> On Apr 18, 2020, at 06:10 , John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 18 Apr 2020, at 5:32 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >> Policy as written definitely favors /48s for everyone. > > Owen - > > To bring it back to the policy matter under discussion, do you expect that > ISPs (who presently do not proceed with their IPv6 /36 application due to > resulting increase of their annual fees from $250 to $500) would proceed if > there were a fee waiver that prevented the increase? Also, do you believe > that these ISPs would indeed be assigning /48’s to customers if given the > larger /36 IPv6 allocation and should doing so be a provision of any such fee > waiver?
It would depend on the nature of the fee waiver. If they perceived it as a temporary stall resulting in the same fee increase in 3-5 years, I think you’d get mixed results. If it was a permanent “we won’t charge you extra until your IPv4 holdings expand or 10+ years, whichever comes first”, I suspect you’d see a majority of takers. As to /48s, hard to say… Certainly, with /40s, they are more likely to be hyper-conservative in their assignments than with /36s. I certainly would not mind making said waiver conditional on compliance with a /48 PAU. Owen _______________________________________________ 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.
