From rcarpen at network1.net  Tue Mar 13 17:46:30 2012
From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <fed3c714-cc11-4fcc-8ce7-9628f8985c5d@zimbra.network1.net>
Message-ID: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>


What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it matches the current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has been discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately. Jumping from $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.

thanks,
-Randy


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Mar 13 18:11:42 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:11:42 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
Message-ID: <32F7F7C0-710D-402E-836C-C7AEE3DE41FA@corp.arin.net>

On Mar 13, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it matches the current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has been discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately. Jumping from $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.

Randy - 
 
  Excellent question.  We're in the process of coming up with 
  a revised fee schedule for both IPv4 and IPv6 registration
  services, and in light of this the ARIN Board approved in 
  December 2011 maintaining the current IPv6 fees (rather than 
  allowing the fees to increase as the temporary IPv6 fee waiver 
  expired.)

  Our current timeline should have new fees schedule which takes
  this into consideration before the 2012 Fall Public Policy 
  Meeting in Dallas.

Thanks!s
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From rcarpen at network1.net  Tue Mar 13 18:13:49 2012
From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:13:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <32F7F7C0-710D-402E-836C-C7AEE3DE41FA@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <f94fe296-c339-46c5-9657-1fc5303db7f2@zimbra.network1.net>


Sounds Good.

Thanks for the quick response, John.

-Randy

----- Original Message -----
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> > What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it
> > matches the current policy of allocating based on nibble
> > boundaries? This has been discussed in the past, but I have not
> > heard anything lately. Jumping from $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't
> > make much sense.
> 
> Randy -
>  
>   Excellent question.  We're in the process of coming up with
>   a revised fee schedule for both IPv4 and IPv6 registration
>   services, and in light of this the ARIN Board approved in
>   December 2011 maintaining the current IPv6 fees (rather than
>   allowing the fees to increase as the temporary IPv6 fee waiver
>   expired.)
> 
>   Our current timeline should have new fees schedule which takes
>   this into consideration before the 2012 Fall Public Policy
>   Meeting in Dallas.
> 
> Thanks!s
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> 
> 


From rs at seastrom.com  Tue Mar 13 20:13:01 2012
From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:13:01 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <32F7F7C0-710D-402E-836C-C7AEE3DE41FA@corp.arin.net> (John
	Curran's message of "Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:11:42 +0000")
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<32F7F7C0-710D-402E-836C-C7AEE3DE41FA@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <868vj4m44y.fsf@seastrom.com>


John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> writes:

> Randy - 
>  
>   Excellent question.  We're in the process of coming up with 
>   a revised fee schedule for both IPv4 and IPv6 registration
>   services, and in light of this the ARIN Board approved in 
>   December 2011 maintaining the current IPv6 fees (rather than 
>   allowing the fees to increase as the temporary IPv6 fee waiver 
>   expired.)
>
>   Our current timeline should have new fees schedule which takes
>   this into consideration before the 2012 Fall Public Policy 
>   Meeting in Dallas.
>
> Thanks!s
> /John

By the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that that
currently an ISP which has an allocation of a /22 of IPv4 space
(extra-small) that gets the default-smallest-ISP-allocation of IPv6
address space (a /32) suddenly becomes "small" - which results in
their yearly ARIN fees doubling.  $1250/year may not sound like a lot,
but when you're an organization of that size every penny is watched
carefully and it can be a tough sell to management, who may not see
the cost/benefit proposition.

It would be Extra Nice if the new fee schedule addressed the Extra
Small problem.

Thanks,

-r



From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Mar 13 20:21:14 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:21:14 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <868vj4m44y.fsf@seastrom.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<32F7F7C0-710D-402E-836C-C7AEE3DE41FA@corp.arin.net>
	<868vj4m44y.fsf@seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <7C89D99E-153E-4E5E-8DA4-BA81AD0B8D42@arin.net>

On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

> By the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that that
> currently an ISP which has an allocation of a /22 of IPv4 space
> (extra-small) that gets the default-smallest-ISP-allocation of IPv6
> address space (a /32) suddenly becomes "small" - which results in
> their yearly ARIN fees doubling.  $1250/year may not sound like a lot,
> but when you're an organization of that size every penny is watched
> carefully and it can be a tough sell to management, who may not see
> the cost/benefit proposition.
> 
> It would be Extra Nice if the new fee schedule addressed the Extra
> Small problem.

Indeed.  Based on feedback expressed on the mailing lists and 
at the Public Policy and Member meetings, the ARIN Board has 
expressed to me the strong desire to minimize fees for the 
smallest members, and not create a disincentive for adopting 
IPv6 in the process.  I am working with the Board's Finance 
Committee on proposals that will meet those expectations.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





From dk at intuix.com  Tue Mar 13 20:43:38 2012
From: dk at intuix.com (Dmitry Kohmanyuk)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:43:38 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <7C89D99E-153E-4E5E-8DA4-BA81AD0B8D42@arin.net>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<32F7F7C0-710D-402E-836C-C7AEE3DE41FA@corp.arin.net>
	<868vj4m44y.fsf@seastrom.com>
	<7C89D99E-153E-4E5E-8DA4-BA81AD0B8D42@arin.net>
Message-ID: <69BE0AEF-8F51-4582-8D3E-572B4A8F1ECB@intuix.com>


On Mar 13, 2012, at 5:21 PM, John Curran wrote:

> On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> 
>> By the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that that
>> currently an ISP which has an allocation of a /22 of IPv4 space
>> (extra-small) that gets the default-smallest-ISP-allocation of IPv6
>> address space (a /32) suddenly becomes "small" - which results in
>> their yearly ARIN fees doubling.  $1250/year may not sound like a lot,
>> but when you're an organization of that size every penny is watched
>> carefully and it can be a tough sell to management, who may not see
>> the cost/benefit proposition.
[...]
> Indeed.  Based on feedback expressed on the mailing lists and 
> at the Public Policy and Member meetings, the ARIN Board has 
> expressed to me the strong desire to minimize fees for the 
> smallest members, and not create a disincentive for adopting 
> IPv6 in the process.  I am working with the Board's Finance 
> Committee on proposals that will meet those expectations.

Well, there are at least two ways to do it:

1) do not change Small IPv6 boundaries but lower its fees (from $2250 to matching X-Small IPv4 $1250)

2) introduce X-small IPv6 at /32 with $1250 fees (must also change other fee bands as /31 is Medium)

We (Intuix LLC) have /22 IPv4 and /32 IPv6 and going IPv6 meant doubling our ARIN address allocation fees.
Hardly an incentive, indeed - and there are other members just like us, definitely.  Thanks for your attention.



From blake at icglink.com  Tue Mar 13 21:42:53 2012
From: blake at icglink.com (Blake A. Dunlap)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:42:53 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <69BE0AEF-8F51-4582-8D3E-572B4A8F1ECB@intuix.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<32F7F7C0-710D-402E-836C-C7AEE3DE41FA@corp.arin.net>
	<868vj4m44y.fsf@seastrom.com>
	<7C89D99E-153E-4E5E-8DA4-BA81AD0B8D42@arin.net>
	<69BE0AEF-8F51-4582-8D3E-572B4A8F1ECB@intuix.com>
Message-ID: <2B65250184F8A6429162F966835DEAEC297386E9@exch01.ad.icglink.net>

Yeah, it was a very difficult sell to my boss for the same issues. As such, I also suggest making the minimum ISP and multihomed ISP allocations match in both IPv4 and IPv6 space from a cost perspective.

-Blake

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Dmitry Kohmanyuk
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 19:44
To: John Curran
Cc: arin-discuss List
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?


On Mar 13, 2012, at 5:21 PM, John Curran wrote:

> On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> 
>> By the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that that 
>> currently an ISP which has an allocation of a /22 of IPv4 space
>> (extra-small) that gets the default-smallest-ISP-allocation of IPv6 
>> address space (a /32) suddenly becomes "small" - which results in 
>> their yearly ARIN fees doubling.  $1250/year may not sound like a 
>> lot, but when you're an organization of that size every penny is 
>> watched carefully and it can be a tough sell to management, who may 
>> not see the cost/benefit proposition.
[...]
> Indeed.  Based on feedback expressed on the mailing lists and at the 
> Public Policy and Member meetings, the ARIN Board has expressed to me 
> the strong desire to minimize fees for the smallest members, and not 
> create a disincentive for adopting
> IPv6 in the process.  I am working with the Board's Finance Committee 
> on proposals that will meet those expectations.

