Yes, that would work well. That seems to be clearer language than my
initial attempt.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, Leif Sawyer wrote:
"Partial returns of any IPv6 allocation that results in less than a /36 of holding
are not permitted, [...]"
This would seem to address Albert's issue, and remove the uncertainty of "downgrade"
while allowing for a "complete return" of IPv6 space.
Leif Sawyer
GCI | Enterprise Security Architect
t: 907-868-0116 | w: www.gci.com
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 8:10 AM
To: Rob Seastrom
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6
Nano-allocations
[EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION: Do not open unexpected attachments or links.]
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.
