2013-3 Previous Version [Archived]
OUT OF DATE?
Here in the Vault, information is published in its final form and then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.
The following version was archived on 8 April 2013.
Date: 27 March 2013
ARIN’s fee structure provides a graduated system wherein organizations pay based on the amount of number resources they consume.
At the very bottom end of the scale, it is presently not possible to be an XX-Small ISP with an IPv6 allocation because the minimum allocation size of /36 automatically promotes one into Small ISP status, resulting in a doubling of annual fees.
While tiny in absolute terms, the extra costs incurred represent a disincentive to IPv6 deployment.
To the author’s knowledge, it has never been possible for an LIR/ISP to get a /48 allocation direct from ARIN; assignments of /48s have been limited to organizations that qualify as end sites or critical infrastructure.
Part 1: In the NRPM, change 188.8.131.52(b) from:
In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless they specifically request a /36. In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation.
In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless they specifically request a /36 or a /48. In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation.
Part 2: In the NRPM, append a subsection to 6.5:
An LIR may return all or part of an allocation to ARIN, however if the LIR retains a portion, the aggregate retained must be either the first (lowest numbered) subnet of that prefix or the largest (highest numbered) subnet of the returned block. The smallest prefix that may be retained by the LIR shall be no smaller than the smallest prefix that may be allocated under current policy at the time of the address space return.
The author acknowledges the shortcomings of providing an ISP with an allocation of a size that is more traditionally associated with end sites. In order to avoid possible bad effects on the routing table, the author encourages ARIN staff to adopt the same sparse allocation practice as currently exists for larger allocations, perhaps even reserving a block as large as the /28 that is reserved for /32s.
Part 1 brings ARIN’s allocation policies in line with the upcoming fee schedule so that it is possible to qualify as every level of ISP while holding IPv6 number resources.
Part 2 codifies and expands upon current practice for selective return in the manner described by John Curran on the arin-discuss mailing list (7-Mar-2013 in 8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9239EA@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net )
A more practical approach might to figure out a way to apply graduated fees to ISPs at the very small end of the scale using some metric other than prefix size. Fee schedules are outside of the purview of the Public Policy Process; such responsibility lies with the Board should they choose to take it up.
Timetable for implementation: Immediate