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