other kind of resource. hopefully the unfairness in getting new
resources for free even though others in like situations have to pay a
fee is even more obvious.
> So, the reason for legacy holders to adopt IPv6 is not because
> it will (again) be free (or nearly so), but because that is where
> one should be.
+1.
paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/f84e4441/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 12:53:49 -0700
From: "cb.list6" <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Cc: John Curran <[email protected]>, "[email protected] PPML"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fee Philosophy (was: Re: Draft Policy
ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs)
Message-ID:
<CAD6AjGRCKv=JgOGK6nJi1VegnFFATNhs8=ertb86885bff2...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Apr 7, 2013 12:47 PM, "Owen DeLong" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I am not saying it needs
> >> to be right now, but I have a hard time understanding why we need to
> >> contort the NRPM to patch over bad incentives in the fee schedule.
> >
> > No NRPM change is needed because of the Revised Fee schedule; fees under
> > the new schedule will be lower for smallest ISPs in any case.
> >
> > The question is whether the community also provide support for a
xx-small
> > category which is even lower ($500/year) but distinguished by only a /40
> > IPv6 allocation. This is being discussed in Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3,
and
> > while it is enabled by the Revised Fee schedule, it is an independent
item
> > for the community to consider and can be adopted or not based on its
merits.
> >
>
> No, that is not the only question. Because of the situation created by the
> restructuring of the fee schedule, we have several negative incentives
> newly created. It is true that we can choose one negative incentive[1] by
> not modifying the NRPM. Policy 2013-3 attempts to replace that negative
> incentive with a different negative incentive[2].
>
> No matter what, the fee schedule as it currently stands creates negative
> incentives and I believe that is what Michael is calling into question
here.
>
> [1] The fee structure and policy as currently adopted will create the
> negative incentive for organizations in the xx-small IPv4 category to
> not deploy IPv6 in order to save $500/year.
>
> [2] The combination of the adopted fee structure (assuming it is modified
> to /40 instead of /48) and proposal 2013-3, if adopted would replace [1]
> with the negative incentive for those providers in the XX-Small category
> to obtain massively undersized allocations in order to save the same
> amount of money, allowing them to deploy IPv6 without additional
> address space cost, but very likely inflicting undue limitations on the
> space issued to their customers. This negative incentive already
> exists in both policy and the fee schedule for the X-Small category
> in the form of support for /36s.
>
> >> Moreover, that standard is called into question by the fact that ARIN
> >> charges based on the larger of the two address family allocations, with
> >> no regard to the situation where there are radical differences between
> >> IPv4 size and IPv6 size.
> >
> > Correct, and this has been covered on this mailing list before
> > <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2013-March/026396.html> -
> >
> > "that is precisely the benefit of the revised fee schedule;
> > every size ISP category now includes both IPv4 and IPv6, so every
> > ISP can add an IPv6 allocation and see _no_ change in fees at all.
> > (This does mean that we can get ISPs for whom there is a "mismatch"
> > between their IPv4 and IPv6 allocations, and they end up in a higher
> > category, but to be truly fair we'd need to have distinct proportional
> > fee for each of IPv4 and IPv6, and that's exactly what you don't want:
> > any addition of IPv6 means an additional fee.)"
>
> Another alternative would be to base all revenues on IPv4 until a flag
> day to be determined by the board at a later date with at least 12 months
> notice to the community after which flag day, all revenue calculations
> would shift to IPv6. Organizations which did not hold IPv6 after the flag
> day would have the option of maintaining their IPv4 records either by
> obtaining an IPv6 allocation or by continuing based on their IPv4 fee
> category.
>
I support the idea of an Ipv4 only fee structure.
I support more the idea of an asn based fee structure.
CB
> I'm sure there are also other possible ways to avoid some or all of the
> issues of mismatch. In fact, have we considered the possibility that
> instead of MAX(IPv4,IPv6) we charge based on MIN(IPv4,IPv6)?
> I'm not sure that would be a good idea, either, but I think it may not
> have ever been considered and I would be interested to see what
> the implications of such a structure might be.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130407/650ae2e3/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 18
*****************************************
