Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Seth Mattinen)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Celeste Anderson)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Michael Sinatra)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Curran)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Owen DeLong)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Curran)
7. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Curran)
8. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(William Herrin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:02:31 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 3/27/13 1:16 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:20 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3
>> Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
>>
>> Part 1 brings ARIN's allocation policies in line with the upcoming fee
>> schedule so that it is possible to qualify as every level of ISP while
>> holding IPv6 number resources.
>
> This looks like a billing policy problem. The technical (i.e. number
> policy) case for a smaller-than-/32 ISP allocation seems weak to me.
>
> IMO, this problem could (and should!) be solved by billing
> organizations with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses only for the IPv4
> addresses until IPv6 is prevalent enough to support its own costs.
> ARIN's board is -supposed- to optimize billing policy for the sake of
> technically sound number policy, not the other way around.
>
I agree that this is a billing problem, not a technical one. IPv6 /32
for every ISP and more if you can justify it was (and should continue to
be) the correct approach in my opinion.
~Seth
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:44:39 +0000
From: Celeste Anderson <[email protected]>
To: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<d0e2b9e245f287479153934106dc15280ff04...@ch1prd0710mb393.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
+1
--celeste.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:03 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for
ISPs
On 3/27/13 1:16 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:20 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3
>> Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
>>
>> Part 1 brings ARIN's allocation policies in line with the upcoming
>> fee schedule so that it is possible to qualify as every level of ISP
>> while holding IPv6 number resources.
>
> This looks like a billing policy problem. The technical (i.e. number
> policy) case for a smaller-than-/32 ISP allocation seems weak to me.
>
> IMO, this problem could (and should!) be solved by billing
> organizations with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses only for the IPv4
> addresses until IPv6 is prevalent enough to support its own costs.
> ARIN's board is -supposed- to optimize billing policy for the sake of
> technically sound number policy, not the other way around.
>
I agree that this is a billing problem, not a technical one. IPv6 /32 for every
ISP and more if you can justify it was (and should continue to
be) the correct approach in my opinion.
~Seth
_______________________________________________
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:00:48 -0700
From: Michael Sinatra <[email protected]>
To: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 03/27/2013 15:02, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 3/27/13 1:16 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:20 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3
>>> Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
>>>
>>> Part 1 brings ARIN's allocation policies in line with the upcoming fee
>>> schedule so that it is possible to qualify as every level of ISP while
>>> holding IPv6 number resources.
>>
>> This looks like a billing policy problem. The technical (i.e. number
>> policy) case for a smaller-than-/32 ISP allocation seems weak to me.
>>
>> IMO, this problem could (and should!) be solved by billing
>> organizations with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses only for the IPv4
>> addresses until IPv6 is prevalent enough to support its own costs.
>> ARIN's board is -supposed- to optimize billing policy for the sake of
>> technically sound number policy, not the other way around.
>>
>
> I agree that this is a billing problem, not a technical one. IPv6 /32
> for every ISP and more if you can justify it was (and should continue to
> be) the correct approach in my opinion.
Or, to put more bluntly, if ARIN's fee structure is itself creating
disincentives for proper IPv6 adoption, then let's go back and (re-)fix
that problem.
Oppose 2013-3.
michael
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:46:02 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Mar 27, 2013, at 4:40 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> In my opinion? $100/year for any prefix /32 or longer. Current fee
> schedule for anything /31 or shorter. *Until* IPv6 traffic on the
> public Internet based on some reasonable measure of packet flows hits
> the 50% mark. Once IPv4 traffic falls into the minority on the public
> Internet, the current fee schedule (or one like it) should take
> effect.
Bill -
Two points to consider:
1) We had an IPv6 fee waiver which ramped out over 5 years, and
we extended it twice to reduce impact to IPv6 deployment.
2) The new fee schedule provides for ISPs the ability to effectively
get a corresponding IPv6 block for _no charge_, and this is one
of the reasons that we don't have distinct fees for IPv4 and
IPv6 but instead a size category which covers an amount of each.
