ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

William Pitcock nenolod at systeminplace.net
Wed Apr 7 15:52:24 CDT 2010


On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 15:31 -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:22 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct)
> > > <nanog2 at adns.net> wrote:
> > >> Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those
> > >> who have
> > >> IP4 legacy space.
> > >> 
> > >> Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP
> > >> space. If not, is ARIN
> > >> saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6?  Isn't this a disincentive for
> > >> us to move up to IP6?
> > >> 
> > >> Those with legacy IP4 space should have the equivalent IP6 space under the
> > >> same terms. Or am I missing something?
> > > 
> > > Hi John,
> > > 
> > > The game is:
> > > 
> > > Sign ARIN's "Legacy RSA" covering your legacy space. With the LRSA you
> > > retain more rights than folks who sign the regular RSA, but probably
> > > less rights than you have now.
> > 
> > More accurately, you retain more rights than the standard RSA and you
> > move from a situation where your exact rights are unknown and
> > undetermined with no contractual relationship between you and ARIN
> > to a situation where your rights are assured, enumerated, and a
> > contractual relationship exists between you and ARIN governing
> > the services you are receiving from ARIN.
> > 
> > > Pay your $100/year as an end-user. You now qualify for an IPv6
> > > assignment under ARIN NRPM 6.5.8.1b regardless of the size of your
> > > network.
> > > 
> > > Pay the $1250 IPv6 initial assignment fee.
> > 
> > This is correct. I would like to see initial registration fee waivers for
> > IPv6 end-user assignments.  I've brought the subject up on arin-discuss.
> > There was substantial opposition to the idea.  If you would like to see
> > that happen, I encourage you to voice your opinion there.
> 
> It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's
> moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to
> a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space.
> 
> We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee.  As it stands, there
> isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the
> form of the fees.

And when there are no eyeballs to look at your IPv4 content because your
average comcast user is on IPv6?

Will you have an incentive then?

William





More information about the NANOG mailing list