Well, there are at least two ways to do it:

1) do not change Small IPv6 boundaries but lower its fees (from $2250 to matching X-Small IPv4 $1250)

2) introduce X-small IPv6 at /32 with $1250 fees (must also change other fee bands as /31 is Medium)

We (Intuix LLC) have /22 IPv4 and /32 IPv6 and going IPv6 meant doubling our ARIN address allocation fees.
Hardly an incentive, indeed - and there are other members just like us, definitely.  Thanks for your attention.

_______________________________________________
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 swm at emanon.com  Tue Mar 13 21:35:20 2012
From: swm at emanon.com (Scott Morris)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:35:20 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <7C89D99E-153E-4E5E-8DA4-BA81AD0B8D42@arin.net>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<32F7F7C0-710D-402E-836C-C7AEE3DE41FA@corp.arin.net>
	<868vj4m44y.fsf@seastrom.com>
	<7C89D99E-153E-4E5E-8DA4-BA81AD0B8D42@arin.net>
Message-ID: <4F5FF5D8.609@emanon.com>

On 3/13/12 8:21 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
>> By the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that that
>> currently an ISP which has an allocation of a /22 of IPv4 space
>> (extra-small) that gets the default-smallest-ISP-allocation of IPv6
>> address space (a /32) suddenly becomes "small" - which results in
>> their yearly ARIN fees doubling.  $1250/year may not sound like a lot,
>> but when you're an organization of that size every penny is watched
>> carefully and it can be a tough sell to management, who may not see
>> the cost/benefit proposition.
>>
>> It would be Extra Nice if the new fee schedule addressed the Extra
>> Small problem.
> Indeed.  Based on feedback expressed on the mailing lists and 
> at the Public Policy and Member meetings, the ARIN Board has 
> expressed to me the strong desire to minimize fees for the 
> smallest members, and not create a disincentive for adopting 
> IPv6 in the process.  I am working with the Board's Finance 
> Committee on proposals that will meet those expectations.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
I agree, and hope that the new fee schedule will work on that!

*
**Scott Morris*, CCIE/x4/ (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
CCDE #2009::D, CCNP-Voice, JNCIE-SP #153, JNCIE-ER #102, CISSP, et al.
CCSI #21903, JNCI-SP, JNCI-ER
swm at emanon.com

Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......





From joseph at media-hosts.com  Tue Mar 13 21:55:53 2012
From: joseph at media-hosts.com (Joseph Conti)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:55:53 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <868vj4m44y.fsf@seastrom.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<32F7F7C0-710D-402E-836C-C7AEE3DE41FA@corp.arin.net>
	<868vj4m44y.fsf@seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <92EAB3D9-AFD6-4908-A6A1-3F9D19095FA9@media-hosts.com>

We are also in complete agreement with this and would like ARIN to accommodate an extra small fee schedule for holders of IPv6 initial allocations.

Joseph Conti
Media-Hosts Inc.

On 2012-03-13, at 8:13 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

> 
> John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> writes:
> 
>> Randy - 
>> 
>>  Excellent question.  We're in the process of coming up with 
>>  a revised fee schedule for both IPv4 and IPv6 registration
>>  services, and in light of this the ARIN Board approved in 
>>  December 2011 maintaining the current IPv6 fees (rather than 
>>  allowing the fees to increase as the temporary IPv6 fee waiver 
>>  expired.)
>> 
>>  Our current timeline should have new fees schedule which takes
>>  this into consideration before the 2012 Fall Public Policy 
>>  Meeting in Dallas.
>> 
>> Thanks!s
>> /John
> 
> By the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that that
> currently an ISP which has an allocation of a /22 of IPv4 space
> (extra-small) that gets the default-smallest-ISP-allocation of IPv6
> address space (a /32) suddenly becomes "small" - which results in
> their yearly ARIN fees doubling.  $1250/year may not sound like a lot,
> but when you're an organization of that size every penny is watched
> carefully and it can be a tough sell to management, who may not see
> the cost/benefit proposition.
> 
> It would be Extra Nice if the new fee schedule addressed the Extra
> Small problem.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -r
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120313/ffd5e153/attachment.html>

From otis at ocosa.com  Tue Mar 13 22:48:41 2012
From: otis at ocosa.com (Otis L. Surratt, Jr.)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:48:41 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <92EAB3D9-AFD6-4908-A6A1-3F9D19095FA9@media-hosts.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net><32F7F7C0-710D-402E-836C-C7AEE3DE41FA@corp.arin.net><868vj4m44y.fsf@seastrom.com>
	<92EAB3D9-AFD6-4908-A6A1-3F9D19095FA9@media-hosts.com>
Message-ID: <9F3473D352617F4BA92C65CAAC98E1AF01C6A6@ocsbs.ocosa.com>

I agree as well. We have a /22 IPv4 and have looked at getting IPv6 for
the upcoming growth. The costs makes leasing IP space from upstreams
that much more enticing. However, we all prefer to have a direct
allocation.

 

Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
President / Chief Engineer
OCOSA Communication, LLC
321 S. Boston Ave. Suite LL06
Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA 74103

E otis at ocosa.com <mailto:otis at ocosa.com> 
O (918) 585-9882 x 205
F  (918) 585-5857
M (918) 633-6439

Visit Oklahoma's Data Communications Provider:
http://www.ocosa.com <http://www.ocosa.com/> 
Follow OCOSA on facebook!
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/OCOSA-Communications/113787805394282> 

For Technical Support you can reach our Network Operations Center:
Local: (918) 585-9882 Toll Free: 1-866-93-OCOSA (6-2672)
e-mail: support at ocosa.com <mailto:support at ocosa.com>  
site: https://myportal.ocosa.net <https://myportal.ocosa.net/> 

  <http://www.ocosa.com/> is your partner for Hosting
<http://www.ocosa.com/hosting> , Connectivity
<http://www.ocosa.com/connectivity>  and Professional Services
<http://www.ocosa.com/professional> !

***Electronic Message Disclaimer*** 

The content in this electronic message may contain privileged or
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient, you
may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this
message or attachment in any way.  If you have received this
communication in error please notify us immediately by replying to the
sender of this e-mail or by telephone.  We appreciate your time and
consideration.

 

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joseph Conti
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:56 PM
To: Robert E. Seastrom
Cc: arin-discuss; John Curran
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

 

We are also in complete agreement with this and would like ARIN to
accommodate an extra small fee schedule for holders of IPv6 initial
allocations.

 

Joseph Conti

Media-Hosts Inc.

 

On 2012-03-13, at 8:13 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:






John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> writes:




Randy - 

	 

	 Excellent question.  We're in the process of coming up with 

	 a revised fee schedule for both IPv4 and IPv6 registration

	 services, and in light of this the ARIN Board approved in 

	 December 2011 maintaining the current IPv6 fees (rather than 

	 allowing the fees to increase as the temporary IPv6 fee waiver 

	 expired.)

	 

	 Our current timeline should have new fees schedule which takes

	 this into consideration before the 2012 Fall Public Policy 

	 Meeting in Dallas.

	 

	Thanks!s

	/John


By the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that that
currently an ISP which has an allocation of a /22 of IPv4 space
(extra-small) that gets the default-smallest-ISP-allocation of IPv6
address space (a /32) suddenly becomes "small" - which results in
their yearly ARIN fees doubling.  $1250/year may not sound like a lot,
but when you're an organization of that size every penny is watched
carefully and it can be a tough sell to management, who may not see
the cost/benefit proposition.

It would be Extra Nice if the new fee schedule addressed the Extra
Small problem.

Thanks,

-r

_______________________________________________
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.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120313/e694aec8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1480 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120313/e694aec8/attachment.jpg>

From owen at delong.com  Tue Mar 13 23:27:31 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:27:31 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <69BE0AEF-8F51-4582-8D3E-572B4A8F1ECB@intuix.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<32F7F7C0-710D-402E-836C-C7AEE3DE41FA@corp.arin.net>
	<868vj4m44y.fsf@seastrom.com>
	<7C89D99E-153E-4E5E-8DA4-BA81AD0B8D42@arin.net>
	<69BE0AEF-8F51-4582-8D3E-572B4A8F1ECB@intuix.com>
Message-ID: <90B17596-7836-4231-BE34-09CA4D1C9407@delong.com>


On Mar 13, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote:

> 
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 5:21 PM, John Curran wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>> 
>>> By the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that that
>>> currently an ISP which has an allocation of a /22 of IPv4 space
>>> (extra-small) that gets the default-smallest-ISP-allocation of IPv6
>>> address space (a /32) suddenly becomes "small" - which results in
>>> their yearly ARIN fees doubling.  $1250/year may not sound like a lot,
>>> but when you're an organization of that size every penny is watched
>>> carefully and it can be a tough sell to management, who may not see
>>> the cost/benefit proposition.
> [...]
>> Indeed.  Based on feedback expressed on the mailing lists and 
>> at the Public Policy and Member meetings, the ARIN Board has 
>> expressed to me the strong desire to minimize fees for the 
>> smallest members, and not create a disincentive for adopting 
>> IPv6 in the process.  I am working with the Board's Finance 
>> Committee on proposals that will meet those expectations.
> 
> Well, there are at least two ways to do it:
> 
> 1) do not change Small IPv6 boundaries but lower its fees (from $2250 to matching X-Small IPv4 $1250)
> 
> 2) introduce X-small IPv6 at /32 with $1250 fees (must also change other fee bands as /31 is Medium)

There is a 3 that you left out.

