I would support either your suggestion or Leif’s. Thank you for your thoughts!
-r > On Jul 21, 2020, at 12:10 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > How about "Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 OTHER THAN A > RETURN OF ALL IPv6 RESOURCES are not permitted regardless of the ISP’s > current or former IPv4 number resource holdings." > > At least this avoids the "Hotel California" issue. > > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > > > On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, Rob Seastrom wrote: > >> >> Hi Albert, >> >> As a practical matter, I don’t think the NRPM overrides your ability to >> terminate your contract with ARIN should that become a business requirement. >> >> Do you have alternative language to suggest that is clear, concise, and >> preserves the intent of narrowly boxing in nano-allocations for the tiniest >> of providers with IPv4 rather than incenting undersizing IPv6 allocations? >> Remember that the whole reason for the default /32 allocation is that we >> wish for IPv6 allocations to be the polar opposite of IPv4 slow-start - a >> one-and-done approach that minimizes both unnecessary routing table growth >> and the need to come back to ARIN for more space. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -r >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 21, 2020, at 11:26 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> I have a problem with this language: >>> >>> "Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 are not permitted >>> regardless of the ISP’s current or former IPv4 number resource holdings." >>> >>> Downgrades include in my mind a return, and thus a downgrade to 0. This >>> language seems to lock in anyone who has ever requested IPv6 space. >>> >>> Does this make a request for IPv6 space from ARIN like the Hotel >>> California, where you can never leave.... >>> >>> If I were one of those ISP's with a /24 of IPv4, and I took the minimum >>> allocation of IPv6 which raised my fees to $500 from $250, does this >>> language make me continue to pay $500/yr even if I decide to return all my >>> IPv6 resources to ARIN, and either get IPv6 space from my upstream or forgo >>> use of IPv6? >>> >>> Albert Erdmann >>> Network Administrator >>> Paradise On Line Inc. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, ARIN wrote: >>> >>>> On 16 July 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following >>>> Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status: >>>> >>>> ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations >>>> >>>> The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found >>>> at: >>>> >>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_3/ >>>> >>>> You are encouraged to discuss all Recommended Draft Policies on PPML prior >>>> to their presentation at the next ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC). >>>> PPML and PPC discussions are invaluable to the AC when determining >>>> community consensus. >>>> >>>> The PDP can be found at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ >>>> >>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Sean Hopkins >>>> Policy Analyst >>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations >>>> >>>> AC Assessment of Conformance with the Principles of Internet Number >>>> Resource Policy: >>>> >>>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3 provides for small IPv6 allocations >>>> to ISPs. This policy would allow the smallest ISP organizations to obtain >>>> a /40 of IPv6 addresses. This recommended draft is technically sound, >>>> supported by the community and enables fair and impartial administration >>>> of number resources by providing the smallest organizations the >>>> opportunity to obtain an IPv6 allocation without a fee increase under the >>>> current fee schedule. >>>> >>>> Problem Statement: >>>> >>>> ARIN’s ISP registration services fee structure has graduated fee >>>> categories based upon the total amount of number resources held within the >>>> ARIN registry. >>>> >>>> In the case of the very smallest ISPs, if a 3X-Small ISP (with a /24 or >>>> smaller of IPv4) gets the present minimal-sized IPv6 allocation (a /36), >>>> its annual fees will double from $250 to $500/year. >>>> >>>> According to a Policy Experience Report presented by Registration Services >>>> to the AC at its annual workshop in January 2020, this represents a >>>> disincentive to IPv6 adoption with a substantial fraction of so-situated >>>> ISPs saying “no thanks” and abandoning their request for IPv6 number >>>> resources when informed of the impact on their annual fees. >>>> >>>> This can be addressed by rewriting subsection 6.5.2.1(b). Initial >>>> Allocation Size to allow allocation of a /40 to only the smallest ISPs >>>> upon request, and adding a new clause 6.5.2.1(g) to cause an automatic >>>> upgrade to at least a /36 in the case where the ISP is no longer 3X-Small. >>>> >>>> Reserving /40s only for organizations initially expanding into IPv6 from >>>> an initial sliver of IPv4 space will help to narrowly address the problem >>>> observed by Registration Services while avoiding unintended consequences >>>> by accidentally giving a discount for undersized allocations. >>>> >>>> Policy Statement: >>>> >>>> Replace the current 6.5.2.1(b) with the following: >>>> >>>> b. In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless they >>>> specifically request a /36 or /40. >>>> >>>> In order to be eligible for a /40, an ISP must meet the following >>>> requirements: >>>> >>>> Hold IPv4 direct allocations totaling a /24 or less (to include zero) >>>> Hold IPv4 reassignments/reallocations totaling a /22 or less (to include >>>> zero) >>>> In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation. >>>> >>>> Add 6.5.2.1(g) as follows: >>>> >>>> g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to >>>> expand the allocation to any nibble aligned size up to /32 at any time >>>> without renumbering or additional justification. /40 allocations shall be >>>> automatically upgraded to /36 if at any time said LIR’s IPv4 direct >>>> allocations exceed a /24. Expansions up to and including a /32 are not >>>> considered subsequent allocations, however any expansions beyond /32 are >>>> considered subsequent allocations and must conform to section 6.5.3. >>>> Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 are not permitted >>>> regardless of the ISP’s current or former IPv4 number resource holdings. >>>> >>>> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate >>>> >>>> Comments: >>>> >>>> The intent of this policy proposal is to make IPv6 adoption at the very >>>> bottom end expense-neutral for the ISP and revenue-neutral for ARIN. The >>>> author looks forward to a future era wherein IPv6 is the dominant >>>> technology and IPv4 is well in decline and considered optional leading the >>>> Community to conclude that sunsetting this policy is prudent in the >>>> interests of avoiding an incentive to request undersized IPv6 allocations. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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.
