On 10/12/2020 2:30 PM, [email protected] wrote: > 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.
ARIN's definition of ISP/end-user is related to the services ARIN offers to an organization and may not be specifically tied to a "classic" definition of an ISP. > >> >> 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. I disagree, others feel free to correct me. An ARIN end-user customer can have an ASN as part of their number resources and can be multihomed. We specifically added the 6.5.8 section so that IPv6 end-users could multihome. Prior to the addition of this section in the the IPv6 policy it was assumed that end-users couldn't/shouldn't? multihome so they either had to get an ISP sized allocation or use some other (SHIM6/etc) method to multihome. I have worked & consulted for organizations who were ARIN end-users and had AS and number resources. Andrew >> >> >>>> >>>> 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.
