From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 18:40:04 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:40:04 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail><0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk>
	<29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <804137FAE8BD45F083EC7EA5CC2A3146@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Johnson
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:36 PM
> To: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On
> > Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:09 PM
> > To: 'Kevin Kargel'; 'Leo Vegoda'; 'ARIN PPML'
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > 
> > 
> <snip>
> > 
> > Unfortunately, many of these are operational, not policy, issues.
> > Particularly the fee proposals, an issue near to my heart 
> (as I don't 
> > work at a large ISP who gets the "Costco discount" on IPv4)
> > 
> > Ted
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by Costco discount. 

Costco is a retailer known for it's practice of selling
large quantities of items at a cheaper per-unit price.

You don't go to Costco to buy a loaf of bread for $2.  They will
sell you 6 loaves for $9 though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco

> If you mean 
> that there should be a direct cost per IP address that should 
> remain consistent across total assignment sizes, then I 
> understand your point.
> 

Yes.

> I always find these types of comments to be a bit grating and 
> tend to diminish the dialog instead of promote discussion. 
> There is no place in the policy that gives anyone a discount. 
> If you have more assignments, you pay more than others who 
> have fewer assignments. This is not a discount.
> 

Yes it is.  If you get more IPv4 assigned you pay less per IP.
This is a volume discount in every possible interpretation of the
phrase.

> If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs (ISPs generally
> speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long 
> standing policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal 
> and get consensus.
> Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.
> 

Volume discounts are a legitimate business practice and are not degrading!

In business they are used to do several things, protect the dealer
networks, protect the retail networks, and as an acknowledgement
that it's cheaper for the manufacturer to sell the same amount to 1 customer
than 100 customers

ARIN IP number discounts exist for many of the same reasons,
it protects ISPs  (do you really want all of your customers with
their own portable /29's) and because it is cheaper for ARIN to track
a SINGLE org that has a LARGE
assignment than MANY orgs that have SMALL assignments.  It is ALSO
CHEAPER for the REST of the Internet to route FEWER advertisements
from LARGER orgs than MANY assignments from SMALLER orgs.

My point here which I'm spelling out is that post-IPv4 runout, we
now have an IPv4->IPv6 conversion cost that must be bourne by
all networks.

Thus a large reason for the multiple-IP discount - that it's cheaper
to have larger orgs advertising fewer prefixes - is now counterbalanced
by the increased cost to switch to IPv6.  In other words, if we can
push off the IPv4 runout date by getting IPv4-heavy orgs to shed
some IPv4, that it will allow existing IPv4 orgs to stretch their old
equipment for a longer lifespan, thus saving the entire Internet money.

Plus, if we push-out the IPv4 runout date, then when runout happens
there will be a much more rapid "snap" to IPv6 - as conversion then will
be an absolute necessity because then no IPv4 will be available for
love or money.

This reduces the time that the entire Internet must dual-stack to
keep the laggards happy, and saves even more money for everyone.
It also drops the amount of data ARIN has to track, decreasing
their costs and allowing fees to drop.

It's pretty clear to me that cost/IP adjustments are a part of
any end-game IPv4 runout policy.  Of course, I do realize that
IP costs would have to be raised to obscene levels before the large
orgs would be motivated to shed IPv4 - but I also recognize that
the cost structure right now is seriously out of wack and very
unfair to the smaller players.  ARIN is also mandated to collect
enough fees to maintain it's operation - and having ARIN go on
fishing trips to pull dusty old IPv4 out of corners is going to
increase their expenses which will have to be paid somehow.  The
same exact thing would happen for the pro-transfer market proponents
too - having ARIN referee a bunch of paid transfers is also going
to increase their expenses.

And, who do you think will be the main beneficiaries of IPv4 that
is returned?  It won't be the small orgs who send in requests
once in a blue moon - it will be the large orgs who are chewing
up the IPv4 at a huge rate.

I may have personal dogs in this hunt, but I didn't bring this
issue up for myself.  After all, I don't own my employer - I
don't pay the yearly registration renewal fees myself.

Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 18:51:54 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:51:54 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to
	arbitrarytransfers)
In-Reply-To: <120225.67700.qm@web63304.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail><0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk><29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan>
	<120225.67700.qm@web63304.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <313F96FB9753495DB90E1B045756E86D@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:09 PM
> To: Brian Johnson; ARIN PPML
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to 
> arbitrarytransfers)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com>
> >
> > If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs 
> (ISPs generally
> > speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long 
> standing 
> > policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal and get 
> consensus.
> > Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.
> 
> Probably suggestion process, not policy process.  The 
> suggestion doesn't have to be for a specific fee structure; 
> rather, you[1] want to change the principle by which fees are 
> set: instead of setting fees based on ARIN's cost, you want 
> to set fees based on a per-address cost.
> https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/
> 
> Probably requires member consensus.  Probably belongs on arin-discuss.
> 

Lee,

It was not my intent to trigger a discussion on fees.

But, since we are discussing them, adjustments to the fee
structure do not have to be made to increase the money paid
to ARIN.  You can reduce the discount to larger players, collecting
more money from them, and reduce the fees for smaller players,
collecting less money from them, and end up with the same
money coming in - just a different distribution among the
bearers of the fees.

In any case, I will direct your attention to the ARIN staff
comments on 2008-7, posted to arin-ppml on 3/23/09:

"...An annual re-registration of all POCs (~223,000 currently) will
      likely result in a vast increase in workload, particularly with
      the follow up work and research involved when a POC does not reply
      within 60 days. ..."

An increase in workload will mean having to hire more people at
ARIN which will increase costs.  Thus increasing fees under the
existing principle.  Since increasing fees to the largest consumers
of IPv4 would increase incentive of those consumers to more efficiently
utilize IPv4 and thus defer additional IPv4 requests, which would
affect the largest amount of available IPv4, it would be completely
logical to do this rather than increase fees across the board.

Ted 



From cchavez at hcis.net  Mon Apr  6 18:41:02 2009
From: cchavez at hcis.net (cchavez at hcis.net)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:41:02 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
Message-ID: <981896481@mail.hcis.net>

My email address has changed. 
Please update all references containing:
cchavez at hcis.net 
to: 
carlos.chavez at hciscorp.com

As of July 20, 2008, this account will no longer be checked for messages.

Carlos Chavez
Network Operations
Heartland Communications 



From JTobin at origindigital.com  Tue Apr  7 11:01:17 2009
From: JTobin at origindigital.com (John Tobin)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:01:17 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative
	to	arbitrarytransfers)
In-Reply-To: <313F96FB9753495DB90E1B045756E86D@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail><0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk><29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan>
	<120225.67700.qm@web63304.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<313F96FB9753495DB90E1B045756E86D@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <B6B9B38B3B438D499642EBBA8B08707D37661EE3FE@AUSP01VMBX06.collaborationhost.net>


 All, this thread is hard to follow... What are you asking me?


John Tobin	
Director Of Information Technology


300 Boulevard East
Weehawken, NJ 07086-6702, U.S.A.

E: jtobin at origindigital.com?? | C: 732-616-8780?| V: 201.272.8451 |? F: 201.272.8400 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .?. . . . .?. . . . .?. . . 
This message contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail at jtobin at origindigital.com and delete the message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies. 


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:52 PM
To: 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to arbitrarytransfers)

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:09 PM
> To: Brian Johnson; ARIN PPML
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to 
> arbitrarytransfers)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com>
> >
> > If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs 
> (ISPs generally
> > speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long 
> standing 
> > policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal and get 
> consensus.
> > Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.
> 
> Probably suggestion process, not policy process.  The 
> suggestion doesn't have to be for a specific fee structure; 
> rather, you[1] want to change the principle by which fees are 
> set: instead of setting fees based on ARIN's cost, you want 
> to set fees based on a per-address cost.
> https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/
> 
> Probably requires member consensus.  Probably belongs on arin-discuss.
> 

Lee,

It was not my intent to trigger a discussion on fees.

But, since we are discussing them, adjustments to the fee
structure do not have to be made to increase the money paid
to ARIN.  You can reduce the discount to larger players, collecting
more money from them, and reduce the fees for smaller players,
collecting less money from them, and end up with the same
money coming in - just a different distribution among the
bearers of the fees.

In any case, I will direct your attention to the ARIN staff
comments on 2008-7, posted to arin-ppml on 3/23/09:

"...An annual re-registration of all POCs (~223,000 currently) will
      likely result in a vast increase in workload, particularly with
      the follow up work and research involved when a POC does not reply
      within 60 days. ..."

