ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Lee Howard lee at
Thu Apr 8 12:01:46 CDT 2010

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgreco at]
> It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out
> the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of
> encouraging v6 adoption.  The lack of a need for onerous contractual
> clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought
> to make v6 really cheap.

For "fairly liberally" see:
For ISPs:
	You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years
	Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies, 
	you get to choose which one).

In another post you asked essentially "why does ARIN charge so much?"
ARIN doesn't just maintain a notebook of address assignments.  There are
HA servers for Whois, IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA, research in things like
SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6.
You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy, but if
you look at current proposals (
you'll see three that are IPv6-specific, and most of the others cover
both IPv4 and IPv6.  So ARIN will continue to maintain the mailing
lists, and hold public policy meetings (with remote participation, so 
anyone can participate), and facilitate elections so you can throw the
bums out if you don't like how we do things.  

We don't really know how much IPv6 will cost ARIN.  If there were 
no more debate about allocation policies, and nobody else had any interest 
in us (politically or litigiously), and technology were fairly static, then
might just do periodic tech refreshes and be fine.  I imagine all of those 
things will continue for a while, though, and ARIN will need to be 
financially solvent through the transition.

Your ARIN fee does not cover me posting here.  That's gratis, and
worth it.


More information about the NANOG mailing list