Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 13, 2020, at 08:55 , Andrew Dul wrote: > > David, Thanks for your comments. > > On 3/26/2020 4:08 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> I support this policy as written. >> >> However, I recommend a minor editorial change and a small change to the >> policy; >> >> 1. I would prefer to not

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 19, 2020, at 08:33 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On 19/04/2020 05:07, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Right… IETF designed a good architecture and then came under pressure from a >> bunch of people with an IPv4 mindset and given the modern state of the IETF >> decided to just punt on the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 19, 2020, at 02:16 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > LACNIC and AFRINIC have similar problems in the fee structure that doesn’t > incentivize the right deployment of IPv6. I’ve already made proposals to the > relevant boards to change that (it is not a matter of poli

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 4:20 PM John Santos wrote: > > On 4/19/2020 3:08 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM John Santos wrote: > >> Is there any way to ensure that an ISP requesting a /40 has fewer than >> 250 customers, so they can assign each a /48 in order to be el

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

Hi Chris, I guess you missed this at the end of my previous email: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis-02. I need to update it! Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 19/4/20 21:32, "ARIN-PPML en nombre de Chris Woodfield" escribió: I’ll admit to havin

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On 4/19/2020 3:08 PM, David Farmer wrote: On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM John Santos > wrote: Is there any way to ensure that an ISP requesting a /40 has fewer than 250 customers, so they can assign each a /48 in order to be eligible for the smallest allocat

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

I’ll admit to having skimmed some of this thread, so apologies in advance if I've missed prior discussion of the point below. The guidance against assigning /48s by default described in RFC6177 made sense at the time, particularly for an individual residential subscriber site, given the assumpt

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM John Santos wrote: > Is there any way to ensure that an ISP requesting a /40 has fewer than 250 > customers, so they can assign each a /48 in order to be eligible for the > smallest allocation at commensurate cost with a /24 of IPv4? > I don't think there is anyth

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

Policy should not prohibit doing what many regard as best practice.  Just because SOME ISPs might find a /48 unnecessarily large doesn't mean that ALL will, or that the recommendation of a /48 is always WRONG and that nano-ISPs should be punished (financially) for doing so. There is obviously

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:32:40AM -0400, Brian Jones wrote: > Looking at the numbers John posted concerning this issue, it tends to *look > like* some of these 3x small folks decided to drop their request once they > encountered the price increase. If this is the case then we should move > forward

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On 19/04/2020 05:07, Owen DeLong wrote: Right… IETF designed a good architecture and then came under pressure from a bunch of people with an IPv4 mindset and given the modern state of the IETF decided to just punt on the whole thing rather than waste more time on an argument where people were

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

hi/bonjour, +1 with @JORDI [..] strategy, increase IPV4 cost (even if there is a black market of opportunities effect of those can deal) and have an affordable price for IPV6. That could be fix for a "transition period" of 3 or 5 years to manage ROI of investors. sorry if my sharing is out o

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

LACNIC and AFRINIC have similar problems in the fee structure that doesn’t incentivize the right deployment of IPv6. I’ve already made proposals to the relevant boards to change that (it is not a matter of policies in those cases). Many management departments of ISPs make the numbers about th

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:21 AM Fernando Frediani wrote: > On 19/04/2020 01:38, David Farmer wrote: > > I support this policy as written, as I said previously, I recommend a > couple of changes, but I won't repeat the details of those changes here. > > Regarding the current discussion of /48 ass

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

> On Apr 18, 2020, at 22:20 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On 19/04/2020 01:38, David Farmer wrote: >> I support this policy as written, as I said previously, I recommend a couple >> of changes, but I won't repeat the details of those changes here. >> >> Regarding the current discussion of /4