nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
From: John Curran <jcurran () arin net>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:50:37 +0000
On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org<mailto:mel () 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. 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-ppml () arin net<mailto:arin-ppml () arin net>>. 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) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Current thread:
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion, (continued)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Laszlo Hanyecz (Jul 09)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 09)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mark Tinka (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mark Andrews (Jul 09)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Matthew Kaufman (Jul 09)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 09)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Matthew Kaufman (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Matthew Kaufman (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion John Curran (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion John Curran (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Ricky Beam (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 13)