I have been corrected privately (thank you), and wanted to set the record straight:
John Curran made the comments I wrote on Reddit (not PPML) during Wednesday’s Ask Me Anything: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3gqovv/i_am_john_curran_president_and_ceo_of_the/ David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Huberman Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:18 AM To: David Farmer <[email protected]>; Mike Hammett <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Smalest ISP v6 Allocation The root problem expressed is one of fees. We should not make policy that presents inferior network engineering because of fees. The root problem is for our Board to solve. According to John Curran on this list, the Board has done so, and will present an attractive fee schedule change in October. David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:13 AM To: Mike Hammett <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Smalest ISP v6 Allocation On Aug 14, 2015, at 05:19, Mike Hammett <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: If the smallest IPv6 allocation an ISP can get is a /36 (X-small or up to /20 in IPv4), but we have a fee established for XX-small (up to /40 IPv6 and /22 IPv4), why don't we permit an ISP to get a /40? Small providers may not want to increase their ARIN fees to simply be able to get their own IPv6 allocation. Seems counter-intuitive in getting everyone on the IPv6 train. It also falls on a clean boundary, so there shouldn't be any concerns with issued subnets. If there's no good reason why we're not doing this, how to we start the process to allow this? A little more than two years ago we considered a policy to do just that; Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2013_3.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.arin.net%2fpolicy%2fproposals%2f2013_3.html&data=01%7c01%7cdavid.huberman%40microsoft.com%7cb066d589a64a438228a308d2a4aa30ef%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=cgxSpN8%2bCrg9YM7OPQ1Vx5VocrAYmxNzwc7pLBcBi%2bY%3d> The consensus at the time was that a /40 was too small for an ISP and that we should reconsider the fee structure instead. That has been in process with the fee committee that was discussed previously. However, if there is a new consensus in support of allowing ISPs to receive a /40, I'd recommend the text of ARIN-2013-3 as a starting point. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email: [email protected]<mailto:[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 Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