An increase in workload will mean having to hire more people at
ARIN which will increase costs.  Thus increasing fees under the
existing principle.  Since increasing fees to the largest consumers
of IPv4 would increase incentive of those consumers to more efficiently
utilize IPv4 and thus defer additional IPv4 requests, which would
affect the largest amount of available IPv4, it would be completely
logical to do this rather than increase fees across the board.

Ted 

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From info at arin.net  Tue Apr  7 13:56:36 2009
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:56:36 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)
Message-ID: <49DB93D4.40208@arin.net>

As a reminder to the community, ARIN enforces the Acceptable Use Policy 
(AUP) to safeguard and facilitate open, constructive dialogue on its 
mailing lists.  The AUP sets forth general guidelines of acceptable list 
conduct and calls out a number of specifically prohibited activities. A 
section on reporting violations and enforcement is included, along with 
procedures on how both are to be accomplished.

This AUP is available on the ARIN website at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/aup.html

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)





From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr  7 14:13:44 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:13:44 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative
	toarbitrarytransfers)
In-Reply-To: <B6B9B38B3B438D499642EBBA8B08707D37661EE3FE@AUSP01VMBX06.collaborationhost.net>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail><0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk><29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan><120225.67700.qm@web63304.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<313F96FB9753495DB90E1B045756E86D@tedsdesk>
	<B6B9B38B3B438D499642EBBA8B08707D37661EE3FE@AUSP01VMBX06.collaborationhost.net>
Message-ID: <7992CB9A27B64E35880499CF419CA1F2@tedsdesk>


All I am asking is that anyone who cares anything at all
about transitioning to IPv6, be aware that a fee incentive
exists for the largest holders to NOT transition.

As I don't work at a large holder I do not know if the
fee discount for large IPv4 holdings actually influences
decisions.  If it does not, because the IP address registration
fee is such a small part of total business expenses, then
perhaps the fees should be adjusted until they do start
to influence decisions.

Just a thought.

Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Tobin [mailto:JTobin at origindigital.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:01 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternative toarbitrarytransfers)
> 
> 
>  All, this thread is hard to follow... What are you asking me?
> 
> 
> John Tobin	
> Director Of Information Technology
> 
> 
> 300 Boulevard East
> Weehawken, NJ 07086-6702, U.S.A.
> 
> E: jtobin at origindigital.com?? | C: 732-616-8780?| V: 
> 201.272.8451 |? F: 201.272.8400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .?. . . . .?. . . . .?. . . 
> This message contains information which may be confidential 
> and/or privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or 
> authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may 
> not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any 
> information contained in the message. If you have received 
> the message in error, please advise the sender by reply 
> e-mail at jtobin at origindigital.com and delete the message and 
> any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:52 PM
> To: 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternative to arbitrarytransfers)
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:09 PM
> > To: Brian Johnson; ARIN PPML
> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to 
> > arbitrarytransfers)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com>
> > >
> > > If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs 
> > (ISPs generally
> > > speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long 
> > standing 
> > > policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal and get 
> > consensus.
> > > Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.
> > 
> > Probably suggestion process, not policy process.  The 
> > suggestion doesn't have to be for a specific fee structure; 
> > rather, you[1] want to change the principle by which fees are 
> > set: instead of setting fees based on ARIN's cost, you want 
> > to set fees based on a per-address cost.
> > https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/
> > 
> > Probably requires member consensus.  Probably belongs on 
> arin-discuss.
> > 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> It was not my intent to trigger a discussion on fees.
> 
> But, since we are discussing them, adjustments to the fee
> structure do not have to be made to increase the money paid
> to ARIN.  You can reduce the discount to larger players, collecting
> more money from them, and reduce the fees for smaller players,
> collecting less money from them, and end up with the same
> money coming in - just a different distribution among the
> bearers of the fees.
> 
> In any case, I will direct your attention to the ARIN staff
> comments on 2008-7, posted to arin-ppml on 3/23/09:
> 
> "...An annual re-registration of all POCs (~223,000 currently) will
>       likely result in a vast increase in workload, particularly with
>       the follow up work and research involved when a POC 
> does not reply
>       within 60 days. ..."
> 
> An increase in workload will mean having to hire more people at
> ARIN which will increase costs.  Thus increasing fees under the
> existing principle.  Since increasing fees to the largest consumers
> of IPv4 would increase incentive of those consumers to more 
> efficiently
> utilize IPv4 and thus defer additional IPv4 requests, which would
> affect the largest amount of available IPv4, it would be completely
> logical to do this rather than increase fees across the board.
> 
> Ted 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 



From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com  Tue Apr  7 19:07:33 2009
From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 19:07:33 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re:
	Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
In-Reply-To: <7992CB9A27B64E35880499CF419CA1F2@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail><0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk><29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan><120225.67700.qm@web63304.mail.re1.yahoo.com><313F96FB9753495DB90E1B045756E86D@tedsdesk><B6B9B38B3B438D499642EBBA8B08707D37661EE3FE@AUSP01VMBX06.collaborationhost.net>
	<7992CB9A27B64E35880499CF419CA1F2@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800AACCDCD@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>

Ted,

Let me start with the usual disclaimer that this is my own opinion and not the position of my employer. Registration fees are not the key factor in whether or not to deploy IPv6, nor are they the key factor in the efficiency in which IPv4 address space is utilized. 

The largest consumers of IP address space are ISP. The reason they use these IP resources is not because they are cheap, or easy to come by. It is because they are connecting end users (I assume you are one of them) to the Internet. The growth, and very existence of an ISP is based on the services they provide and the revenue these services generate. 

The fact that IPv4 is running out is the single largest incentive any ISP needs to deploy IPv6. The lost revenue, because you don't have the IP resources to add new customers and services, far outweighs any increase in fees that ARIN could impose. Another thing to consider is that historically, an increase in fees are rarely born by the provider, and are more often passed along to the consumer. It is the end user who would most likely bear the burden of the fee "incentive" you propose.

Again, this is my own opinion.
Dan Alexander
ARIN AC


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:14 PM
To: 'John Tobin'; 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)


All I am asking is that anyone who cares anything at all about transitioning to IPv6, be aware that a fee incentive exists for the largest holders to NOT transition.

As I don't work at a large holder I do not know if the fee discount for large IPv4 holdings actually influences decisions.  If it does not, because the IP address registration fee is such a small part of total business expenses, then perhaps the fees should be adjusted until they do start to influence decisions.

Just a thought.

Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Tobin [mailto:JTobin at origindigital.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:01 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternative toarbitrarytransfers)
> 
> 
>  All, this thread is hard to follow... What are you asking me?
> 
> 
> John Tobin	
> Director Of Information Technology
> 
> 
> 300 Boulevard East
> Weehawken, NJ 07086-6702, U.S.A.
> 
> E: jtobin at origindigital.com?? | C: 732-616-8780?| V: 
> 201.272.8451 |? F: 201.272.8400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .?. . . . .?. . . . .?. . . 
> This message contains information which may be confidential and/or 
> privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to 
> receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or 
> disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the 
> message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the 
> sender by reply e-mail at jtobin at origindigital.com and delete the 
> message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:52 PM
> To: 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternative to arbitrarytransfers)
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:09 PM
> > To: Brian Johnson; ARIN PPML
> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to
> > arbitrarytransfers)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com>
> > >
> > > If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs
> > (ISPs generally
> > > speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long
> > standing
> > > policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal and get
> > consensus.
> > > Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.
> > 
> > Probably suggestion process, not policy process.  The suggestion 
> > doesn't have to be for a specific fee structure; rather, you[1] want 
> > to change the principle by which fees are
> > set: instead of setting fees based on ARIN's cost, you want to set 
> > fees based on a per-address cost.
> > https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/
> > 
> > Probably requires member consensus.  Probably belongs on
> arin-discuss.
> > 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> It was not my intent to trigger a discussion on fees.
> 
> But, since we are discussing them, adjustments to the fee structure do 
> not have to be made to increase the money paid to ARIN.  You can 
> reduce the discount to larger players, collecting more money from 
> them, and reduce the fees for smaller players, collecting less money 
> from them, and end up with the same money coming in - just a different 
> distribution among the bearers of the fees.
> 
> In any case, I will direct your attention to the ARIN staff comments 
> on 2008-7, posted to arin-ppml on 3/23/09:
> 
> "...An annual re-registration of all POCs (~223,000 currently) will
>       likely result in a vast increase in workload, particularly with
>       the follow up work and research involved when a POC does not 
> reply
>       within 60 days. ..."
> 
> An increase in workload will mean having to hire more people at ARIN 
> which will increase costs.  Thus increasing fees under the existing 
> principle.  Since increasing fees to the largest consumers of IPv4 
> would increase incentive of those consumers to more efficiently 
> utilize IPv4 and thus defer additional IPv4 requests, which would 
> affect the largest amount of available IPv4, it would be completely 
> logical to do this rather than increase fees across the board.
> 
> Ted
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From jmaimon at chl.com  Tue Apr  7 20:17:10 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:17:10 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was
	Re:	Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
In-Reply-To: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800AACCDCD@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail><0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk><29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan><120225.67700.qm@web63304.mail.re1.yahoo.com><313F96FB9753495DB90E1B045756E86D@tedsdesk><B6B9B38B3B438D499642EBBA8B08707D37661EE3FE@AUSP01VMBX06.collaborationhost.net>	<7992CB9A27B64E35880499CF419CA1F2@tedsdesk>
	<997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800AACCDCD@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>
Message-ID: <49DBED06.5080505@chl.com>



Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> Ted,
resources is not because they are cheap, or easy to come by. It is 
because they are connecting end users (I assume you are one of them) to 
the Internet. The growth, and very existence of an ISP is based on the 
services they provide and the revenue these services generate.
> 
> The fact that IPv4 is running out is the single largest incentive any ISP needs to deploy IPv6. 