Recent policy changes created the ability for an X-Small organization that truly wants to stay X-Small to
specifically request a /36 ISP allocation.

So, ARIN could introduce a /36 category X-Small for $1250 without disrupting current subscribers or revenue.

That was the main reason for including the /36 possibility in the policy while having the policy specifically
state that the default minimum is /32 so that an X-small organization that wanted a /32 didn't have to prove
that they needed 4 nibbles worth of pops*end-sites to get it.

> We (Intuix LLC) have /22 IPv4 and /32 IPv6 and going IPv6 meant doubling our ARIN address allocation fees.
> Hardly an incentive, indeed - and there are other members just like us, definitely.  Thanks for your attention.

Clearly not enough of a disincentive to prevent you from adopting IPv6. ;-)

The organizations that are of greatest concern, IMHO, are the ones that are delaying or deferring IPv6 because of the costs.

Owen



From dk at intuix.com  Wed Mar 14 13:44:53 2012
From: dk at intuix.com (Dmitry Kohmanyuk)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:44:53 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <90B17596-7836-4231-BE34-09CA4D1C9407@delong.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<32F7F7C0-710D-402E-836C-C7AEE3DE41FA@corp.arin.net>
	<868vj4m44y.fsf@seastrom.com>
	<7C89D99E-153E-4E5E-8DA4-BA81AD0B8D42@arin.net>
	<69BE0AEF-8F51-4582-8D3E-572B4A8F1ECB@intuix.com>
	<90B17596-7836-4231-BE34-09CA4D1C9407@delong.com>
Message-ID: <06D35E40-731C-42A5-8282-0E055A8BA46E@intuix.com>


On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
[.. skipping discussion of lowering fees for new IPv6 allocations of smallest size ...]
>> 
>> Well, there are at least two ways to do it:
>> 
>> 1) do not change Small IPv6 boundaries but lower its fees (from $2250 to matching X-Small IPv4 $1250)
>> 
>> 2) introduce X-small IPv6 at /32 with $1250 fees (must also change other fee bands as /31 is Medium)
> 
> There is a 3 that you left out.
> 
> Recent policy changes created the ability for an X-Small organization that truly wants to stay X-Small to
> specifically request a /36 ISP allocation.
> 
> So, ARIN could introduce a /36 category X-Small for $1250 without disrupting current subscribers or revenue.

This would indeed be a good way to handle it.  There is enough space in such allocation.

> That was the main reason for including the /36 possibility in the policy while having the policy specifically
> state that the default minimum is /32 so that an X-small organization that wanted a /32 didn't have to prove
> that they needed 4 nibbles worth of pops*end-sites to get it.

I was not aware of this recent change. Current Small IPv6 boundaries are from /40 to /32 would have to be changed then.
By the way, there is a disparity of sizes for IPv4 - they go from XS to XL while IPv6 is S to XXL.

>> We (Intuix LLC) have /22 IPv4 and /32 IPv6 and going IPv6 meant doubling our ARIN address allocation fees.
>> Hardly an incentive, indeed - and there are other members just like us, definitely.  Thanks for your attention.
> 
> Clearly not enough of a disincentive to prevent you from adopting IPv6. ;-)
> 
> The organizations that are of greatest concern, IMHO, are the ones that are delaying or deferring IPv6 because of the costs.

It was not a big concern to us -- but the current fee band schedule (even with /36 allowed) is "IPv6 Penalty for Small ISPs".



From msalim at localweb.com  Wed Mar 14 14:00:41 2012
From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:00:41 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
Message-ID: <F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>

This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32 IPv6 space.  If we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point we would be forced to renumber, and it would cause issues for us and for our customers.  And I totally concur that an increase in IPv6 fees at this early stage of IPv6 adoption will be counter productive.

I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced, that existing allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There is enough IPv6 space that this should not be a problem.

Best regards
Mike

A. Michael Salim
VP and Chief Technology Officer,
American Data Technology, Inc.
PO Box 12892
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
P: (919)544-4101 x101
F: (919)544-5345
E: msalim at localweb.com
W: http://www.localweb.com

PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:47 PM
To: arin-discuss 
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?


What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it matches the current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has been discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately. Jumping from $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.

thanks,
-Randy
_______________________________________________
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 rcarpen at network1.net  Wed Mar 14 14:17:09 2012
From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:17:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
Message-ID: <c03706e0-02e6-4c54-a1b5-502e7add46eb@zimbra.network1.net>


Everyone can still get a /32 if desired. The /36 is offered only as an option. Since the cost is currently the same, it is a bit of a useless option.

-Randy


----- Original Message -----
> This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32 IPv6
> space.  If we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point
> we would be forced to renumber, and it would cause issues for us and
> for our customers.  And I totally concur that an increase in IPv6
> fees at this early stage of IPv6 adoption will be counter
> productive.
> 
> I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced, that
> existing allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There
> is enough IPv6 space that this should not be a problem.
> 
> Best regards
> Mike
> 
> A. Michael Salim
> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> American Data Technology, Inc.
> PO Box 12892
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> P: (919)544-4101 x101
> F: (919)544-5345
> E: msalim at localweb.com
> W: http://www.localweb.com


From pace at jolokianetworks.com  Wed Mar 14 14:16:33 2012
From: pace at jolokianetworks.com (Mark Pace)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:16:33 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
Message-ID: <4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>

I agree with Mike.  We designed our network around our /32.  Having to
change that now or incurring fees that are orders of magnitude greater
would cause a lot of grief for us and our customers.


Mark Pace
CTO
Jolokia Networks

On 2012-03-14 11:00 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:
> This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32 IPv6 space.  If we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point we would be forced to renumber, and it would cause issues for us and for our customers.  And I totally concur that an increase in IPv6 fees at this early stage of IPv6 adoption will be counter productive.
>
> I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced, that existing allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There is enough IPv6 space that this should not be a problem.
>
> Best regards
> Mike
>
> A. Michael Salim
> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> American Data Technology, Inc.
> PO Box 12892
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> P: (919)544-4101 x101
> F: (919)544-5345
> E: msalim at localweb.com
> W: http://www.localweb.com
>
> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> ??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:47 PM
> To: arin-discuss 
> Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
>
>
> What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it matches the current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has been discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately. Jumping from $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.
>
> thanks,
> -Randy
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/e2053bdc/attachment.html>

From owen at delong.com  Wed Mar 14 14:59:19 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:59:19 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
Message-ID: <2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>

I don't believe anyone is discussing increasing current IPv6 fees.

What is under discussion, I believe, is the exact manner in which to make it possible to get an IPv6 allocation without having it cause an increase over what current subscribers are paying for IPv4.

If you were an X-Small IPv4 subscriber, then when you got your /32, you moved into the small category and went from paying $1250/year to paying at least $2250/year (nearly doubling your fees) except to the extent that you've been receiving a fee waiver as has been the case so far for all IPv6 subscribers. (not IPv6 end users).

I'm not privy to what the board and the finance committee have been discussing, but, what has been discussed on this list so far that I recall are these three possibilities:

1.	Lower fees for existing /32 and smaller subscribers to equivalent to IPv4 X-Small ($1,250/year)
2.	Leave existing /32 and larger subscribers with their current fees ($2,250+/year) and create the X-Small
	category for /36 subscribers only at $1,250/year.
3.	Change the fee for the small category to $1,250/year, but leave the boundary between small and medium at /40.

Personally, I think 3 is absurd. I just can't see calling an organization with a /40 "extra small".

Your second paragraph is not clear as to whether you are advocating 1 or 2 or some different mixture of the two.

I would be OK with extending X-Small up to and including /32 and I agree that is the best alternative if it can be done without too much of a revenue hit to ARIN.

I would also be OK with treating existing /32 subscribers as x-small and marking new /32s as small, though ARIN may not want the accounting overhead associated with that.

I don't think that anyone should be forced to renumber or pay higher fees than they are already paying as part of this. However, I'm not sure that people who want to have their existing fees lowered by $1,000/year shouldn't have to vacate 15/16ths of their address space to receive that fee reduction. I'm undecided on this issue as I don't have full knowledge of the impact of the various alternatives on ARIN's financial state.

