> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:50 , John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Mel Beckman > <m...@beckman.org<mailto:m...@beckman.org>> wrote: > > This is a side issue, but I'm surprised ARIN is still advertising incorrect > information in the table. > ... > Are you saying that there is no way to get an IPv6 allocation in the xx-small > category? > ARIN: Yes. The /36 prefix is the smallest size ARIN is permitted to allocate > to ISPs according to community-created policy. > https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six52 > ... > But ARIN still is advertising the /40 option months later! As a result we as > a community lost the opportunity to get a new ISP off on the right foot by > going dual-stacked. This is not good for IPv6 adoption. Hopefully ARIN reads > this and addresses the issue - either correct the table or honor xx-small > requests for a /40. > > Mel - > > The confusion is very understandable, but both the fee table and the policy > are > accurate. The fee table includes an XX-Small category which corresponds to > those ISPs which have smaller than /20 IPv4 and smaller than a /36 IPv6 total > holdings – the fact that such a category exists does not mean that any > particular > ISP is being billed in that category (or that a new ISP will necessarily end > up in > that category); it simply means that ISPs with those total resources are > billed > accordingly.
John, This is a bit disingenuous. I believe that there should, at least, be an indication on the table that the fee category is not available per policy when that is the case. It is not now nor has it ever been possible for an ISP to get a /40 or less of IPv6. If policy ever changes to make such a silly thing available, then the note could be removed from the table. > The constraint that you experienced, i.e. that there is a minimum IPv6 ISP > allocation > size of /36 is actually not something that the staff can fix; i.e. it’s the > result of the > community-led policy development process, and if you feel it does need to > change > to a lower number, you should propose an appropriate change to policy on the > ARIN public policy mailing list > <arin-p...@arin.net<mailto:arin-p...@arin.net>>. What if, instead, we feel that the entire IPv6 fee structure should shift up one row. /36 should be considered XX-Small, /40 should be considered Small, etc. Whether to leave the numbers in place or move them with the prefix lengths is left as an exercise for the staff. I really don’t care which you do. > We _are_ in the midst of considering changes to the fee table to lower and > realign > the IPv6 fees in general (which might be a better solution if the cost is > issue) - see > > <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/wednesday/curran_fees.pdf> > for the update provided in April at the ARIN 35 Members meeting, with > specific > options for community discussion at the ARIN Fall meeting taking place in > Montreal this October (adjacent to the NANOG Fall meeting) Indeed… I wish this was moving at a somewhat less glacial pace. Owen
