Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 13, 2020, at 08:55 , Andrew Dul wrote: > > David, Thanks for your comments. > > On 3/26/2020 4:08 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> I support this policy as written. >> >> However, I recommend a minor editorial change and a small change to the >> policy; >> >> 1. I would prefer to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 19, 2020, at 08:33 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On 19/04/2020 05:07, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Right… IETF designed a good architecture and then came under pressure from a >> bunch of people with an IPv4 mindset and given the modern state of the IETF >> decided to just punt on the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 19, 2020, at 02:16 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > LACNIC and AFRINIC have similar problems in the fee structure that doesn’t > incentivize the right deployment of IPv6. I’ve already made proposals to the > relevant boards to change that (it is not a matter of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 4:20 PM John Santos wrote: > > On 4/19/2020 3:08 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM John Santos wrote: > >> Is there any way to ensure that an ISP requesting a /40 has fewer than >> 250 customers, so they can assign each a /48 in order to be

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

Hi Chris, I guess you missed this at the end of my previous email: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis-02. I need to update it! Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 19/4/20 21:32, "ARIN-PPML en nombre de Chris Woodfield" escribió: I’ll admit to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On 4/19/2020 3:08 PM, David Farmer wrote: On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM John Santos > wrote: Is there any way to ensure that an ISP requesting a /40 has fewer than 250 customers, so they can assign each a /48 in order to be eligible for the smallest

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

I’ll admit to having skimmed some of this thread, so apologies in advance if I've missed prior discussion of the point below. The guidance against assigning /48s by default described in RFC6177 made sense at the time, particularly for an individual residential subscriber site, given the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM John Santos wrote: > Is there any way to ensure that an ISP requesting a /40 has fewer than 250 > customers, so they can assign each a /48 in order to be eligible for the > smallest allocation at commensurate cost with a /24 of IPv4? > I don't think there is

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

Policy should not prohibit doing what many regard as best practice.  Just because SOME ISPs might find a /48 unnecessarily large doesn't mean that ALL will, or that the recommendation of a /48 is always WRONG and that nano-ISPs should be punished (financially) for doing so. There is obviously

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:32:40AM -0400, 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 >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On 19/04/2020 05:07, Owen DeLong wrote: Right… IETF designed a good architecture and then came under pressure from a bunch of people with an IPv4 mindset and given the modern state of the IETF decided to just punt on the whole thing rather than waste more time on an argument where people

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

Envoyé: Dimanche 19 Avril 2020 05:16:12 Objet: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations LACNIC and AFRINIC have similar problems in the fee structure that doesn’t incentivize the right deployment of IPv6. I’ve already made proposals to the relevant boards to change that

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

LACNIC and AFRINIC have similar problems in the fee structure that doesn’t incentivize the right deployment of IPv6. I’ve already made proposals to the relevant boards to change that (it is not a matter of policies in those cases). Many management departments of ISPs make the numbers about

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:21 AM Fernando Frediani wrote: > On 19/04/2020 01:38, David Farmer wrote: > > I support this policy as written, as I said previously, I recommend a > couple of changes, but I won't repeat the details of those changes here. > > Regarding the current discussion of /48

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 18, 2020, at 22:20 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On 19/04/2020 01:38, David Farmer wrote: >> I support this policy as written, as I said previously, I recommend a couple >> of changes, but I won't repeat the details of those changes here. >> >> Regarding the current discussion of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On 19/04/2020 01:38, David Farmer wrote: I support this policy as written, as I said previously, I recommend a couple of changes, but I won't repeat the details of those changes here. Regarding the current discussion of /48 assignments to residential customers, that is the architecture as

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

I support this policy as written, as I said previously, I recommend a couple of changes, but I won't repeat the details of those changes here. Regarding the current discussion of /48 assignments to residential customers, that is the architecture as defined by the IETF, and ARIN policy MUST NOT

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 18, 2020, at 15:20 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 2:44 PM Owen DeLong wrote: >> Handing out a /48 to each end site is a core engineering design that was put >> into IPv6 for many valid reasons. > > Hi Owen, > > If I understand correctly, the /32, /48 and /64

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 18, 2020, at 15:01 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On 18/04/2020 18:44, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ... >> Handing out a /48 to each end site is a core engineering design that was put >> into IPv6 for many valid reasons. >> >> You continue to rail against it, yet you’ve provided no reason

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 2:44 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > Handing out a /48 to each end site is a core engineering design that was put > into IPv6 for many valid reasons. Hi Owen, If I understand correctly, the /32, /48 and /64 size recommendations were originally discussed on public, now-archived

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

I oppose the policy *as worded* for the reason(s) expressed below. On 2020-03-24 10:20, ARIN wrote: > On 19 March 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-285: IPv6 Nano-allocations" as a Draft Policy. [snip] > Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations > > Problem

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On 18/04/2020 18:44, Owen DeLong wrote: ... Handing out a /48 to each end site is a core engineering design that was put into IPv6 for many valid reasons. You continue to rail against it, yet you’ve provided no reason or basis for your claim that it is “an exaggeration” or that it is in any

