Hi Owen,The contract I signed says otherwise, as was discussed further down this thread.
Scott
Nope… Andrew is correct. You are not considered an ISP for these purposes
unless you are making reallocations or reassignments of the number resources
registered to you by ARIN.
Owen
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.