Owen

On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:

> This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32 IPv6 space.  If we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point we would be forced to renumber, and it would cause issues for us and for our customers.  And I totally concur that an increase in IPv6 fees at this early stage of IPv6 adoption will be counter productive.
> 
> I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced, that existing allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There is enough IPv6 space that this should not be a problem.
> 
> Best regards
> Mike
> 
> A. Michael Salim
> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> American Data Technology, Inc.
> PO Box 12892
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> P: (919)544-4101 x101
> F: (919)544-5345
> E: msalim at localweb.com
> W: http://www.localweb.com
> 
> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
> ??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:47 PM
> To: arin-discuss 
> Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> 
> 
> What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it matches the current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has been discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately. Jumping from $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.
> 
> thanks,
> -Randy
> _______________________________________________
> 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 jflaforest at teliphone.ca  Wed Mar 14 14:27:15 2012
From: jflaforest at teliphone.ca (Jean-Francois Laforest)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:27:15 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>
Message-ID: <4F60E303.1090105@teliphone.ca>

I agree with Mike too. We are expanding on the commercial side of the 
business, considerably, but these costs would be hammering our clients 
with a very high cost for IPs. Therefore reducing our ipv6 
footprint/efforts due to costs. Client adoption of the technology 
requires sane pricing.

Jean-Francois Laforest, M. Eng.
Director of Global Network Operations
TeliPhone Corp.

On 12-03-14 02:16 PM, Mark Pace wrote:
> I agree with Mike.  We designed our network around our /32.  Having to 
> change that now or incurring fees that are orders of magnitude greater 
> would cause a lot of grief for us and our customers.
>
>
> Mark Pace
> CTO
> Jolokia Networks
>
> On 2012-03-14 11:00 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:
>> This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32 IPv6 space.  If we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point we would be forced to renumber, and it would cause issues for us and for our customers.  And I totally concur that an increase in IPv6 fees at this early stage of IPv6 adoption will be counter productive.
>>
>> I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced, that existing allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There is enough IPv6 space that this should not be a problem.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Mike
>>
>> A. Michael Salim
>> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
>> American Data Technology, Inc.
>> PO Box 12892
>> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
>> P: (919)544-4101 x101
>> F: (919)544-5345
>> E:msalim at localweb.com
>> W:http://www.localweb.com
>>
>> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>> ??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net  [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:47 PM
>> To: arin-discuss
>> Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
>>
>>
>> What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it matches the current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has been discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately. Jumping from $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -Randy
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 contactinfo 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 contactinfo 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/2b760c4f/attachment.html>

From john at citylinkfiber.com  Wed Mar 14 15:14:06 2012
From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:14:06 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
Message-ID: <DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>

Could you see calling a /32 Extra-Small ??


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:59 PM
> To: Mike A. Salim
> Cc: arin-discuss
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> 
> I don't believe anyone is discussing increasing current IPv6 fees.
> 
> What is under discussion, I believe, is the exact manner in which to make it
> possible to get an IPv6 allocation without having it cause an increase over
> what current subscribers are paying for IPv4.
> 
> If you were an X-Small IPv4 subscriber, then when you got your /32, you
> moved into the small category and went from paying $1250/year to paying at
> least $2250/year (nearly doubling your fees) except to the extent that you've
> been receiving a fee waiver as has been the case so far for all IPv6
> subscribers. (not IPv6 end users).
> 
> I'm not privy to what the board and the finance committee have been
> discussing, but, what has been discussed on this list so far that I recall are
> these three possibilities:
> 
> 1.	Lower fees for existing /32 and smaller subscribers to equivalent to
> IPv4 X-Small ($1,250/year)
> 2.	Leave existing /32 and larger subscribers with their current fees
> ($2,250+/year) and create the X-Small
> 	category for /36 subscribers only at $1,250/year.
> 3.	Change the fee for the small category to $1,250/year, but leave the
> boundary between small and medium at /40.
> 
> Personally, I think 3 is absurd. I just can't see calling an organization with a /40
> "extra small".
> 
> Your second paragraph is not clear as to whether you are advocating 1 or 2 or
> some different mixture of the two.
> 
> I would be OK with extending X-Small up to and including /32 and I agree that
> is the best alternative if it can be done without too much of a revenue hit to
> ARIN.
> 
> I would also be OK with treating existing /32 subscribers as x-small and
> marking new /32s as small, though ARIN may not want the accounting
> overhead associated with that.
> 
> I don't think that anyone should be forced to renumber or pay higher fees
> than they are already paying as part of this. However, I'm not sure that
> people who want to have their existing fees lowered by $1,000/year
> shouldn't have to vacate 15/16ths of their address space to receive that fee
> reduction. I'm undecided on this issue as I don't have full knowledge of the
> impact of the various alternatives on ARIN's financial state.
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:
> 
> > This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32 IPv6 space.  If
> we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point we would be forced to
> renumber, and it would cause issues for us and for our customers.  And I
> totally concur that an increase in IPv6 fees at this early stage of IPv6 adoption
> will be counter productive.
> >
> > I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced, that existing
> allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There is enough IPv6
> space that this should not be a problem.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Mike
> >
> > A. Michael Salim
> > VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> > American Data Technology, Inc.
> > PO Box 12892
> > Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> > P: (919)544-4101 x101
> > F: (919)544-5345
> > E: msalim at localweb.com
> > W: http://www.localweb.com
> >
> > PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521,
> and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain
> confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
> original message.
> >
> > P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:47 PM
> > To: arin-discuss
> > Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> >
> >
> > What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it matches the
> current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has been
> discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately. Jumping from
> $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.
> >
> > thanks,
> > -Randy
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 blake at icglink.com  Wed Mar 14 15:26:57 2012
From: blake at icglink.com (Blake A. Dunlap)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:26:57 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
Message-ID: <2B65250184F8A6429162F966835DEAEC29744A44@exch01.ad.icglink.net>

In a world of my house having a /48 from a provider over a tunnel for free?

For an ISP? Absolutely.

-Blake

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:14 PM
Cc: arin-discuss
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

Could you see calling a /32 Extra-Small ??


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- 
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:59 PM
> To: Mike A. Salim
> Cc: arin-discuss
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> 
> I don't believe anyone is discussing increasing current IPv6 fees.
> 
> What is under discussion, I believe, is the exact manner in which to 
> make it possible to get an IPv6 allocation without having it cause an 
> increase over what current subscribers are paying for IPv4.
> 
> If you were an X-Small IPv4 subscriber, then when you got your /32, 
> you moved into the small category and went from paying $1250/year to 
> paying at least $2250/year (nearly doubling your fees) except to the 
> extent that you've been receiving a fee waiver as has been the case so 
> far for all IPv6 subscribers. (not IPv6 end users).
> 
> I'm not privy to what the board and the finance committee have been 
> discussing, but, what has been discussed on this list so far that I 
> recall are these three possibilities:
> 
> 1.	Lower fees for existing /32 and smaller subscribers to equivalent to
> IPv4 X-Small ($1,250/year)
> 2.	Leave existing /32 and larger subscribers with their current fees
> ($2,250+/year) and create the X-Small
> 	category for /36 subscribers only at $1,250/year.
> 3.	Change the fee for the small category to $1,250/year, but leave the
> boundary between small and medium at /40.
> 
> Personally, I think 3 is absurd. I just can't see calling an 
> organization with a /40 "extra small".
> 
> Your second paragraph is not clear as to whether you are advocating 1 
> or 2 or some different mixture of the two.
> 
> I would be OK with extending X-Small up to and including /32 and I 
> agree that is the best alternative if it can be done without too much 
> of a revenue hit to ARIN.
> 
> I would also be OK with treating existing /32 subscribers as x-small 
> and marking new /32s as small, though ARIN may not want the accounting 
> overhead associated with that.
> 
> I don't think that anyone should be forced to renumber or pay higher 
> fees than they are already paying as part of this. However, I'm not 
> sure that people who want to have their existing fees lowered by 
> $1,000/year shouldn't have to vacate 15/16ths of their address space 
> to receive that fee reduction. I'm undecided on this issue as I don't 
> have full knowledge of the impact of the various alternatives on ARIN's financial state.
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:
> 
> > This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32 IPv6 
> > space.  If
> we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point we would be 
> forced to renumber, and it would cause issues for us and for our 
> customers.  And I totally concur that an increase in IPv6 fees at this 
> early stage of IPv6 adoption will be counter productive.
> >
> > I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced, that 
> > existing
> allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There is enough 
> IPv6 space that this should not be a problem.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Mike
> >
> > A. Michael Salim
> > VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> > American Data Technology, Inc.
> > PO Box 12892
> > Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> > P: (919)544-4101 x101
> > F: (919)544-5345
> > E: msalim at localweb.com
> > W: http://www.localweb.com
> >
> > PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any 
> > attachments,
> is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 
> 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It 
> may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. 
> Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If 
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply 
> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> >
> > P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:47 PM
> > To: arin-discuss
> > Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> >
> >
> > What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it 
> > matches the
> current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has been 
> discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately. Jumping 
> from
> $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.
> >
> > thanks,
> > -Randy
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
_______________________________________________
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 owen at delong.com  Wed Mar 14 15:23:42 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:23:42 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
Message-ID: <E3B7A871-0EBE-4589-8AAC-8C02BF272CD5@delong.com>

Pretty easily.