So why hasnt it happened yet?

> and are more often passed along to the consumer. 

Consider that currently the fee for ip address passed on to the consumer 
is effectively zero, that would actually be good thing.

Compare the annual cost to a provider of an end-user /29 (Leased line, 
non residential) and per IP (residental/soho) based upon ARIN's current 
fee schedule. Rounded.

X-Small 1250 per /21 = 4.8 (0.6)
Small 2250 per /19 or /20 = 2.2 or 4.4 (.28 or .54)
Medium 4500 per /16 /17 /18 = .54 1.09 2.19 (.07 .14 .28)
Large 9000 per /14 /15 = .27 .55 (.03 .07)
X-Large 18000 /8 /9 /10 /11 /12 /13 = .01 .02 .03 .07 .14 .27 (.001 .002 
.004 .01 .02 .03)

When sprint or cogent or att signs up a T1 customer, the customers /29 
costs them as little as one cent annually. If the customer demands a 
/24, they barely care.

When any ISP grossing under a few million a year signs up a T1 customer, 
  the /29 can cost them up to 5 bucks. A /24 is a serious customer 
relation issue.

This is why for the history of the internet, end users got their space 
free, because a small provider cannot compete by charging fees large 
providers dont even bother thinking about.

The big boys have been getting quite the free ride for the entire 
history of the net - and they are the ones using up all the addresses.

Who do you think is calling the shots here?

Quite possibly they are the ones inefficiently wasting them as well.

Which network has the incentive to track their usage tightly? To be 
strict with allocations? To be inventive in their utilization so as to 
minimize the unnecessary?

Not the one where each address cost less than a penny.

And the more you waste now, the more you will be able to scavenge later.

Why do you expect the end user to want ipv6? Ipv4 is great and costs 
them nothing. This will need to change.

Of course, I am omitting the overhead costs, but those are a lot harder 
to quantify and their impact may be negligible.

When runout happens, assuming a provider cannot get any more ipv4 for 
whatever reason, they will scavenge internally. Then they will charge 
per ip address, incentivizing their user-base to go ipv6-only.

Joe


From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr  7 20:45:17 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:45:17 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re:
	Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
In-Reply-To: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800AACCDCD@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail><0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk><29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan><120225.67700.qm@web63304.mail.re1.yahoo.com><313F96FB9753495DB90E1B045756E86D@tedsdesk><B6B9B38B3B438D499642EBBA8B08707D37661EE3FE@AUSP01VMBX06.collaborationhost.net>
	<7992CB9A27B64E35880499CF419CA1F2@tedsdesk>
	<997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800AACCDCD@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>
Message-ID: <B35CC2B96B984D83B8C96C33477F5CB3@tedsdesk>

Hi Daniel,

  I work for an ISP and I play an end user on TV too.

  The issue on IPv6 transition is thus:  Yes, ISP's 
benefit by transitioning to IPv6 because IPv4 is running out.
And I daresay that for most ISP's now, the cost isn't
so much in equipment as it is in time spent configuring 
and testing.  The problem though is that IPv6 transition is
not something that an end user is going to want to do.

If you have an end user running a single PC running Vista
on a bridged cable modem or DSL line, no sweat - you hand
out IPv6, they take it, things work. (on the IPv6 network,
anyway)

  With XP it's a bit more work but still pretty easy.

  With people on DSL modems that have embedded translators,
big time problem.  Same for people on embedded translator boxes
on cable modems.

  And if you think that's bad, try small business customers
who have firewalls and such they bought which don't support
IPv6.

  So, we are going to have a situation post IPv4 runout where
new customers are going to be selecting their ISPs and if
their ISP tells them they must upgrade to get connected, they
aren't going to go with that ISP if the ISP down the street
still supports IPv4.  Every ISP knows this.

  Now, supposedly the utilization requirements instituted
years ago make this fair for all ISPs.  In short, if all
ISP's utilize their netblocks then all are screwed over
at the same time when the last IPv4 address is assigned,
and this forces the end user to upgrade - because no ISP
will have available IPv4 to hand out.

  But in reality a large ISP can "hedge" in a variety of
ways.  They can assign /29's to customers that ask for
a SINGLE static IP number then subnet that later.  They can
assign IPv4 to remotely-controlled-and-configured-and-upgradable CPE
devices like cable modems with embedded NAT's in them, or cell
phones, then later on upgrade those units to IPv6 and install
IPV6-IPv4 proxies.  They can assign /24's to customers
who ask for them at extremely low prices then later on
raise prices which will cause some customers to resubnet
and return some IP numbering.

Granted, for a single customer, this kind of hedging doesn't
put a lot of IPv4 in "reserve"  But with a large ISP
it multiplies out to quite a lot.

Small ISP's cannot do this and store up enough IPv4 to make
it worth while.

So, after IPv4 runout, FOR A WHILE the large ISP's who
have been hedging will be able to institute reclamation
programs that will free up IPv4 and will thus be able to
avoid deploying IPv6 for a longer time than the
small ISP's who aren't able to hedge.  So the small
ISP's end up stuck with serving out NAT to their customers
and begging their upstreams to please for God's sake start
selling me native IPv6 - and the large ISP's they are
buying service from are fiddle-faddling around and
telling them to go to tunnel brokers.  And in the meantime
the business customers who find it cheaper to buy Internet
service by buying it on routable IPv4 since they don't have
to upgrade, are being forced into going to those large ISPs.

Obviously, all good things come to an end and even if every
ISP pulls these tricks, eventually all will run out of
IPv4 no matter how much hedging they do, end users who
want a routable IP address will have nowhere to go and must
go to IPv6.  But, damage will have been done.

I am not accusing large ISP's of doing this right now, or
even ANY ISP's of doing this right now.  I am saying that the
ARIN fee structure encourages IP consumption in that the
more IP you consume, the less you pay per IP.

See https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html

/16, 2^16  65535 numbers, $4500  6.8 cents per IP per year

/14  2^18  262144 numbers $9000  3.4 cents per IP per year

/13 2^19 524288 $18000      (same)

/12  2^20  1048576   $18000  1.7 cents per IP per year

and so on.

Thus, an ISP that decides to hedge is effectively being
rewarded financially for doing it.



Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander, Daniel [mailto:Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:08 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net; Ted Mittelstaedt
> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
> 
> Ted,
> 
> Let me start with the usual disclaimer that this is my own 
> opinion and not the position of my employer. Registration 
> fees are not the key factor in whether or not to deploy IPv6, 
> nor are they the key factor in the efficiency in which IPv4 
> address space is utilized. 
> 
> The largest consumers of IP address space are ISP. The reason 
> they use these IP resources is not because they are cheap, or 
> easy to come by. It is because they are connecting end users 
> (I assume you are one of them) to the Internet. The growth, 
> and very existence of an ISP is based on the services they 
> provide and the revenue these services generate. 
> 
> The fact that IPv4 is running out is the single largest 
> incentive any ISP needs to deploy IPv6. The lost revenue, 
> because you don't have the IP resources to add new customers 
> and services, far outweighs any increase in fees that ARIN 
> could impose. Another thing to consider is that historically, 
> an increase in fees are rarely born by the provider, and are 
> more often passed along to the consumer. It is the end user 
> who would most likely bear the burden of the fee "incentive" 
> you propose.
> 
> Again, this is my own opinion.
> Dan Alexander
> ARIN AC
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:14 PM
> To: 'John Tobin'; 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
> 
> 
> All I am asking is that anyone who cares anything at all 
> about transitioning to IPv6, be aware that a fee incentive 
> exists for the largest holders to NOT transition.
> 
> As I don't work at a large holder I do not know if the fee 
> discount for large IPv4 holdings actually influences 
> decisions.  If it does not, because the IP address 
> registration fee is such a small part of total business 
> expenses, then perhaps the fees should be adjusted until they 
> do start to influence decisions.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Ted
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Tobin [mailto:JTobin at origindigital.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:01 AM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt; 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> > Alternative toarbitrarytransfers)
> > 
> > 
> >  All, this thread is hard to follow... What are you asking me?
> > 
> > 
> > John Tobin	
> > Director Of Information Technology
> > 
> > 
> > 300 Boulevard East
> > Weehawken, NJ 07086-6702, U.S.A.
> > 
> > E: jtobin at origindigital.com?? | C: 732-616-8780?| V: 
> > 201.272.8451 |? F: 201.272.8400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .?. . . . .?. . . . .?. . . 
> > This message contains information which may be confidential and/or 
> > privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to 
> > receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or 
> > disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the 
> > message. If you have received the message in error, please 
> advise the 
> > sender by reply e-mail at jtobin at origindigital.com and delete the 
> > message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies.
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:52 PM
> > To: 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> > Alternative to arbitrarytransfers)
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:09 PM
> > > To: Brian Johnson; ARIN PPML
> > > Subject: [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to
> > > arbitrarytransfers)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > > From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com>
> > > >
> > > > If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs
> > > (ISPs generally
> > > > speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long
> > > standing
> > > > policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal and get
> > > consensus.
> > > > Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.
> > > 
> > > Probably suggestion process, not policy process.  The suggestion 
> > > doesn't have to be for a specific fee structure; rather, 
> you[1] want 
> > > to change the principle by which fees are
> > > set: instead of setting fees based on ARIN's cost, you 
> want to set 
> > > fees based on a per-address cost.
> > > https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/
> > > 
> > > Probably requires member consensus.  Probably belongs on
> > arin-discuss.
> > > 
> > 
> > Lee,
> > 
> > It was not my intent to trigger a discussion on fees.
> > 
> > But, since we are discussing them, adjustments to the fee 
> structure do 
> > not have to be made to increase the money paid to ARIN.  You can 
> > reduce the discount to larger players, collecting more money from 
> > them, and reduce the fees for smaller players, collecting 
> less money 
> > from them, and end up with the same money coming in - just 
> a different 
> > distribution among the bearers of the fees.
> > 
> > In any case, I will direct your attention to the ARIN staff 
> comments 
> > on 2008-7, posted to arin-ppml on 3/23/09:
> > 
> > "...An annual re-registration of all POCs (~223,000 currently) will
> >       likely result in a vast increase in workload, 
> particularly with
> >       the follow up work and research involved when a POC does not 
> > reply
> >       within 60 days. ..."
> > 
> > An increase in workload will mean having to hire more 
> people at ARIN 
> > which will increase costs.  Thus increasing fees under the existing 
> > principle.  Since increasing fees to the largest consumers of IPv4 
> > would increase incentive of those consumers to more efficiently 
> > utilize IPv4 and thus defer additional IPv4 requests, which would 
> > affect the largest amount of available IPv4, it would be completely 
> > logical to do this rather than increase fees across the board.
> > 
> > Ted
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed 
> to the ARIN 
> > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 



From John.Roe at ipnetworksinc.com  Tue Apr  7 20:50:15 2009
From: John.Roe at ipnetworksinc.com (John Roe, IP Networks, Inc.)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:50:15 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal
	(wasRe:	Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
In-Reply-To: <49DBED06.5080505@chl.com>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail><0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk><29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan><120225.67700.qm@web63304.mail.re1.yahoo.com><313F96FB9753495DB90E1B045756E86D@tedsdesk><B6B9B38B3B438D499642EBBA8B08707D37661EE3FE@AUSP01VMBX06.collaborationhost.net>	<7992CB9A27B64E35880499CF419CA1F2@tedsdesk><997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800AACCDCD@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>
	<49DBED06.5080505@chl.com>
Message-ID: <079CE1039816D0459F02E1AEA9BE0214A0D335@ipn-sbs.IPNetworks.local>

Joe,

A very excellent point!  I see many customer opportunities come through
where they are asking for a commit of 1M to 10M commit on a Metro
Ethernet link and want (demand) a /24.  Going to the usage policy I just
can't see 128 hosts on that small of a connection!  Most of the time
they simply are too small to have an IT department, do not want to set
up NAT, and/or want all public IP space.

For the savvy customers that want to do Multi Homed BGP I send them to
one of the other larger providers to get the diverse circuit and a /24.
They come back every time with a nice fat block that they run 1M to 2M
with a hand full of hosts.....

And never try to bring up charging for a "static" IP like cable or DLS
providers do.  The customer will go ballistic every time about how the
Internet is FREE!  :)

Cheers,

John 

Steps off soap box...

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:17 PM
To: Alexander, Daniel
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (wasRe:
Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)



Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> Ted,
resources is not because they are cheap, or easy to come by. It is 
because they are connecting end users (I assume you are one of them) to 
the Internet. The growth, and very existence of an ISP is based on the 
services they provide and the revenue these services generate.
> 
> The fact that IPv4 is running out is the single largest incentive any
ISP needs to deploy IPv6. 

So why hasnt it happened yet?

> and are more often passed along to the consumer. 

Consider that currently the fee for ip address passed on to the consumer

is effectively zero, that would actually be good thing.

Compare the annual cost to a provider of an end-user /29 (Leased line, 
non residential) and per IP (residental/soho) based upon ARIN's current 
fee schedule. Rounded.

X-Small 1250 per /21 = 4.8 (0.6)
Small 2250 per /19 or /20 = 2.2 or 4.4 (.28 or .54)
Medium 4500 per /16 /17 /18 = .54 1.09 2.19 (.07 .14 .28)
Large 9000 per /14 /15 = .27 .55 (.03 .07)
X-Large 18000 /8 /9 /10 /11 /12 /13 = .01 .02 .03 .07 .14 .27 (.001 .002

.004 .01 .02 .03)

When sprint or cogent or att signs up a T1 customer, the customers /29 
costs them as little as one cent annually. If the customer demands a 
/24, they barely care.

When any ISP grossing under a few million a year signs up a T1 customer,

  the /29 can cost them up to 5 bucks. A /24 is a serious customer 
relation issue.

This is why for the history of the internet, end users got their space 
free, because a small provider cannot compete by charging fees large 
providers dont even bother thinking about.

The big boys have been getting quite the free ride for the entire 
history of the net - and they are the ones using up all the addresses.

Who do you think is calling the shots here?

Quite possibly they are the ones inefficiently wasting them as well.

Which network has the incentive to track their usage tightly? To be 
strict with allocations? To be inventive in their utilization so as to 
minimize the unnecessary?

Not the one where each address cost less than a penny.

And the more you waste now, the more you will be able to scavenge later.

Why do you expect the end user to want ipv6? Ipv4 is great and costs 
them nothing. This will need to change.

Of course, I am omitting the overhead costs, but those are a lot harder 
to quantify and their impact may be negligible.

When runout happens, assuming a provider cannot get any more ipv4 for 
whatever reason, they will scavenge internally. Then they will charge 
per ip address, incentivizing their user-base to go ipv6-only.

Joe
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com  Tue Apr  7 23:26:11 2009
From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:26:11 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re:
	Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
In-Reply-To: <B35CC2B96B984D83B8C96C33477F5CB3@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail><0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk><29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan><120225.67700.qm@web63304.mail.re1.yahoo.com><313F96FB9753495DB90E1B045756E86D@tedsdesk><B6B9B38B3B438D499642EBBA8B08707D37661EE3FE@AUSP01VMBX06.collaborationhost.net>
	<7992CB9A27B64E35880499CF419CA1F2@tedsdesk>
	<997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800AACCDCD@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>
	<B35CC2B96B984D83B8C96C33477F5CB3@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800AACCDF3@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>


I am going to try and roll my reply into this one note rather than reply to each individually. This is not to dismiss any other comments, but just trying to cut down on the email. John, Joe and Ted all have valid concerns. The evolution of the Internet has resulted in behaviors by some that are less than efficient.

One concern I have is that the conversations need to move past the scope of computers connecting to web sites as the primary consumers of IP address resources. I'm sure I'm not saying anything you all don't already know, but there are far more televisions and video subscribers than there are Internet subs, and even more wireless handhelds than the both. 

Take a look at the efforts in Tru2Way, WiMax, LTE, DOCSIS 3.0, etc. and it becomes very obvious that the landscape is changing. Comcast has almost twice as many video subscribers as they do Internet subs. Sprint/Clearwire has an FCC requirement to try and provide broadband to 30M subs by 2010. Countries like India, China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, and so many others are completely bypassing the legacy problems crippling the United States, and deploying DOCSIS, and 4G solutions to their citizens. 