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 18, 2020, at 14:11 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On 18/04/2020 17:49, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ... >> 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On 18/04/2020 17:49, Owen DeLong wrote: ... 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 18, 2020, at 06:10 , John Curran wrote: > > On 18 Apr 2020, at 5:32 AM, Owen DeLong 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On 4/18/2020 9:40 AM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: I look at it this way: An ISP with only a /24 of IPv4 space only has 254 addresses to hand out to its customers.  If they receive a /40 of IPv6 space, they can assign up to 256 /48's to its customers, almost an exact match. Someone with so

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

I look at it this way: An ISP with only a /24 of IPv4 space only has 254 addresses to hand out to its customers. If they receive a /40 of IPv6 space, they can assign up to 256 /48's to its customers, almost an exact match. Someone with so little IPv4 either has few customers or is using

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On 18 Apr 2020, at 5:32 AM, Owen DeLong 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 18, 2020, at 01:41 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On 18/04/2020 05:26, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ... >> >> Admittedly, /48s for everyone still isn’t gaining as much traction as we’d >> like due to a combination of IPv4-think at some ISPs and other reasons I >> have trouble

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On 18/04/2020 05:26, Owen DeLong wrote: ... Admittedly, /48s for everyone still isn’t gaining as much traction as we’d like due to a combination of IPv4-think at some ISPs and other reasons I have trouble understanding. Thankfully it is not ! E.G. I once had a discussion with the IPv6

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 08:42 , John Curran wrote: > > On 24 Mar 2020, at 1:20 PM, ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>> wrote: >> ... >> 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 8:42 AM John Curran wrote: > ARIN tries to provide as much flexibility as possible in dealing with > requests, so it is important that the community document the reasoning behind > policy language that constrains the choices available to those requesting > resources.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

No one is going to want to sell off their v4 space and if they did they could certainly afford the IPv6 allocation charges. Possibly the presentation of this option could change their view? They certainly need to understand the importance of beginning to use IPv6... — Brian On Thu, Apr 16, 2020

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On 24 Mar 2020, at 1:20 PM, ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>> wrote: ... 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

Looks to me not some but MOST. I agree, we should not put a fee doubling in the way of these 3x folks doing the right thing and getting IPv6. Albert Erdmann Network Administrator Paradise On Line Inc. On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, Brian Jones wrote: Looking at the numbers John posted concerning this

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

When in the application process are the isps informed that their fees will increase if they accept the ipv6 block? Is that in the ipv6 approved email and then the tickets are abandoned? .Andrew > On Apr 16, 2020, at 4:19 AM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > Is that very much because they

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

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 wrote: > > What does "closed with no action" mean? Does it mean the RSP abandoned the > request? > > >>

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

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" wrote:

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

Good questions Andrew.I was wondering the same thing, what is the magnitude of this issue. — Brian On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:30 AM Andrew Dul wrote: > John, > > Could you provide the community with a rough magnitude of this issue? > > Approximately how many of these 3x-small ISP organizations

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

-Original Message- From: Lisa Liedel Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 9:05 AM To: Mike Burns ; John Sweeting ; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations Hi Mike, The 12 month waiting period is not imposed at the time of the block swap

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

egards, Mike -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of John Sweeting Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 5:29 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations All, For anyone inter

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

, April 14, 2020 5:29 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations All, For anyone interested in the content of the "Policy Experience Report presented by Registration Services to the AC at its annual workshop i

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

20 5:29 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations 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 2

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations 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 r

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

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:

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 13, 2020, at 11:55 AM, Andrew Dul wrote: > > I will also like to note, that this issue could also be remedied by the board > adopting a small change to the fee schedule such that the 3x-small IPv6 > holdings do not force a change in category for 3x-small organizations. This > would

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 9:42 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Apr 14, 2020, at 00:38 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 8:48 PM Owen DeLong wrote > >>> While the community doesn't have purview over fees we have input into > >>> that process. If this is something that we would

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 14, 2020, at 00:38 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 8:48 PM Owen DeLong wrote >>> While the community doesn't have purview over fees we have input into that >>> process. If this is something that we would strongly like to prefer as a >>> solution to this

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 8:48 PM Owen DeLong wrote >> While the community doesn't have purview over fees we have input into that >> process. If this is something that we would strongly like to prefer as a >> solution to this problem. We can make this as a strong suggestion to the >> board for

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 13, 2020, at 08:55 , Andrew Dul wrote: > > David, Thanks for your comments. > > On 3/26/2020 4:08 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> I support this policy as written. >> >> However, I recommend a minor editorial change and a small change to the >> policy; >> >> 1. I would prefer to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:22 AM ARIN wrote: > 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,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

David, Thanks for your comments.   On 3/26/2020 4:08 PM, David Farmer wrote: > I support this policy as written.  > > However, I recommend a minor editorial change and a small change to > the policy; > > 1. I would prefer to not use "smaller" or "less" when referring to /24 > or longer prefixes,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

I support this policy as written. However, I recommend a minor editorial change and a small change to the policy; 1. I would prefer to not use "smaller" or "less" when referring to /24 or longer prefixes, such use is somewhat ambiguous, this has been discussed many times on PPML. 2. I really