Owen

On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:14 PM, John Brown wrote:

> Could you see calling a /32 Extra-Small ??
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:59 PM
>> To: Mike A. Salim
>> Cc: arin-discuss
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
>> 
>> I don't believe anyone is discussing increasing current IPv6 fees.
>> 
>> What is under discussion, I believe, is the exact manner in which to make it
>> possible to get an IPv6 allocation without having it cause an increase over
>> what current subscribers are paying for IPv4.
>> 
>> If you were an X-Small IPv4 subscriber, then when you got your /32, you
>> moved into the small category and went from paying $1250/year to paying at
>> least $2250/year (nearly doubling your fees) except to the extent that you've
>> been receiving a fee waiver as has been the case so far for all IPv6
>> subscribers. (not IPv6 end users).
>> 
>> I'm not privy to what the board and the finance committee have been
>> discussing, but, what has been discussed on this list so far that I recall are
>> these three possibilities:
>> 
>> 1.	Lower fees for existing /32 and smaller subscribers to equivalent to
>> IPv4 X-Small ($1,250/year)
>> 2.	Leave existing /32 and larger subscribers with their current fees
>> ($2,250+/year) and create the X-Small
>> 	category for /36 subscribers only at $1,250/year.
>> 3.	Change the fee for the small category to $1,250/year, but leave the
>> boundary between small and medium at /40.
>> 
>> Personally, I think 3 is absurd. I just can't see calling an organization with a /40
>> "extra small".
>> 
>> Your second paragraph is not clear as to whether you are advocating 1 or 2 or
>> some different mixture of the two.
>> 
>> I would be OK with extending X-Small up to and including /32 and I agree that
>> is the best alternative if it can be done without too much of a revenue hit to
>> ARIN.
>> 
>> I would also be OK with treating existing /32 subscribers as x-small and
>> marking new /32s as small, though ARIN may not want the accounting
>> overhead associated with that.
>> 
>> I don't think that anyone should be forced to renumber or pay higher fees
>> than they are already paying as part of this. However, I'm not sure that
>> people who want to have their existing fees lowered by $1,000/year
>> shouldn't have to vacate 15/16ths of their address space to receive that fee
>> reduction. I'm undecided on this issue as I don't have full knowledge of the
>> impact of the various alternatives on ARIN's financial state.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:
>> 
>>> This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32 IPv6 space.  If
>> we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point we would be forced to
>> renumber, and it would cause issues for us and for our customers.  And I
>> totally concur that an increase in IPv6 fees at this early stage of IPv6 adoption
>> will be counter productive.
>>> 
>>> I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced, that existing
>> allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There is enough IPv6
>> space that this should not be a problem.
>>> 
>>> Best regards
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> A. Michael Salim
>>> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
>>> American Data Technology, Inc.
>>> PO Box 12892
>>> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
>>> P: (919)544-4101 x101
>>> F: (919)544-5345
>>> E: msalim at localweb.com
>>> W: http://www.localweb.com
>>> 
>>> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments,
>> is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521,
>> and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain
>> confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use,
>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
>> please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
>> original message.
>>> 
>>> P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:47 PM
>>> To: arin-discuss
>>> Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it matches the
>> current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has been
>> discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately. Jumping from
>> $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.
>>> 
>>> thanks,
>>> -Randy
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 at citylinkfiber.com  Wed Mar 14 15:33:32 2012
From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:33:32 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <E3B7A871-0EBE-4589-8AAC-8C02BF272CD5@delong.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<E3B7A871-0EBE-4589-8AAC-8C02BF272CD5@delong.com>
Message-ID: <DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C294355772CA@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>

Then lets call /32 Extra-Small, keep the costs the same for those smaller providers and move forward ;)

I think having legacy /32's as XS and new /32's as S  creates disharmony.

For those small ISP's  a /32 will be the only prefix they will probably ever need.
Poof they have instant control over their future and have their own IPv6 space.
And at a cost point that won't prevent sooner adoption.

If you have a /32 and it becomes priced as XS then that's what you pay.  You don't force them to renumber or vacate a portion of the space.
All that will cause is them vacating the existing space completely and coming back for space under the new policy.

I don't think ARIN has a fiscal issue.  More automation (which they are working on) should create LOWER OpEx for them.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:24 PM
> To: John Brown
> Cc: arin-discuss
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> 
> Pretty easily.
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:14 PM, John Brown wrote:
> 
> > Could you see calling a /32 Extra-Small ??
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> >> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:59 PM
> >> To: Mike A. Salim
> >> Cc: arin-discuss
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> >>
> >> I don't believe anyone is discussing increasing current IPv6 fees.
> >>
> >> What is under discussion, I believe, is the exact manner in which to
> >> make it possible to get an IPv6 allocation without having it cause an
> >> increase over what current subscribers are paying for IPv4.
> >>
> >> If you were an X-Small IPv4 subscriber, then when you got your /32,
> >> you moved into the small category and went from paying $1250/year to
> >> paying at least $2250/year (nearly doubling your fees) except to the
> >> extent that you've been receiving a fee waiver as has been the case
> >> so far for all IPv6 subscribers. (not IPv6 end users).
> >>
> >> I'm not privy to what the board and the finance committee have been
> >> discussing, but, what has been discussed on this list so far that I
> >> recall are these three possibilities:
> >>
> >> 1.	Lower fees for existing /32 and smaller subscribers to equivalent to
> >> IPv4 X-Small ($1,250/year)
> >> 2.	Leave existing /32 and larger subscribers with their current fees
> >> ($2,250+/year) and create the X-Small
> >> 	category for /36 subscribers only at $1,250/year.
> >> 3.	Change the fee for the small category to $1,250/year, but leave the
> >> boundary between small and medium at /40.
> >>
> >> Personally, I think 3 is absurd. I just can't see calling an
> >> organization with a /40 "extra small".
> >>
> >> Your second paragraph is not clear as to whether you are advocating 1
> >> or 2 or some different mixture of the two.
> >>
> >> I would be OK with extending X-Small up to and including /32 and I
> >> agree that is the best alternative if it can be done without too much
> >> of a revenue hit to ARIN.
> >>
> >> I would also be OK with treating existing /32 subscribers as x-small
> >> and marking new /32s as small, though ARIN may not want the
> >> accounting overhead associated with that.
> >>
> >> I don't think that anyone should be forced to renumber or pay higher
> >> fees than they are already paying as part of this. However, I'm not
> >> sure that people who want to have their existing fees lowered by
> >> $1,000/year shouldn't have to vacate 15/16ths of their address space
> >> to receive that fee reduction. I'm undecided on this issue as I don't
> >> have full knowledge of the impact of the various alternatives on ARIN's
> financial state.
> >>
> >> Owen
> >>
> >> On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32 IPv6
> >>> space.  If
> >> we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point we would be
> >> forced to renumber, and it would cause issues for us and for our
> >> customers.  And I totally concur that an increase in IPv6 fees at
> >> this early stage of IPv6 adoption will be counter productive.
> >>>
> >>> I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced, that
> >>> existing
> >> allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There is enough
> >> IPv6 space that this should not be a problem.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>> A. Michael Salim
> >>> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> >>> American Data Technology, Inc.
> >>> PO Box 12892
> >>> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> >>> P: (919)544-4101 x101
> >>> F: (919)544-5345
> >>> E: msalim at localweb.com
> >>> W: http://www.localweb.com
> >>>
> >>> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any
> >>> attachments,
> >> is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
> >> 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It
> >> may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information.
> >> Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
> >> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
> >> reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> >>>
> >>> P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:47 PM
> >>> To: arin-discuss
> >>> Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it
> >>> matches the
> >> current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has
> >> been discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately.
> >> Jumping from
> >> $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>> -Randy
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 rcarpen at network1.net  Wed Mar 14 15:46:33 2012
From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:46:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C294355772CA@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
Message-ID: <65ec28ad-22ec-4007-87fa-cf545acdddb6@zimbra.network1.net>


I think the following is perfect:

/36 - x-small
/32 - small
/28 - medium
/24 - large
/20 - x-large

Something would have to be decided for existing ISPs' aggregates in-between, of course, but all future allocations should fall on the above boundaries.