In general, ISP's do not pay for obtaining IPv6 under the new schedule;
the underlying question is whether the new lowest category of xx-small
(which did not exist before and is $500/year, as opposed to $1250 for
the prior x-small $1250 category previously) will encourage ISPs to try
and stay in that lower category by economizing their IPv6 assignments.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:52:54 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> In general, ISP's do not pay for obtaining IPv6 under the new schedule;
> the underlying question is whether the new lowest category of xx-small
> (which did not exist before and is $500/year, as opposed to $1250 for
> the prior x-small $1250 category previously) will encourage ISPs to try
> and stay in that lower category by economizing their IPv6 assignments.
>
Clearly from the existence of this policy proposal and the discussions around
it, it will. Further, the fact that it will is detrimental to good IPv6
deployment
and we should, therefore, correct the errors in the fee structure rather than
create incentives to create end-user address poverty in IPv6.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:02:44 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Antoine Beaupr? <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Antoine Beaupr? <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A /48 is definitely to small but would would you think of a /40 for an
>> xx-small and /36 for a x-small. This requires a tweak in the fee
>> schedule too.
>
> That would make sense, although I still think that lowering the rates
> for IPv6 would be more enticing for wider adoption...
Antoine -
There is no charge for the corresponding IPv6 allocation for the same
size category... <https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html>
For example, on the previous fee schedule, the smallest category was
X-Small (any ISP with less than a /20 IPv4 space), and the annual fee
was $1250/year.
On the pending fee schedule, these ISP's are X-small (if they hold a
/22 or small) or xx-small, with respective annual fees of $1000 and
$500. The smallest IPv6 fee was 75% of $2,250 (for those holding
/40 to /32) On the existing fee schedule, ISPs paid whichever IPv4
or IPv6 was larger,
The new pending fee schedule is _significantly less_ for smaller ISPs,
but it does create a potential incentive for those ISPs that wish to
optimize their costs to take a smaller IPv6 allocation (/36, and/or
potentially /40 if allowed by this proposed policy change.)
An x-small or xx-small ISP that has the same space as before will
always pay less under the revised fee schedule, but there is now
a potential for paying _even less_ if they want to take a smaller
IPv6 allocation.
The discussion is whether we should have a fee schedule and policy
which provides them the option to opt for the smaller IPv6 allocation
with further reduced annual fee.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:09:36 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Further, the fact that it will is detrimental to good IPv6 deployment
> and we should, therefore, correct the errors in the fee structure rather
> than create incentives to create end-user address poverty in IPv6.
Owen -
How many customers does an typical xx-small ISP have today?
(xx-small being those ISPs who hold a /22 of IPv4 space)
Based on that, how much IPv6 space are they likely to need
(using reasonable management practices), and then presumingly
we add a very large safety factor, what would the resulting
IPv6 allocation be?
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:44:12 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<cap-gugxoz1dutwhur8dezpomejsu6wucinirvm5dkqvhhlr...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:46 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2) The new fee schedule provides for ISPs the ability to effectively
> get a corresponding IPv6 block for _no charge_, and this is one
> of the reasons that we don't have distinct fees for IPv4 and
> IPv6 but instead a size category which covers an amount of each.
Hi John,
Except we have ISPs seeking /36's and now /48's because their fees for
the IETF's requested standard /32 that we fully support in the number
policy aren't lining up as a no-charge. And I'll defer the obvious
points about end user fees for another day.
> 1) We had an IPv6 fee waiver which ramped out over 5 years, and
> we extended it twice to reduce impact to IPv6 deployment.
ARIN gave folks uncertainty. ARIN would defer fees... but for how
long? Definitely until the end of the year. But how long would it
last? Until IPv6 was the real deal on the public Internet? Evidently
not.
Don't get me wrong - the new fees do a better job than the old fees.
But if they were well optimized in support of the sound number policy
in the NRPM, this policy proposal wouldn't be on the table and we
wouldn't be having this discussion.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 15
*****************************************
