> On Oct 12, 2020, at 1:29 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Andrew Dul wrote: > >> The partial returns language is also intended to promote best practices >> for IPv6 addressing, that is giving big blocks to allow ISPs to assign >> /48s to all customers. > > True, but not all resource holders are operating ISP's for public use. For > example, my local City Government has an ASN, and v4 address block. They > provide no internet services, neither network, to eyes, nor content other > than for their own use. This is the case with many resource holders not in > the primary business of being an ISP.
Why would those businesses be in the ISP fee category and not the end-user category? Owen > > Scott > >> >> Andrew >> >> On 10/12/2020 12:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> Hi Chris, >>> >>> I wonder what percentage of 2x-small Resource holders have a /24 of >>> v4, and would otherwise qualify for 3x-small status but for their v6 >>> allocations, and what percentage of all ASs registered with ARIN that >>> represents. This represents the the total who could "downgrade" to a >>> nano-allocation, were that a option. It would be easy to derive from >>> that the maximum effect on ARIN's finances, if they all chose to take >>> that option. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Chris Woodfield wrote: >>> >>>> Agreed. To be clear, I did not intend for my question to imply that >>>> the goal of keeping the proposal revenue-neutral was in any way >>>> dishonorable - ARIN’s financial stability is obviously in the >>>> community’s best interests. But we should have informed consent as to >>>> how that stability is achieved, and as such, clarifying the intention >>>> of the clause is helpful. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -C >>>> >>>>> On Oct 12, 2020, at 11:06 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Chris, >>>>> >>>>> Indeed. To be fair, I think the price is fair for value received, >>>>> speaking as a 2x-small ISP with a /36. I was able to lower my >>>>> recurring costs and increase my available address pool by bringing >>>>> up an AS at the 2x-small rate. Allowing the smallest ISPs to >>>>> implement IPv6 without additional financial cost seems a prudent way >>>>> to overcome barriers to adoption. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2020, Chris Woodfield wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Andrew, and good catch - both Scott and I missed that >>>>>> clause, obviously. It appears that this is in place in order to >>>>>> meet the stated goal of this proposal being revenue-neutral for >>>>>> ARIN? If so, it would be great to clarify so that community members >>>>>> can make a more informed evaluation as to whether or not to support >>>>>> the clause. If there are other justifications for the clause’s >>>>>> presence, I’d be interested to hear them. >>>>> 2~> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> -C >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 11, 2020, at 10:24 AM, Andrew Dul <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The current draft policy text disallows returns to lower than a >>>>>>> /36, so >>>>>>> I would say that organization which took a /36 would not be >>>>>>> permitted to >>>>>>> go down to a /40. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Partial returns of any IPv6 allocation that results in less than >>>>>>> a /36 >>>>>>> of holding are not permitted regardless of the ISP’s current or >>>>>>> former >>>>>>> IPv4 number resource holdings." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andrew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/9/2020 2:04 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Scott, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Given that ARIN utilizes a sparse allocation strategy for IPv6 >>>>>>>> resources (in my organization’s case, we could go from a /32 to a >>>>>>>> /25 without renumbering), IMO it would not be unreasonable for >>>>>>>> the allocation to be adjusted down simply by changing the mask >>>>>>>> and keeping the /36 or /32 unallocated until the sparse >>>>>>>> allocations are exhausted. Any resources numbered outside the new >>>>>>>> /40 would need to be renumbered, to be sure, but that’s most >>>>>>>> likely less work than a complete renumbering. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That said, I’ll leave it up to Registration Services to provide a >>>>>>>> definitive answer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -C >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am in favor of this draft, and am curious as to how resource >>>>>>>>>> holders who were not dissuaded by the fee increase will be >>>>>>>>>> impacted by the policy change. While they indeed have more >>>>>>>>>> address space than /40, they may also not need the additional >>>>>>>>>> address space. Some might prefer the nano-allocation given the >>>>>>>>>> lower cost. Will they be required to change allocations, and >>>>>>>>>> renumber, in order to return to 3x-small status and associated >>>>>>>>>> rate? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Scott Johnson >>>>>>>>>> SolarNetOne, Inc. >>>>>>>>>> AS32639 >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
