You don't have to be an ISP to have an ASN, thousands of end-users have ASNs assigned to them by ARIN, in ARIN policy the difference between an ISP (AKA an LIR) and an end-user is the ability to reassign address space to other entities. Since an end-user doesn't assign address space to other entities a /44 or even a /48 assignment directly from ARIN makes sense, such a small allocation to an ISP makes no sense since they couldn't reassign /48s to a sufficiently large number of customers. The point of this policy is to allow extremely small ISPs to receive a /40, providing 256 /48s for reassignment, which is a viable IPv6 allocation for the very smallest ISPs.
I hope that clarifies things for you. Thanks. On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 4:30 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. > > > > > 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. > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ 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.
