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.