You all make valid points about better utilizing a /29 or /24, but in the end it wouldn't make more than a few months of difference. 22 /8's have been allocated to the Registries in the past two years. There are 32 /8's left, and the growth rate continues to increase regardless of any recession.

I will stop with one final point. This conversation started with the premise that fees are needed to drive IPv6 deployment. I'm guessing this is from the assumption that organizations are not deploying IPv6, nor do they want to. I am quite confident that this is not true. Of course you are not going to see wide-scale IPv6 deployments. IPv4 resources are still readily available. IPv6 deployment is not a technical issue, it is an issue of financial planning. Most ISP are working on IPv6 deployments. They just aren't going to tell their competition. Raising fees would not avoid IPv4 depletion by spurring IPv6 deployments. IPv4 depletion is needed for IPv6 deployment and raising registration fees would just be passed to the consumer until IPv4 depletes anyways. 

That's just my opinion.
Dan





-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:45 PM
To: Alexander, Daniel; arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)

Hi Daniel,

  I work for an ISP and I play an end user on TV too.

  The issue on IPv6 transition is thus:  Yes, ISP's benefit by transitioning to IPv6 because IPv4 is running out.
And I daresay that for most ISP's now, the cost isn't so much in equipment as it is in time spent configuring and testing.  The problem though is that IPv6 transition is not something that an end user is going to want to do.

If you have an end user running a single PC running Vista on a bridged cable modem or DSL line, no sweat - you hand out IPv6, they take it, things work. (on the IPv6 network,
anyway)

  With XP it's a bit more work but still pretty easy.

  With people on DSL modems that have embedded translators, big time problem.  Same for people on embedded translator boxes on cable modems.

  And if you think that's bad, try small business customers who have firewalls and such they bought which don't support IPv6.

  So, we are going to have a situation post IPv4 runout where new customers are going to be selecting their ISPs and if their ISP tells them they must upgrade to get connected, they aren't going to go with that ISP if the ISP down the street still supports IPv4.  Every ISP knows this.

  Now, supposedly the utilization requirements instituted years ago make this fair for all ISPs.  In short, if all ISP's utilize their netblocks then all are screwed over at the same time when the last IPv4 address is assigned, and this forces the end user to upgrade - because no ISP will have available IPv4 to hand out.

  But in reality a large ISP can "hedge" in a variety of ways.  They can assign /29's to customers that ask for a SINGLE static IP number then subnet that later.  They can assign IPv4 to remotely-controlled-and-configured-and-upgradable CPE devices like cable modems with embedded NAT's in them, or cell phones, then later on upgrade those units to IPv6 and install
IPV6-IPv4 proxies.  They can assign /24's to customers who ask for them at extremely low prices then later on raise prices which will cause some customers to resubnet and return some IP numbering.

Granted, for a single customer, this kind of hedging doesn't put a lot of IPv4 in "reserve"  But with a large ISP it multiplies out to quite a lot.

Small ISP's cannot do this and store up enough IPv4 to make it worth while.

So, after IPv4 runout, FOR A WHILE the large ISP's who have been hedging will be able to institute reclamation programs that will free up IPv4 and will thus be able to avoid deploying IPv6 for a longer time than the small ISP's who aren't able to hedge.  So the small ISP's end up stuck with serving out NAT to their customers and begging their upstreams to please for God's sake start selling me native IPv6 - and the large ISP's they are buying service from are fiddle-faddling around and telling them to go to tunnel brokers.  And in the meantime the business customers who find it cheaper to buy Internet service by buying it on routable IPv4 since they don't have to upgrade, are being forced into going to those large ISPs.

Obviously, all good things come to an end and even if every ISP pulls these tricks, eventually all will run out of
IPv4 no matter how much hedging they do, end users who want a routable IP address will have nowhere to go and must go to IPv6.  But, damage will have been done.

I am not accusing large ISP's of doing this right now, or even ANY ISP's of doing this right now.  I am saying that the ARIN fee structure encourages IP consumption in that the more IP you consume, the less you pay per IP.

See https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html

/16, 2^16  65535 numbers, $4500  6.8 cents per IP per year

/14  2^18  262144 numbers $9000  3.4 cents per IP per year

/13 2^19 524288 $18000      (same)

/12  2^20  1048576   $18000  1.7 cents per IP per year

and so on.

Thus, an ISP that decides to hedge is effectively being rewarded financially for doing it.



Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander, Daniel [mailto:Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:08 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net; Ted Mittelstaedt
> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
> 
> Ted,
> 
> Let me start with the usual disclaimer that this is my own opinion and 
> not the position of my employer. Registration fees are not the key 
> factor in whether or not to deploy IPv6, nor are they the key factor 
> in the efficiency in which IPv4 address space is utilized.
> 
> The largest consumers of IP address space are ISP. The reason they use 
> these IP resources is not because they are cheap, or easy to come by. 
> It is because they are connecting end users (I assume you are one of 
> them) to the Internet. The growth, and very existence of an ISP is 
> based on the services they provide and the revenue these services 
> generate.
> 
> The fact that IPv4 is running out is the single largest incentive any 
> ISP needs to deploy IPv6. The lost revenue, because you don't have the 
> IP resources to add new customers and services, far outweighs any 
> increase in fees that ARIN could impose. Another thing to consider is 
> that historically, an increase in fees are rarely born by the 
> provider, and are more often passed along to the consumer. It is the 
> end user who would most likely bear the burden of the fee "incentive"
> you propose.
> 
> Again, this is my own opinion.
> Dan Alexander
> ARIN AC
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:14 PM
> To: 'John Tobin'; 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
> 
> 
> All I am asking is that anyone who cares anything at all about 
> transitioning to IPv6, be aware that a fee incentive exists for the 
> largest holders to NOT transition.
> 
> As I don't work at a large holder I do not know if the fee discount 
> for large IPv4 holdings actually influences decisions.  If it does 
> not, because the IP address registration fee is such a small part of 
> total business expenses, then perhaps the fees should be adjusted 
> until they do start to influence decisions.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Ted
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Tobin [mailto:JTobin at origindigital.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:01 AM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt; 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> > Alternative toarbitrarytransfers)
> > 
> > 
> >  All, this thread is hard to follow... What are you asking me?
> > 
> > 
> > John Tobin	
> > Director Of Information Technology
> > 
> > 
> > 300 Boulevard East
> > Weehawken, NJ 07086-6702, U.S.A.
> > 
> > E: jtobin at origindigital.com?? | C: 732-616-8780?| V: 
> > 201.272.8451 |? F: 201.272.8400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .?. . . . .?. . . . .?. . . 
> > This message contains information which may be confidential and/or 
> > privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to 
> > receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or 
> > disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the 
> > message. If you have received the message in error, please
> advise the
> > sender by reply e-mail at jtobin at origindigital.com and delete the 
> > message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies.
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:52 PM
> > To: 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> > Alternative to arbitrarytransfers)
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:09 PM
> > > To: Brian Johnson; ARIN PPML
> > > Subject: [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to
> > > arbitrarytransfers)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > > From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com>
> > > >
> > > > If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs
> > > (ISPs generally
> > > > speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long
> > > standing
> > > > policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal and get
> > > consensus.
> > > > Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.
> > > 
> > > Probably suggestion process, not policy process.  The suggestion 
> > > doesn't have to be for a specific fee structure; rather,
> you[1] want
> > > to change the principle by which fees are
> > > set: instead of setting fees based on ARIN's cost, you
> want to set
> > > fees based on a per-address cost.
> > > https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/
> > > 
> > > Probably requires member consensus.  Probably belongs on
> > arin-discuss.
> > > 
> > 
> > Lee,
> > 
> > It was not my intent to trigger a discussion on fees.
> > 
> > But, since we are discussing them, adjustments to the fee
> structure do
> > not have to be made to increase the money paid to ARIN.  You can 
> > reduce the discount to larger players, collecting more money from 
> > them, and reduce the fees for smaller players, collecting
> less money
> > from them, and end up with the same money coming in - just
> a different
> > distribution among the bearers of the fees.
> > 
> > In any case, I will direct your attention to the ARIN staff
> comments
> > on 2008-7, posted to arin-ppml on 3/23/09:
> > 
> > "...An annual re-registration of all POCs (~223,000 currently) will
> >       likely result in a vast increase in workload,
> particularly with
> >       the follow up work and research involved when a POC does not 
> > reply
> >       within 60 days. ..."
> > 
> > An increase in workload will mean having to hire more
> people at ARIN
> > which will increase costs.  Thus increasing fees under the existing 
> > principle.  Since increasing fees to the largest consumers of IPv4 
> > would increase incentive of those consumers to more efficiently 
> > utilize IPv4 and thus defer additional IPv4 requests, which would 
> > affect the largest amount of available IPv4, it would be completely 
> > logical to do this rather than increase fees across the board.
> > 
> > Ted
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
> to the ARIN
> > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 