The larger size categories could have an affect on ARIN's finances depending on how many there are. If the fees for each category stay around the same, each of the levels above small fall into a lower category.

I don't think /32 needs to change at all, but I know of several ISPs who are big enough to justify a /28, and currently have about a /16 in IPv4 space. Moving to IPv6 right now is a choice between getting a /32, and squeezing into it, or getting a /28 and paying double the annual fee.

-Randy

----- Original Message -----
> Then lets call /32 Extra-Small, keep the costs the same for those
> smaller providers and move forward ;)
> 
> I think having legacy /32's as XS and new /32's as S  creates
> disharmony.
> 
> For those small ISP's  a /32 will be the only prefix they will
> probably ever need.
> Poof they have instant control over their future and have their own
> IPv6 space.
> And at a cost point that won't prevent sooner adoption.
> 
> If you have a /32 and it becomes priced as XS then that's what you
> pay.  You don't force them to renumber or vacate a portion of the
> space.
> All that will cause is them vacating the existing space completely
> and coming back for space under the new policy.
> 
> I don't think ARIN has a fiscal issue.  More automation (which they
> are working on) should create LOWER OpEx for them.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:24 PM
> > To: John Brown
> > Cc: arin-discuss
> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee
> > structure?
> > 
> > Pretty easily.
> > 
> > Owen
> > 
> > On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:14 PM, John Brown wrote:
> > 
> > > Could you see calling a /32 Extra-Small ??
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> > >> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:59 PM
> > >> To: Mike A. Salim
> > >> Cc: arin-discuss
> > >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee
> > >> structure?
> > >>
> > >> I don't believe anyone is discussing increasing current IPv6
> > >> fees.
> > >>
> > >> What is under discussion, I believe, is the exact manner in
> > >> which to
> > >> make it possible to get an IPv6 allocation without having it
> > >> cause an
> > >> increase over what current subscribers are paying for IPv4.
> > >>
> > >> If you were an X-Small IPv4 subscriber, then when you got your
> > >> /32,
> > >> you moved into the small category and went from paying
> > >> $1250/year to
> > >> paying at least $2250/year (nearly doubling your fees) except to
> > >> the
> > >> extent that you've been receiving a fee waiver as has been the
> > >> case
> > >> so far for all IPv6 subscribers. (not IPv6 end users).
> > >>
> > >> I'm not privy to what the board and the finance committee have
> > >> been
> > >> discussing, but, what has been discussed on this list so far
> > >> that I
> > >> recall are these three possibilities:
> > >>
> > >> 1.	Lower fees for existing /32 and smaller subscribers to
> > >> equivalent to
> > >> IPv4 X-Small ($1,250/year)
> > >> 2.	Leave existing /32 and larger subscribers with their current
> > >> fees
> > >> ($2,250+/year) and create the X-Small
> > >> 	category for /36 subscribers only at $1,250/year.
> > >> 3.	Change the fee for the small category to $1,250/year, but
> > >> leave the
> > >> boundary between small and medium at /40.
> > >>
> > >> Personally, I think 3 is absurd. I just can't see calling an
> > >> organization with a /40 "extra small".
> > >>
> > >> Your second paragraph is not clear as to whether you are
> > >> advocating 1
> > >> or 2 or some different mixture of the two.
> > >>
> > >> I would be OK with extending X-Small up to and including /32 and
> > >> I
> > >> agree that is the best alternative if it can be done without too
> > >> much
> > >> of a revenue hit to ARIN.
> > >>
> > >> I would also be OK with treating existing /32 subscribers as
> > >> x-small
> > >> and marking new /32s as small, though ARIN may not want the
> > >> accounting overhead associated with that.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think that anyone should be forced to renumber or pay
> > >> higher
> > >> fees than they are already paying as part of this. However, I'm
> > >> not
> > >> sure that people who want to have their existing fees lowered by
> > >> $1,000/year shouldn't have to vacate 15/16ths of their address
> > >> space
> > >> to receive that fee reduction. I'm undecided on this issue as I
> > >> don't
> > >> have full knowledge of the impact of the various alternatives on
> > >> ARIN's
> > financial state.
> > >>
> > >> Owen
> > >>
> > >> On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32
> > >>> IPv6
> > >>> space.  If
> > >> we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point we
> > >> would be
> > >> forced to renumber, and it would cause issues for us and for our
> > >> customers.  And I totally concur that an increase in IPv6 fees
> > >> at
> > >> this early stage of IPv6 adoption will be counter productive.
> > >>>
> > >>> I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced,
> > >>> that
> > >>> existing
> > >> allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There is
> > >> enough
> > >> IPv6 space that this should not be a problem.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards
> > >>> Mike
> > >>>
> > >>> A. Michael Salim
> > >>> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> > >>> American Data Technology, Inc.
> > >>> PO Box 12892
> > >>> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> > >>> P: (919)544-4101 x101
> > >>> F: (919)544-5345
> > >>> E: msalim at localweb.com
> > >>> W: http://www.localweb.com
> > >>>
> > >>> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any
> > >>> attachments,
> > >> is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
> > >> U.S.C.
> > >> 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).
> > >> It
> > >> may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information.
> > >> Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> > >> prohibited.
> > >> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
> > >> by
> > >> reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> > >>>
> > >>> P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy
> > >>> Carpenter
> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:47 PM
> > >>> To: arin-discuss
> > >>> Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee
> > >>> structure?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that
> > >>> it
> > >>> matches the
> > >> current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This
> > >> has
> > >> been discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything
> > >> lately.
> > >> Jumping from
> > >> $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.
> > >>>
> > >>> thanks,
> > >>> -Randy
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> 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.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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 lsc at prgmr.com  Wed Mar 14 16:02:45 2012
From: lsc at prgmr.com (Luke S. Crawford)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:02:45 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <4F60E303.1090105@teliphone.ca>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>
	<4F60E303.1090105@teliphone.ca>
Message-ID: <20120314200245.GA15453@luke.xen.prgmr.com>

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:27:15PM -0400, Jean-Francois Laforest wrote:
> I agree with Mike too. We are expanding on the commercial side of the 
> business, considerably, but these costs would be hammering our clients 
> with a very high cost for IPs. Therefore reducing our ipv6 
> footprint/efforts due to costs. Client adoption of the technology 
> requires sane pricing.

I agree.  In my very small corner of the market, the business people
don't care at all about IPv6.  "Maybe later."   The Engineers want it, 
and eh, if they are my customers, I throw it in for free.  But as far 
as I can tell, the business types don't see a business case for IPv6
other than keeping their nerds happy.  

I mean, sure, I'd pay three grand a year for a v6 allocation, no problem;
I spend that much on stuff I evaluate and end up throwing out, even at my
size. 
 
but I only have an actual business case for this because my core customer 
base is the nerds that wanna play with this.  (And for them?  there is a 
very rational business model.   At some point, a spike in IPv6 interest 
is very, very likely, and at that point, having a few years of experience 
under your belt likely will make you rather more valuable.)  Even for
the nerds, it's a second-tier network.  If v6 breaks it's not nearly
the hair on fire big deal that a broken v4 is.  

I only mention this because yeah, three grand a year isn't a lot
for even a small company, but I think anything more than 'comes free with
the IPv4'  is going to get a thumbs down from most of the business people
I know.  

Personally, I think you want to make it a whole lot easier to get IPv6
allocations.   Right now, most IPv6 installations (again, at my very 
small corner of the market.)  are still in the 'the nerds are playing 
with it' stage, and the business people, generally speaking, wish they'd
spend less time on it.   E.g. the best way to enable this is to let
the nerds go ahead without making them talk to the business people
much, which means IPv6 needs to come free with IPv4 or something else the
business people already approved.  

I mean, at least temporarily, I think it might make sense to let people 
get IPv6 PI space before they can get IPv4 PI space.   If your IPv6 space 
causes you less headaches than your IPv4 space (and PI space causes 
vastly fewer headaches than PA space)  that's a pretty valid reason
for the business people to start moving more stuff over.   

Of course, that needs to be balanced against the routing table cost of
more PI blocks, which is why I say 'temporarily'  or something.  (I 
mean, obviously you can't take these things back, but you could say
something like the first X v6 PI blocks are at the reduced price, 
after which the rules revert to normal.) 

But my main point is that from where I stand, the business people don't
care much at all about IPv6, so you are best off slipping it in for free
whenever anyone gets any IPv4.   Certainly for the foreseeable future,
there isn't any problem giving everyone with a IPv4 PI block of any size
a /32 rather than a /40 or whatever.  The limit on IPv6 is going to 
be routing table size, right?  not address space?  so as far as our real
resource constraints go, a /40 of v6 PI space "costs" just as much as a 
/32 of PI space, so if we are going to give out a pi block, why not give 
people a /32?




