[182155] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Jul 11 00:49:19 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <B1BF4B70-DD2C-48E9-8AA9-A85157AB7C35@arin.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:49:06 -0700
To: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:50 , John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
>=20
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Mel Beckman =
<mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> wrote:
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Mel -
>=20
> 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 =E2=80=93 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=E2=80=99s 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-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@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=E2=80=99t 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/c=
urran_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=E2=80=A6 I wish this was moving at a somewhat less glacial pace.
Owen