From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Apr  8 17:38:40 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:38:40 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Fee proposal (was
	Re:Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
In-Reply-To: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800AACCDF3@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail><0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk><29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan><120225.67700.qm@web63304.mail.re1.yahoo.com><313F96FB9753495DB90E1B045756E86D@tedsdesk><B6B9B38B3B438D499642EBBA8B08707D37661EE3FE@AUSP01VMBX06.collaborationhost.net><7992CB9A27B64E35880499CF419CA1F2@tedsdesk><997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800AACCDCD@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com><B35CC2B96B984D83B8C96C33477F5CB3@tedsdesk>
	<997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800AACCDF3@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>
Message-ID: <C417AA897E734E408D54308375213075@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Alexander, Daniel
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:26 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was 
> Re:Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
> 
> 
> I am going to try and roll my reply into this one note rather 
> than reply to each individually. This is not to dismiss any 
> other comments, but just trying to cut down on the email. 
> John, Joe and Ted all have valid concerns. The evolution of 
> the Internet has resulted in behaviors by some that are less 
> than efficient.
> 
> One concern I have is that the conversations need to move 
> past the scope of computers connecting to web sites as the 
> primary consumers of IP address resources. I'm sure I'm not 
> saying anything you all don't already know, but there are far 
> more televisions and video subscribers than there are 
> Internet subs, and even more wireless handhelds than the both. 
>

All of the devices that can do this are computers, they are
just specialized computers.  People surf the web on their
playstation and watch TV on their computer.  The much-talked
about computer/tv convergence has basically happened, IMHO.
 
I use the terms "computer connecting to the Internet" when I
discuss this as a generic term to mean all the things your
talking about.  Mainly because any time I get called to check
out some device like an IP-Fax machine, or IP phone or
whatever, the first thing I do is unplug the device and
jack in with my laptop and try to pull up a website.

> Take a look at the efforts in Tru2Way, WiMax, LTE, DOCSIS 
> 3.0, etc. and it becomes very obvious that the landscape is 
> changing. Comcast has almost twice as many video subscribers 
> as they do Internet subs.

This is due to sheer inertia.  These days you an get a Comcast
cable Internet connection and pretty much watch any TV show
that is normally on cable.

Case in point, my son loves to watch Clone Wars.  Clone Wars is
only broadcast on cable (or dish)  We don't pay for cable or
dish because he can surf to the clonewars website on DSL and watch
the episodes there.  They are a week behind, but so what?

I cannot understand the finances behind this one because I
know that the "broadcast" episodes are stuffed with tons of
commercials, and the website ones have no commercials.  (well,
practically none)

I suspect as years pass more and more people will be migrating
away from separate video/phone/internet feeds into their homes
to an IP-only feed.  They can get local TV channels free over the
air and all the stuff on cable and dish over the Internet, they can
rent movies on the Internet and run Vonage or other IP-phone on the
Internet if they want land-lines, and most don't since they are yarding
around cell phones.  What do they need separate video and telephone lines
for?

> Sprint/Clearwire has an FCC 
> requirement to try and provide broadband to 30M subs by 2010. 

Sprint is already using IPv6 on their cell phones that have
websurfing capability.

> Countries like India, China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, 
> and so many others are completely bypassing the legacy 
> problems crippling the United States, and deploying DOCSIS, 
> and 4G solutions to their citizens. 
> 

Well, first your talking layer 2 here, not layer 3.  You can
run IPv4 over DOCSIS just fine - and cable providers are
doing it right now.  It's still the primary means of connecting
their customers computers/IP phones/playstations/whatever to
the rest of the world, in the US at any rate.

If all the cable providers in the US were to agree to start
providing IPv6 to their subscribers that would be a fine thing
that would really advance IPv6 deployment in the US.  I don't
see this happening soon, though, DOCSIS or no DOCSIS.

As for 4G, I think all of them ARE running IPv6.  I personally
don't consider these as "advanced" deployments, though.
If the US Government were tasked to pay for every US
citizen getting a free Internet feed, they wouldn't use cable or
DSL.  They would use 4G because infrastructure and
provisioning is cheap.

China may have a technically advanced Internet on 4G, very
much faster for it's citizens to use, and very much cheaper.
They also use it to snoop on their own citizens and regularly
toss the ones they don't like into their jails.  They can
do this precisely BECAUSE their Internet is NOT structured
like the US where there's many multiple, smaller ISPs.  4G
by it's nature demands a centralized, national company that deploys
it. If you want to say this is advanced, go ahead.  To me it sounds
like Chinese users are the ones being crippled here, while
the US users are HELPED by the "legacy" network.

In any case, however, if I go buy a Sprint 4G USB wireless
card and shove it in my computer, I get an IPv4 address.
NOT an IPv6 address.  How exactly is this "advanced"?

> You all make valid points about better utilizing a /29 or 
> /24, but in the end it wouldn't make more than a few months 
> of difference. 22 /8's have been allocated to the Registries 
> in the past two years. There are 32 /8's left, and the growth 
> rate continues to increase regardless of any recession.
>
> I will stop with one final point. This conversation started 
> with the premise that fees are needed to drive IPv6 
> deployment. I'm guessing this is from the assumption that 
> organizations are not deploying IPv6, nor do they want to. I 
> am quite confident that this is not true.

How many Tier 1 & Tier 2 networks in the US offer IPv6 to
their customers who wish to run IPv6 natively?

When the answer to this is "some of them" then I don't
believe that orgs are serious about IPv6 deployment.
And this is how things are now. 

When the answer to this question is "most of them" then I
would be confident that all of them ARE serious about
IPv6.

> Of course you are 
> not going to see wide-scale IPv6 deployments. IPv4 resources 
> are still readily available. IPv6 deployment is not a 
> technical issue, it is an issue of financial planning. Most 
> ISP are working on IPv6 deployments. They just aren't going 
> to tell their competition. Raising fees would not avoid IPv4 
> depletion by spurring IPv6 deployments. IPv4 depletion is 
> needed for IPv6 deployment and raising registration fees 
> would just be passed to the consumer until IPv4 depletes anyways. 
> 

Fine with me.  Let's raise fees on IPv4 and then the ISP's will
offer either the more expensive IPv4 to their customers or the
cheaper IPv6.  That would speed IPv6 deployment immensely.