-- 
Luke S. Crawford
http://prgmr.com/xen/         -   Hosting for the technically adept
http://nostarch.com/xen.htm   -   We don't assume you are stupid.  


From bill at SkylineBroadbandService.com  Wed Mar 14 16:11:16 2012
From: bill at SkylineBroadbandService.com (Bill Prince)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:11:16 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <20120314200245.GA15453@luke.xen.prgmr.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>
	<4F60E303.1090105@teliphone.ca>
	<20120314200245.GA15453@luke.xen.prgmr.com>
Message-ID: <4F60FB64.3030802@SkylineBroadbandService.com>


In the world of supply and demand, IPv6 space should be less expensive
because there is more of it than people want.  IPv4 space should be more
expensive because there is a dwindling supply.


On 3/14/2012 1:02 PM, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:27:15PM -0400, Jean-Francois Laforest wrote:
>> I agree with Mike too. We are expanding on the commercial side of the 
>> business, considerably, but these costs would be hammering our clients 
>> with a very high cost for IPs. Therefore reducing our ipv6 
>> footprint/efforts due to costs. Client adoption of the technology 
>> requires sane pricing.
> I agree.  In my very small corner of the market, the business people
> don't care at all about IPv6.  "Maybe later."   The Engineers want it, 
> and eh, if they are my customers, I throw it in for free.  But as far 
> as I can tell, the business types don't see a business case for IPv6
> other than keeping their nerds happy.  
>
> I mean, sure, I'd pay three grand a year for a v6 allocation, no problem;
> I spend that much on stuff I evaluate and end up throwing out, even at my
> size. 
>  
> but I only have an actual business case for this because my core customer 
> base is the nerds that wanna play with this.  (And for them?  there is a 
> very rational business model.   At some point, a spike in IPv6 interest 
> is very, very likely, and at that point, having a few years of experience 
> under your belt likely will make you rather more valuable.)  Even for
> the nerds, it's a second-tier network.  If v6 breaks it's not nearly
> the hair on fire big deal that a broken v4 is.  
>
> I only mention this because yeah, three grand a year isn't a lot
> for even a small company, but I think anything more than 'comes free with
> the IPv4'  is going to get a thumbs down from most of the business people
> I know.  
>
> Personally, I think you want to make it a whole lot easier to get IPv6
> allocations.   Right now, most IPv6 installations (again, at my very 
> small corner of the market.)  are still in the 'the nerds are playing 
> with it' stage, and the business people, generally speaking, wish they'd
> spend less time on it.   E.g. the best way to enable this is to let
> the nerds go ahead without making them talk to the business people
> much, which means IPv6 needs to come free with IPv4 or something else the
> business people already approved.  
>
> I mean, at least temporarily, I think it might make sense to let people 
> get IPv6 PI space before they can get IPv4 PI space.   If your IPv6 space 
> causes you less headaches than your IPv4 space (and PI space causes 
> vastly fewer headaches than PA space)  that's a pretty valid reason
> for the business people to start moving more stuff over.   
>
> Of course, that needs to be balanced against the routing table cost of
> more PI blocks, which is why I say 'temporarily'  or something.  (I 
> mean, obviously you can't take these things back, but you could say
> something like the first X v6 PI blocks are at the reduced price, 
> after which the rules revert to normal.) 
>
> But my main point is that from where I stand, the business people don't
> care much at all about IPv6, so you are best off slipping it in for free
> whenever anyone gets any IPv4.   Certainly for the foreseeable future,
> there isn't any problem giving everyone with a IPv4 PI block of any size
> a /32 rather than a /40 or whatever.  The limit on IPv6 is going to 
> be routing table size, right?  not address space?  so as far as our real
> resource constraints go, a /40 of v6 PI space "costs" just as much as a 
> /32 of PI space, so if we are going to give out a pi block, why not give 
> people a /32?
>
>
>
>


From chris at ykwc.com  Wed Mar 14 16:45:24 2012
From: chris at ykwc.com (Chris Cappuccio)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:45:24 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <4F60FB64.3030802@SkylineBroadbandService.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>
	<4F60E303.1090105@teliphone.ca>
	<20120314200245.GA15453@luke.xen.prgmr.com>
	<4F60FB64.3030802@SkylineBroadbandService.com>
Message-ID: <4F610364.2030801@ykwc.com>

On 03/14/12 13:11, Bill Prince wrote:
> In the world of supply and demand, IPv6 space should be less expensive
> because there is more of it than people want.  IPv4 space should be more
> expensive because there is a dwindling supply.
That makes sense if the money goes to produce more IPs. Or more 
software. Or something.


From owen at delong.com  Wed Mar 14 16:59:35 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:59:35 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C294355772CA@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<E3B7A871-0EBE-4589-8AAC-8C02BF272CD5@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C294355772CA@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
Message-ID: <5644AE8A-CE80-473C-9792-66758CC8F45D@delong.com>

In principle, I agree with you. However, I don't know what the financial ramifications for ARIN would be in making such a move because the current crop of /32s includes not only those providers that would get a /32 or a /36 under the current policy, but, also many that would get /28s or /24s under current policy. Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to figure out which are which at this point.

So, I think the best thing to do in terms of making a decision about what to push for is to wait and see what the FINCOM and the board come back with.

My focus in this discussion was more to make sure that we had a relatively complete list of the available options, dispel any myths about fee increases and encourage vibrant community discussion of the topic. While I have made my personal opinions and assumptions known in the process, I don't have enough data to call any of them a "conclusion" as yet.

Owen

On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:33 PM, John Brown wrote:

> Then lets call /32 Extra-Small, keep the costs the same for those smaller providers and move forward ;)
> 
> I think having legacy /32's as XS and new /32's as S  creates disharmony.
> 
> For those small ISP's  a /32 will be the only prefix they will probably ever need.
> Poof they have instant control over their future and have their own IPv6 space.
> And at a cost point that won't prevent sooner adoption.
> 
> If you have a /32 and it becomes priced as XS then that's what you pay.  You don't force them to renumber or vacate a portion of the space.
> All that will cause is them vacating the existing space completely and coming back for space under the new policy.
> 
> I don't think ARIN has a fiscal issue.  More automation (which they are working on) should create LOWER OpEx for them.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:24 PM
>> To: John Brown
>> Cc: arin-discuss
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
>> 
>> Pretty easily.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:14 PM, John Brown wrote:
>> 
>>> Could you see calling a /32 Extra-Small ??
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
>>>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:59 PM
>>>> To: Mike A. Salim
>>>> Cc: arin-discuss
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
>>>> 
>>>> I don't believe anyone is discussing increasing current IPv6 fees.
>>>> 
>>>> What is under discussion, I believe, is the exact manner in which to
>>>> make it possible to get an IPv6 allocation without having it cause an
>>>> increase over what current subscribers are paying for IPv4.
>>>> 
>>>> If you were an X-Small IPv4 subscriber, then when you got your /32,
>>>> you moved into the small category and went from paying $1250/year to
>>>> paying at least $2250/year (nearly doubling your fees) except to the
>>>> extent that you've been receiving a fee waiver as has been the case
>>>> so far for all IPv6 subscribers. (not IPv6 end users).
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not privy to what the board and the finance committee have been
>>>> discussing, but, what has been discussed on this list so far that I
>>>> recall are these three possibilities:
>>>> 
>>>> 1.	Lower fees for existing /32 and smaller subscribers to equivalent to
>>>> IPv4 X-Small ($1,250/year)
>>>> 2.	Leave existing /32 and larger subscribers with their current fees
>>>> ($2,250+/year) and create the X-Small
>>>> 	category for /36 subscribers only at $1,250/year.
>>>> 3.	Change the fee for the small category to $1,250/year, but leave the
>>>> boundary between small and medium at /40.
>>>> 
>>>> Personally, I think 3 is absurd. I just can't see calling an
>>>> organization with a /40 "extra small".
>>>> 
>>>> Your second paragraph is not clear as to whether you are advocating 1
>>>> or 2 or some different mixture of the two.
>>>> 
>>>> I would be OK with extending X-Small up to and including /32 and I
>>>> agree that is the best alternative if it can be done without too much
>>>> of a revenue hit to ARIN.
>>>> 
>>>> I would also be OK with treating existing /32 subscribers as x-small
>>>> and marking new /32s as small, though ARIN may not want the
>>>> accounting overhead associated with that.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think that anyone should be forced to renumber or pay higher
>>>> fees than they are already paying as part of this. However, I'm not
>>>> sure that people who want to have their existing fees lowered by
>>>> $1,000/year shouldn't have to vacate 15/16ths of their address space
>>>> to receive that fee reduction. I'm undecided on this issue as I don't
>>>> have full knowledge of the impact of the various alternatives on ARIN's
>> financial state.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32 IPv6
>>>>> space.  If
>>>> we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point we would be
>>>> forced to renumber, and it would cause issues for us and for our
>>>> customers.  And I totally concur that an increase in IPv6 fees at
>>>> this early stage of IPv6 adoption will be counter productive.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced, that
>>>>> existing
>>>> allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There is enough
>>>> IPv6 space that this should not be a problem.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> 
>>>>> A. Michael Salim
>>>>> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
>>>>> American Data Technology, Inc.
>>>>> PO Box 12892
>>>>> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
>>>>> P: (919)544-4101 x101
>>>>> F: (919)544-5345
>>>>> E: msalim at localweb.com
>>>>> W: http://www.localweb.com
>>>>> 
>>>>> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any
>>>>> attachments,
>>>> is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
>>>> 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It
>>>> may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information.
>>>> Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
>>>> reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>>>> 
>>>>> P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>>>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:47 PM
>>>>> To: arin-discuss
>>>>> Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it
>>>>> matches the
>>>> current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has
>>>> been discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately.
>>>> Jumping from
>>>> $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> -Randy
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 jesse at la-broadband.com  Wed Mar 14 16:57:48 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:57:48 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <4F60FB64.3030802@SkylineBroadbandService.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>	<4F60E303.1090105@teliphone.ca>
	<20120314200245.GA15453@luke.xen.prgmr.com>,
	<4F60FB64.3030802@SkylineBroadbandService.com>
Message-ID: <8EDF0B5B-498B-4CF0-8FB8-6873F9A81993@la-broadband.com>

