Scott - can confirm from my own experience you are correct. An end-user that signs to the RSP is considered an ISP from both a fee and policy perspective, and as John stated, is a one-way conversion. As mentioned previously, the ability to utilize SWIP to reassign blocks need not be in an ISP-to-customer context; there are a number of reasons an organization may wish to publish SWIP data for blocks assigned internally.
Hope this clarifies things :) -C > On Oct 12, 2020, at 4:44 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Thanks for the clarification, John. > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, John Sweeting wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/12/20, 7:09 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of Andrew Dul" >> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 10/12/2020 3:40 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> > Hi Andrew, >> > >> >>> >> >>> 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. >> > >> > Precisely what I was trying, if failing, to express. David's post >> > clarified the delineation. I see from the NRPM that there is a minor >> > difference in fee schedule too. For example, an end user with a /44 >> > or /48 of v6, a /24 of v4, and an ASN would pay approximately >> > $200/year more than a 3x-small, and $50 less than a 2x-small. >> > >> > This applies, however, only to those who do not subscribe to the >> > Registration Services Plan, if I understand correctly, as subscribing >> > to said plan converts one from End User to ISP automatically. >> > Needless to say, there are organizations that are end users by >> > functional definition here, but subscribe to the service plan, and/or >> > choose to be an ISP for other reasons. >> >> My understanding is that subscribing to 'Registration Services Plan' >> does not change you from an end-user to ISP, it just gives you access to >> the services available under that plan and the resulting fee schedule. >> You can presumably decide to go back to classic 'pay by the resource >> option' as an end-user if you didn't need the extra services or >> preferred the alternate fee calculation. >> >> (JS) Converting to an Registration Services Plan is a one time, one way >> action. There is no converting back to EU 'pay by the resource option' once >> an organization has completed actions necessary to convert to Registration >> Services Plan. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> 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 >> >>>> >> >>>> >> > >> > True, but I was referring to protocol version agnostic multi-homing. >> > Would an end user also qualify for 4.10 v4 space by requesting a /44 >> > or /48 directly from ARIN? >> > >> I believe the answer is yes, 4.10, is agnostic to your ISP/End-user >> status w/ ARIN. >> >> >>>> >> >>>> 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. >> > >> > You are right. Pardon my confusion. >> > >> > 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. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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.
