[arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net

2020-04-16 Thread narten 
Total of 25 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri 17 Apr 2020 12:53:07 AM EDT
 
Messages   |  Bytes| Who
+--++--+
 16.00% |4 | 12.61% |63880 | jsweet...@arin.net
 12.00% |3 | 13.90% |70457 | andrew@quark.net
  8.00% |2 | 14.52% |73576 | bjo...@vt.edu
  8.00% |2 | 13.92% |70531 | j...@egh.com
 12.00% |3 |  9.76% |49451 | m...@iptrading.com
  8.00% |2 | 10.60% |53723 | o...@delong.com
 12.00% |3 |  5.49% |27798 | b...@herrin.us
  8.00% |2 |  8.86% |44874 | hostmas...@uneedus.com
  4.00% |1 |  3.60% |18225 | llie...@arin.net
  4.00% |1 |  2.60% |13169 | jcur...@arin.net
  4.00% |1 |  2.27% |11486 | p...@arin.net
  4.00% |1 |  1.89% | 9563 | nar...@us.ibm.com
+--++--+
100.00% |   25 |100.00% |   506733 | Total
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

2020-04-16 Thread John Curran 
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 accidentally 
giving a discount for undersized allocations.

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.   
ARIN staff will certainly get asked about such restrictions, so we best 
understand the motivation.

For this reason, would it be possible for the advocates of the policy to 
elaborate (on the list) on the perceived "unintended consequences by 
accidentally giving a discount for undersized allocations”?   (In particular, 
if a party specifically sought a /40 IPv6 allocation but they held more than 
/24 of IPv4, is the desire that ARIN would deny the request if they failed to 
agree to a larger IPv6 allocation or agree to divesture of IPv4 resources down 
to the /24 maximum?)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

2020-04-16 Thread hostmaster 
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 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  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  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"  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" 
 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

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

2020-04-16 Thread John Santos 

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 > 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 mailto:j...@egh.com>> 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" mailto:andrew@quark.net>> 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"
mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> on behalf
of i...@arin.net > 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

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

2020-04-16 Thread Brian Jones 
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  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  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"  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" <
> arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net on behalf of i...@arin.net> 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

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

2020-04-16 Thread Andrew Dul 
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 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  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"  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" 
  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

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

2020-04-16 Thread hostmaster 
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  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"  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" 
 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

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

2020-04-16 Thread John Sweeting 
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?
> 
> 
>> 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"  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" 
>>  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