Ted

> That's just my opinion.
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:45 PM
> To: Alexander, Daniel; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
>   I work for an ISP and I play an end user on TV too.
> 
>   The issue on IPv6 transition is thus:  Yes, ISP's benefit 
> by transitioning to IPv6 because IPv4 is running out.
> And I daresay that for most ISP's now, the cost isn't so much 
> in equipment as it is in time spent configuring and testing.  
> The problem though is that IPv6 transition is not something 
> that an end user is going to want to do.
> 
> If you have an end user running a single PC running Vista on 
> a bridged cable modem or DSL line, no sweat - you hand out 
> IPv6, they take it, things work. (on the IPv6 network,
> anyway)
> 
>   With XP it's a bit more work but still pretty easy.
> 
>   With people on DSL modems that have embedded translators, 
> big time problem.  Same for people on embedded translator 
> boxes on cable modems.
> 
>   And if you think that's bad, try small business customers 
> who have firewalls and such they bought which don't support IPv6.
> 
>   So, we are going to have a situation post IPv4 runout where 
> new customers are going to be selecting their ISPs and if 
> their ISP tells them they must upgrade to get connected, they 
> aren't going to go with that ISP if the ISP down the street 
> still supports IPv4.  Every ISP knows this.
> 
>   Now, supposedly the utilization requirements instituted 
> years ago make this fair for all ISPs.  In short, if all 
> ISP's utilize their netblocks then all are screwed over at 
> the same time when the last IPv4 address is assigned, and 
> this forces the end user to upgrade - because no ISP will 
> have available IPv4 to hand out.
> 
>   But in reality a large ISP can "hedge" in a variety of 
> ways.  They can assign /29's to customers that ask for a 
> SINGLE static IP number then subnet that later.  They can 
> assign IPv4 to 
> remotely-controlled-and-configured-and-upgradable CPE devices 
> like cable modems with embedded NAT's in them, or cell 
> phones, then later on upgrade those units to IPv6 and install
> IPV6-IPv4 proxies.  They can assign /24's to customers who 
> ask for them at extremely low prices then later on raise 
> prices which will cause some customers to resubnet and return 
> some IP numbering.
> 
> Granted, for a single customer, this kind of hedging doesn't 
> put a lot of IPv4 in "reserve"  But with a large ISP it 
> multiplies out to quite a lot.
> 
> Small ISP's cannot do this and store up enough IPv4 to make 
> it worth while.
> 
> So, after IPv4 runout, FOR A WHILE the large ISP's who have 
> been hedging will be able to institute reclamation programs 
> that will free up IPv4 and will thus be able to avoid 
> deploying IPv6 for a longer time than the small ISP's who 
> aren't able to hedge.  So the small ISP's end up stuck with 
> serving out NAT to their customers and begging their 
> upstreams to please for God's sake start selling me native 
> IPv6 - and the large ISP's they are buying service from are 
> fiddle-faddling around and telling them to go to tunnel 
> brokers.  And in the meantime the business customers who find 
> it cheaper to buy Internet service by buying it on routable 
> IPv4 since they don't have to upgrade, are being forced into 
> going to those large ISPs.
> 
> Obviously, all good things come to an end and even if every 
> ISP pulls these tricks, eventually all will run out of
> IPv4 no matter how much hedging they do, end users who want a 
> routable IP address will have nowhere to go and must go to 
> IPv6.  But, damage will have been done.
> 
> I am not accusing large ISP's of doing this right now, or 
> even ANY ISP's of doing this right now.  I am saying that the 
> ARIN fee structure encourages IP consumption in that the more 
> IP you consume, the less you pay per IP.
> 
> See https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html
> 
> /16, 2^16  65535 numbers, $4500  6.8 cents per IP per year
> 
> /14  2^18  262144 numbers $9000  3.4 cents per IP per year
> 
> /13 2^19 524288 $18000      (same)
> 
> /12  2^20  1048576   $18000  1.7 cents per IP per year
> 
> and so on.
> 
> Thus, an ISP that decides to hedge is effectively being 
> rewarded financially for doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Ted
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexander, Daniel [mailto:Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:08 PM
> > To: arin-discuss at arin.net; Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> > Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
> > 
> > Ted,
> > 
> > Let me start with the usual disclaimer that this is my own 
> opinion and 
> > not the position of my employer. Registration fees are not the key 
> > factor in whether or not to deploy IPv6, nor are they the 
> key factor 
> > in the efficiency in which IPv4 address space is utilized.
> > 
> > The largest consumers of IP address space are ISP. The 
> reason they use 
> > these IP resources is not because they are cheap, or easy 
> to come by.
> > It is because they are connecting end users (I assume you are one of
> > them) to the Internet. The growth, and very existence of an ISP is 
> > based on the services they provide and the revenue these services 
> > generate.
> > 
> > The fact that IPv4 is running out is the single largest 
> incentive any 
> > ISP needs to deploy IPv6. The lost revenue, because you 
> don't have the 
> > IP resources to add new customers and services, far outweighs any 
> > increase in fees that ARIN could impose. Another thing to 
> consider is 
> > that historically, an increase in fees are rarely born by the 
> > provider, and are more often passed along to the consumer. 
> It is the 
> > end user who would most likely bear the burden of the fee 
> "incentive"
> > you propose.
> > 
> > Again, this is my own opinion.
> > Dan Alexander
> > ARIN AC
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:14 PM
> > To: 'John Tobin'; 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> > Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)
> > 
> > 
> > All I am asking is that anyone who cares anything at all about 
> > transitioning to IPv6, be aware that a fee incentive exists for the 
> > largest holders to NOT transition.
> > 
> > As I don't work at a large holder I do not know if the fee discount 
> > for large IPv4 holdings actually influences decisions.  If it does 
> > not, because the IP address registration fee is such a 
> small part of 
> > total business expenses, then perhaps the fees should be adjusted 
> > until they do start to influence decisions.
> > 
> > Just a thought.
> > 
> > Ted
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Tobin [mailto:JTobin at origindigital.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:01 AM
> > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt; 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> > > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> > > Alternative toarbitrarytransfers)
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  All, this thread is hard to follow... What are you asking me?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > John Tobin	
> > > Director Of Information Technology
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 300 Boulevard East
> > > Weehawken, NJ 07086-6702, U.S.A.
> > > 
> > > E: jtobin at origindigital.com?? | C: 732-616-8780?| V: 
> > > 201.272.8451 |? F: 201.272.8400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .?. . . . .?. . . . .?. . . 
> > > This message contains information which may be 
> confidential and/or 
> > > privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or 
> authorized to 
> > > receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, 
> use, copy or 
> > > disclose to anyone the message or any information 
> contained in the 
> > > message. If you have received the message in error, please
> > advise the
> > > sender by reply e-mail at jtobin at origindigital.com and delete the 
> > > message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining 
> any copies.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted 
> Mittelstaedt
> > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:52 PM
> > > To: 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> > > Alternative to arbitrarytransfers)
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:09 PM
> > > > To: Brian Johnson; ARIN PPML
> > > > Subject: [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to
> > > > arbitrarytransfers)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > > > From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs
> > > > (ISPs generally
> > > > > speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long
> > > > standing
> > > > > policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal and get
> > > > consensus.
> > > > > Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.
> > > > 
> > > > Probably suggestion process, not policy process.  The 
> suggestion 
> > > > doesn't have to be for a specific fee structure; rather,
> > you[1] want
> > > > to change the principle by which fees are
> > > > set: instead of setting fees based on ARIN's cost, you
> > want to set
> > > > fees based on a per-address cost.
> > > > https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/
> > > > 
> > > > Probably requires member consensus.  Probably belongs on
> > > arin-discuss.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Lee,
> > > 
> > > It was not my intent to trigger a discussion on fees.
> > > 
> > > But, since we are discussing them, adjustments to the fee
> > structure do
> > > not have to be made to increase the money paid to ARIN.  You can 
> > > reduce the discount to larger players, collecting more money from 
> > > them, and reduce the fees for smaller players, collecting
> > less money
> > > from them, and end up with the same money coming in - just
> > a different
> > > distribution among the bearers of the fees.
> > > 
> > > In any case, I will direct your attention to the ARIN staff
> > comments
> > > on 2008-7, posted to arin-ppml on 3/23/09:
> > > 
> > > "...An annual re-registration of all POCs (~223,000 
> currently) will
> > >       likely result in a vast increase in workload,
> > particularly with
> > >       the follow up work and research involved when a POC 
> does not 
> > > reply
> > >       within 60 days. ..."
> > > 
> > > An increase in workload will mean having to hire more
> > people at ARIN
> > > which will increase costs.  Thus increasing fees under 
> the existing 
> > > principle.  Since increasing fees to the largest 
> consumers of IPv4 
> > > would increase incentive of those consumers to more efficiently 
> > > utilize IPv4 and thus defer additional IPv4 requests, which would 
> > > affect the largest amount of available IPv4, it would be 
> completely 
> > > logical to do this rather than increase fees across the board.
> > > 
> > > Ted
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ARIN-Discuss
> > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
> > to the ARIN
> > > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed 
> to the ARIN 
> > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 



From markk at arin.net  Fri Apr 10 17:10:07 2009
From: markk at arin.net (Mark Kosters)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:10:07 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 and ARIN route registry
In-Reply-To: <86sklbhvrf.fsf@seastrom.com>
References: <49BFB368.2000504@ibctech.ca> <86fxhcjh4u.fsf@seastrom.com>
	<49BFC563.6050104@ibctech.ca> <86sklbhvrf.fsf@seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <20090410211006.GB1349@arin.net>

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 08:15:48AM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
<snip>
> Is it perhaps time to shake the dust off the ARIN IRR codebase?

Hi

The ARIN IRR code base currently does not support ipv6 objects.  In
our 2009 engineering plan, we have planned to upgrade the current
IRR to improve three things:

  1) Addition of IPv6 object support.
  2) Improved integration with the ARIN whois database (as per ACSP 2008.3).
  3) Improved resiliency the IRR being integrated with our new public facing
     services system that is fully redundant.

The project is currently staffed and work is underway.  We plan to have
improved IRR service available by the end of the 3rd quarter of 2009.

Mark



From michael.dillon at bt.com  Tue Apr 21 04:05:23 2009
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:05:23 +0100
Subject: [arin-discuss] How does ARIN know who is CEO?
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B0B870@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>


Does anyone have any idea how ARIN knows who is the CEO of an
organization holding IPv4 resources, and what is the CEO's address?

I've never passed on this info, and in my case, it's a global company
which means that it is a web of interlocking corporations with several
CEOs, not all of whom would be the best person to send a letter to.

