Andrew,
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Andrew Dul wrote:
On 10/12/2020 1:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Andrew Dul wrote:
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.
True, but not all resource holders are operating ISP's for public use.
For example, my local City Government has an ASN, and v4 address
block. They provide no internet services, neither network, to eyes,
nor content other than for their own use. This is the case with many
resource holders not in the primary business of being an ISP.
Scott
The organization you describe here sounds more like an end-user, but I
do understand various organizations have switched from being an end-user
to ISP and vise-versa over the years for various reasons.
Unfortunately, the only way to have redundancy in your upstream while
keeping connectivity to your network address is to be an ISP by this
definition, even if you offer no network services to other organizations.
This is because an AS is required to perform BGP, which is critical to
maintaining connectivity to a multi-homed network through outage of one
or more connected circuits.
An end-user organization who would be eligible to obtain an /48 under
6.5.8 of the NRPM.
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-8-direct-assignments-from-arin-to-end-user-organizations
This draft policy ARIN-2020-3 is specifically related to ISPs.
I believe you are making a misclassification here. Once these
organizations have AS and/or address resources, they are considered an ISP
for these purposes, despite their end use case.
Scott
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.
