Support
On 4/16/2020 10:32 AM, Brian Jones wrote:
Looking at the numbers John posted concerning this issue, it tends to /look
like/ some of these 3x small folks decided to drop their request once they
encountered the price increase. If this is the case then we should move
forward with this proposal. We do not want to create a situation where folks
are continuing to use only IPv4 because of costs.
I support this proposal.
—
Brian
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:19 AM <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Is that very much because they found out if they accepted the IPv6 space,
their fees would double???
If so, this PROVES the need to adopt this plan. We should not have things
in place that prevent IPv6 adoption. We have already decided that IPv6
should be cost neutral. Lets fix this glitch and let these 3x small
people have IPv6 without doubling their cost.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, John Sweeting wrote:
> Yes that is exactly what it means. After approval they decided for
whatever reason they no longer wanted the resource.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 16, 2020, at 1:56 AM, John Santos <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> What does "closed with no action" mean? Does it mean the RSP
abandoned the request?
>>
>>
>>> On 4/15/2020 7:18 PM, John Sweeting wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> The numbers around this are:
>>>
>>> 320 3x small RSPs
>>> 30 have applied and been approved for IPv6 of which 26 closed with no
action to complete by the requester. The other 4 are currently still open
and pending action.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> John S.
>>>
>>> On 4/15/20, 11:30 AM, "Andrew Dul" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> John,
>>> Could you provide the community with a rough magnitude of
this issue?
>>> Approximately how many of these 3x-small ISP organizations
have come to
>>> ARIN and requested IPv6? How many accepted the block and how many
>>> refused because of the fee issue? How many 3x-small ISP
organizations
>>> does ARIN currently serve.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew
>>> On 4/14/2020 2:29 PM, John Sweeting wrote:
>>> > All,
>>> >
>>> > For anyone interested in the content of the "Policy Experience
Report presented by Registration
>>> > Services to the AC at its annual workshop in January 2020"
referenced in the problem statement you can see that report here:
>>> >
>>> >
https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/ac/meetings/2020_0124/policy_experience_report.pdf
>>> >
>>> > Thank you.
>>> >
>>> > On 3/24/20, 1:22 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of ARIN"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf
of [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On 19 March 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
>>> > "ARIN-prop-285: IPv6 Nano-allocations" as a Draft Policy.
>>> >
>>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3 is below and can be found at:
>>> >
>>> > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_3/
>>> >
>>> > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The
AC will
>>> > evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of
this draft
>>> > policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource
policy as
>>> > stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically,
these
>>> > principles are:
>>> >
>>> > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>>> > * Technically Sound
>>> > * Supported by the Community
>>> >
>>> > The PDP can be found at:
>>> > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
>>> >
>>> > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>>> > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > Sean Hopkins
>>> > Policy Analyst
>>> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations
>>> >
>>> > Problem Statement:
>>> >
>>> > ARIN's fee structure provides a graduated system wherein
organizations
>>> > pay based on the amount of number resources they consume.
>>> >
>>> > In the case of the very smallest ISPs, if a 3X-Small ISP
(with a /24 or
>>> > smaller of IPv4) gets the present minimal-sized IPv6
allocation (a /36),
>>> > its annual fees will double from $250 to $500/year.
>>> >
>>> > According to a Policy Experience Report presented by
Registration
>>> > Services to the AC at its annual workshop in January 2020, this
>>> > represents a disincentive to IPv6 adoption with a substantial
fraction
>>> > of so-situated ISPs saying "no thanks" and abandoning their
request for
>>> > IPv6 number resources when informed of the impact on their
annual fees.
>>> >
>>> > This can be addressed by rewriting subsection 6.5.2(b). Initial
>>> > Allocation Size to allow allocation of a /40 to only the
smallest ISPs
>>> > upon request, and adding a new clause 6.5.2(g) to cause an
automatic
>>> > upgrade to at least a /36 in the case where the ISP is no
longer 3X-Small.
>>> >
>>> > Reserving /40s only for organizations initially expanding
into IPv6 from
>>> > an initial sliver of IPv4 space will help to narrowly address
the
>>> > problem observed by Registration Services while avoiding
unintended
>>> > consequences by accidentally giving a discount for undersized
allocations.
>>> >
>>> > Policy Statement:
>>> >
>>> > Replace the current 6.5.2(b) with the following:
>>> >
>>> > b. In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless
they
>>> > specifically request a /36 or /40.
>>> >
>>> > In order to be eligible for a /40, an ISP must meet the
following
>>> > requirements:
>>> > * Hold IPv4 direct allocations totaling a /24 or less (to
include zero)
>>> > * Hold IPv4 reassignments/reallocations totaling a /22 or
less (to
>>> > include zero)
>>> >
>>> > In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial
allocation.
>>> >
>>> > Add 6.5.2(g) as follows:
>>> >
>>> > 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. /40
allocations shall
>>> > be automatically upgraded to /36 if at any time said LIR's
IPv4 direct
>>> > allocations exceed a /24. Expansions up to and including a
/32 are not
>>> > considered subsequent allocations, however any expansions
beyond /32 are
>>> > considered subsequent allocations and must conform to section
6.5.3.
>>> > Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 are not
permitted
>>> > regardless of the ISP's current or former IPv4 number
resource holdings.
>>> >
>>> > Comments:
>>> >
>>> > The intent of this policy proposal is to make IPv6 adoption
at the very
>>> > bottom end expense-neutral for the ISP and revenue-neutral
for ARIN. The
>>> > author looks forward to a future era wherein IPv6 is the
dominant
>>> > technology and IPv4 is well in decline and considered
optional leading
>>> > the Community to conclude that sunsetting this policy is
prudent in the
>>> > interests of avoiding an incentive to request undersized IPv6
allocations.
>>> >
>>> > Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > ARIN-PPML
>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you
experience any issues.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > ARIN-PPML
>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you
experience any issues.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ARIN-PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience
any issues.
>>
>> --
>> John Santos
>> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
>> 781-861-0670 ext 539
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience
any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience
any issues.
>_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any
issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
