ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Thu Apr 8 18:26:51 UTC 2010

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgreco at ns.sol.net]
> > 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:  https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51
> 	You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years
> Non-ISP:  https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58
> 	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,

Yeah, real expensive...

> IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA,

Ditto...  

> research in things like
> SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6.

None of which a RIR really /needs/ to do, of course.

> You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy,

No, I argue there *could* be much less to argue about in IPv6 policy.

> but if
> you look at current proposals (https://www.arin.net/policy/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.  

None of which really addresses the point I made; that's the sound of a
bureaucracy perpetuating itself.

> 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
> we 
> 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.

The point I was making is that after the "transition", the justification
for ARIN is one of maintaining the status quo and perpetuating itself.
My question was, what purpose is served by that?  With IPv6 designed the
way it is, is there a realistic chance of running out of IPv6 even if
some questionable delegations are made?  What's the purpose of having the
complex legal agreements?  Handing out numbers without much fuss worked
okay in the early days of IPv4, before it became clear that there would
be eventual depletion.  IPv6 was designed to avoid the depletion scenario,
and with that in mind, is there a good reason that a much smaller RIRv6
model wouldn't work?

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.