Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org>]

John,


Thanks for the clarification. I'm happy to abide by the original community decision, but I think it's important that 
the table be clarified, especially given that the ARIN specialist I worked with agreed that it needs clarification.


It's like going to a Starbucks as a homeless person with just pocket change, and ordering the cheapest coffee on the 
menu, and being told "Oh, that's for off-planet visitors only. It says so on our website under "Terms and Conditions." 
Can I interest you in this giga-latte at only four times the price?"


A simple asterisk, followed by "Not available to residents of Earth", would prevent the confusion, and resulting social 
awkwardness. [😊]


 -mel

________________________________
From: John Curran <jcurran () arin net>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 12:50 PM
To: Mel Beckman
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

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