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.
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.