--Michael Dillon




From jcurran at istaff.org  Tue Apr 21 04:27:01 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:27:01 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] How does ARIN know who is CEO?
In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B0B870@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B0B870@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <62BCE58A-50B6-4489-9798-3A1CAB477A00@istaff.org>

Michael -

    For organizations that signed an RSA/LRSA, it's the CEO of
    that legal entity per business registration records.  This
    is approximately 8100 entities. For legacy holders which
    have not signed any RSA, it's the CEO of the organization
    if we can obtain an exact Dun & Bradstreet match for the
    organization record.  There are approximately 9400 such
    entities.

    Obviously, there will be executives who do not receive
    a letter from ARIN who should, and visa-versa, but we
    felt that this approach was still sufficiently accurate
    to proceed given the importance of the matter.

/John

John Curran
Acting CEO
ARIN


On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:05 AM, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:

>
> Does anyone have any idea how ARIN knows who is the CEO of an
> organization holding IPv4 resources, and what is the CEO's address?
>
> I've never passed on this info, and in my case, it's a global company
> which means that it is a web of interlocking corporations with several
> CEOs, not all of whom would be the best person to send a letter to.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr 21 13:52:01 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:52:01 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] How does ARIN know who is CEO?
In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B0B870@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B0B870@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <64584F9250FA497FB583B8ED58BF807B@tedsdesk>

Hi Michael,

  Why would ARIN care who the CEO is?  Are you perhaps
referring to the e-mail sent out yesterday titled:

"Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests"

 because, nowhere in that do I see the term CEO.  I
see the term "officer of the organization"

  Just a reminder, U.S. courts have held that any "officer"
of an organization has legal authority to bind the
organization to legal agreements.  It is not necessary
to get the CEO's thumbprint on a document - any person
designated by the company as a company officer can
do it - and if any company officer is notified by ARIN
of anything, it's legally equivalent to notifying the
CEO.

Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of 
> michael.dillon at bt.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:05 AM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-discuss] How does ARIN know who is CEO?
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any idea how ARIN knows who is the CEO of an 
> organization holding IPv4 resources, and what is the CEO's address?
> 
> I've never passed on this info, and in my case, it's a global 
> company which means that it is a web of interlocking 
> corporations with several CEOs, not all of whom would be the 
> best person to send a letter to.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 



From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Tue Apr 21 14:21:06 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:21:06 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] How does ARIN know who is CEO?
In-Reply-To: <64584F9250FA497FB583B8ED58BF807B@tedsdesk>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B0B870@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<64584F9250FA497FB583B8ED58BF807B@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49EE0E92.7040305@gmail.com>

There were two different things referred to in the announcement.  One 
was that ARIN is sending out certified letters to CEOs as part of an 
outreach effort.  The other was the requirement for officer 
attestation.  The former was sent to the CEO, but doesn't require any 
action from him.  The latter doesn't necessarily: as Ted just pointed 
out, any officer will do.

-Scott

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
>   Why would ARIN care who the CEO is?  Are you perhaps
> referring to the e-mail sent out yesterday titled:
>
> "Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests"
>
>  because, nowhere in that do I see the term CEO.  I
> see the term "officer of the organization"
>
>   Just a reminder, U.S. courts have held that any "officer"
> of an organization has legal authority to bind the
> organization to legal agreements.  It is not necessary
> to get the CEO's thumbprint on a document - any person
> designated by the company as a company officer can
> do it - and if any company officer is notified by ARIN
> of anything, it's legally equivalent to notifying the
> CEO.
>
> Ted
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of 
>> michael.dillon at bt.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:05 AM
>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>> Subject: [arin-discuss] How does ARIN know who is CEO?
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have any idea how ARIN knows who is the CEO of an 
>> organization holding IPv4 resources, and what is the CEO's address?
>>
>> I've never passed on this info, and in my case, it's a global 
>> company which means that it is a web of interlocking 
>> corporations with several CEOs, not all of whom would be the 
>> best person to send a letter to.
>>
>> --Michael Dillon
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-Discuss
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>   


From jcurran at istaff.org  Tue Apr 21 14:21:21 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:21:21 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] How does ARIN know who is CEO?
In-Reply-To: <64584F9250FA497FB583B8ED58BF807B@tedsdesk>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B0B870@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<64584F9250FA497FB583B8ED58BF807B@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <8C041431-8C65-49DE-A6FC-FA154968C84E@istaff.org>

On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
>  Why would ARIN care who the CEO is?  Are you perhaps
> referring to the e-mail sent out yesterday titled:
>
> "Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests"
>
> because, nowhere in that do I see the term CEO.  I
> see the term "officer of the organization"

I'll preemptively answer:  Because ARIN sent out notices
to the senior executive as we were best able to determine
in order to provide some notice at that level of the
community.  I'll actually be giving an entire presentation
about this during next week's meeting, available in person
or via remote participation.

You are 100% correct though, in that attestation can come
from any corporate officer.

/John

John Curran
Acting CEO
ARIN





From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr 21 15:22:54 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:22:54 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] How does ARIN know who is CEO?
In-Reply-To: <8C041431-8C65-49DE-A6FC-FA154968C84E@istaff.org>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B0B870@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<64584F9250FA497FB583B8ED58BF807B@tedsdesk>
	<8C041431-8C65-49DE-A6FC-FA154968C84E@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <C9CE0F30575B4CC9B1E82C92A1F25B59@tedsdesk>

I hope such notices didn't include a copy of "The
Adventures of Team ARIN"!!! ;-)

Ted 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:21 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] How does ARIN know who is CEO?
> 
> On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> >  Why would ARIN care who the CEO is?  Are you perhaps 
> referring to the 
> > e-mail sent out yesterday titled:
> >
> > "Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests"
> >
> > because, nowhere in that do I see the term CEO.  I see the term 
> > "officer of the organization"
> 
> I'll preemptively answer:  Because ARIN sent out notices to 
> the senior executive as we were best able to determine in 
> order to provide some notice at that level of the community.  
> I'll actually be giving an entire presentation about this 
> during next week's meeting, available in person or via remote 
> participation.
> 
> You are 100% correct though, in that attestation can come 
> from any corporate officer.
> 
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> Acting CEO
> ARIN
> 
> 
> 
> 



From jmaimon at chl.com  Tue Apr 28 19:42:05 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:42:05 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Organization size of participants in ARIN policy
Message-ID: <49F7944D.8020300@chl.com>

With regards to the question posed whether there is any information 
available to make any sort of determination of the breakdown of the size 
of the organizations represented by the participants at the ARIN public 
policy meetings, I made a quick stab to determine what kind of effort it 
would be to reproduce that from public available information.

Without automation, its quite tedious and error prone.

ARIN probably already knows which organizations it considers X-Large, 
Large, Medium, Small, X-Small since that is what it uses for its fee 
scheduling.

Would it be possible for ARIN to look into what would be involved in 
creating such a report, whether or not they decided to make it publicly 
available.

Thanks,

Joe


From jmaimon at chl.com  Tue Apr 28 21:50:07 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:50:07 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Organization size of participants in ARIN policy
In-Reply-To: <49F7944D.8020300@chl.com>
References: <49F7944D.8020300@chl.com>
Message-ID: <49F7B24F.4040906@chl.com>



Joe Maimon wrote:
> With regards to the question posed whether there is any information 
> available to make any sort of determination of the breakdown of the size 
> of the organizations represented by the participants at the ARIN public 
> policy meetings, I made a quick stab to determine what kind of effort it 
> would be to reproduce that from public available information.

Which is now complete -- is this information of general interest, 
inaccurate as it may be?


From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Apr 29 14:10:03 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:10:03 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN XXIII is over!
Message-ID: <7E8F50A50BD44E86A47773BB91CA9286@tedsdesk>

So, did everyone have a good time?

Is it possible to download a copy of a video file of the webcast of the
meeting?  I missed the Sunday presentations, and while the
PDF's of the slides are available, it would be nice to see the
actual presentations.

Ted



From joe at utma.com  Wed Apr 29 14:34:59 2009
From: joe at utma.com (Joe Miller)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:34:59 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN XXIII is over!
In-Reply-To: <7E8F50A50BD44E86A47773BB91CA9286@tedsdesk>
References: <7E8F50A50BD44E86A47773BB91CA9286@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49F89DD3.8080908@utma.com>

As a first timer to the meeting, I had a great time.  I applaud everyone 
whose hard work made the meeting possible, and I continue to be amazed 
at the level of community involvement in the policy process, and the 
open and outstanding leadership of the BoT and AC.

I second Ted's request for a downloadable video of the meeting.

--joe

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> So, did everyone have a good time?
>
> Is it possible to download a copy of a video file of the webcast of the
> meeting?  I missed the Sunday presentations, and while the
> PDF's of the slides are available, it would be nice to see the
> actual presentations.
>
> Ted
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>