Bill,

ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is not done for profit. ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address space. The fees are to pay for administration and advocacy. The fees charged in the marketplace for that address space is dictated by the free market as it should be. Not by ARIN. 

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:43 PM, "Bill Prince" <bill at SkylineBroadbandService.com> wrote:

> 
> In the world of supply and demand, IPv6 space should be less expensive
> because there is more of it than people want.  IPv4 space should be more
> expensive because there is a dwindling supply.
> 
> 
> On 3/14/2012 1:02 PM, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:27:15PM -0400, Jean-Francois Laforest wrote:
>>> I agree with Mike too. We are expanding on the commercial side of the 
>>> business, considerably, but these costs would be hammering our clients 
>>> with a very high cost for IPs. Therefore reducing our ipv6 
>>> footprint/efforts due to costs. Client adoption of the technology 
>>> requires sane pricing.
>> I agree.  In my very small corner of the market, the business people
>> don't care at all about IPv6.  "Maybe later."   The Engineers want it, 
>> and eh, if they are my customers, I throw it in for free.  But as far 
>> as I can tell, the business types don't see a business case for IPv6
>> other than keeping their nerds happy.  
>> 
>> I mean, sure, I'd pay three grand a year for a v6 allocation, no problem;
>> I spend that much on stuff I evaluate and end up throwing out, even at my
>> size. 
>> 
>> but I only have an actual business case for this because my core customer 
>> base is the nerds that wanna play with this.  (And for them?  there is a 
>> very rational business model.   At some point, a spike in IPv6 interest 
>> is very, very likely, and at that point, having a few years of experience 
>> under your belt likely will make you rather more valuable.)  Even for
>> the nerds, it's a second-tier network.  If v6 breaks it's not nearly
>> the hair on fire big deal that a broken v4 is.  
>> 
>> I only mention this because yeah, three grand a year isn't a lot
>> for even a small company, but I think anything more than 'comes free with
>> the IPv4'  is going to get a thumbs down from most of the business people
>> I know.  
>> 
>> Personally, I think you want to make it a whole lot easier to get IPv6
>> allocations.   Right now, most IPv6 installations (again, at my very 
>> small corner of the market.)  are still in the 'the nerds are playing 
>> with it' stage, and the business people, generally speaking, wish they'd
>> spend less time on it.   E.g. the best way to enable this is to let
>> the nerds go ahead without making them talk to the business people
>> much, which means IPv6 needs to come free with IPv4 or something else the
>> business people already approved.  
>> 
>> I mean, at least temporarily, I think it might make sense to let people 
>> get IPv6 PI space before they can get IPv4 PI space.   If your IPv6 space 
>> causes you less headaches than your IPv4 space (and PI space causes 
>> vastly fewer headaches than PA space)  that's a pretty valid reason
>> for the business people to start moving more stuff over.   
>> 
>> Of course, that needs to be balanced against the routing table cost of
>> more PI blocks, which is why I say 'temporarily'  or something.  (I 
>> mean, obviously you can't take these things back, but you could say
>> something like the first X v6 PI blocks are at the reduced price, 
>> after which the rules revert to normal.) 
>> 
>> But my main point is that from where I stand, the business people don't
>> care much at all about IPv6, so you are best off slipping it in for free
>> whenever anyone gets any IPv4.   Certainly for the foreseeable future,
>> there isn't any problem giving everyone with a IPv4 PI block of any size
>> a /32 rather than a /40 or whatever.  The limit on IPv6 is going to 
>> be routing table size, right?  not address space?  so as far as our real
>> resource constraints go, a /40 of v6 PI space "costs" just as much as a 
>> /32 of PI space, so if we are going to give out a pi block, why not give 
>> people a /32?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 david at cloudflare.com  Wed Mar 14 17:06:37 2012
From: david at cloudflare.com (David Conrad)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:06:37 -0600
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <8EDF0B5B-498B-4CF0-8FB8-6873F9A81993@la-broadband.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>	<4F60E303.1090105@teliphone.ca>
	<20120314200245.GA15453@luke.xen.prgmr.com>,
	<4F60FB64.3030802@SkylineBroadbandService.com>
	<8EDF0B5B-498B-4CF0-8FB8-6873F9A81993@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <FFE8DE26-14E2-4D51-9619-184A67FDD4FF@cloudflare.com>

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
> ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is not done for profit. ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address space. The fees are to pay for administration and advocacy. The fees charged in the marketplace for that address space is dictated by the free market as it should be. Not by ARIN. 

I'm not understanding what you're saying. ARIN is a geographic monopoly.  The fees are not dictated by a free market.  They are dictated by ARIN.

Regards,
-drc



From jesse at la-broadband.com  Wed Mar 14 17:14:32 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:14:32 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <FFE8DE26-14E2-4D51-9619-184A67FDD4FF@cloudflare.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>	<4F60E303.1090105@teliphone.ca>
	<20120314200245.GA15453@luke.xen.prgmr.com>,
	<4F60FB64.3030802@SkylineBroadbandService.com>
	<8EDF0B5B-498B-4CF0-8FB8-6873F9A81993@la-broadband.com>,
	<FFE8DE26-14E2-4D51-9619-184A67FDD4FF@cloudflare.com>
Message-ID: <C1C32F2E-6EAE-485D-AD49-AF58EFE37447@la-broadband.com>

There are two layers of fees

1. Those charged by ARIN to the carriers.
2. Those charged by the carriers to their customers.

Layer 1 is not for profit as ARIN is, as I said, a steward. Saying ARIN is a geographic monopoly misappropriates the term since it is not a for profit organisation. ARIN's sole purpose is to delegate those resources in a needs baser manner to other organisations.

Layer 2 is generally for profit. Here is where supply and demand comes into play for address space. If you have limited ipv4 address space you will charge your customer more. If you charge too much they will go elsewhere until an equilibrium is found in the price. This is how the 'invisible hand' operates.


Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
ASN 16602

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com> wrote:

> On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
>> ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is not done for profit. ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address space. The fees are to pay for administration and advocacy. The fees charged in the marketplace for that address space is dictated by the free market as it should be. Not by ARIN. 
> 
> I'm not understanding what you're saying. ARIN is a geographic monopoly.  The fees are not dictated by a free market.  They are dictated by ARIN.
> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> 


From joseph at media-hosts.com  Wed Mar 14 17:32:21 2012
From: joseph at media-hosts.com (Joseph Conti)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:32:21 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <C1C32F2E-6EAE-485D-AD49-AF58EFE37447@la-broadband.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>	<4F60E303.1090105@teliphone.ca>
	<20120314200245.GA15453@luke.xen.prgmr.com>,
	<4F60FB64.3030802@SkylineBroadbandService.com>
	<8EDF0B5B-498B-4CF0-8FB8-6873F9A81993@la-broadband.com>,
	<FFE8DE26-14E2-4D51-9619-184A67FDD4FF@cloudflare.com>
	<C1C32F2E-6EAE-485D-AD49-AF58EFE37447@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <B50454C1-31A7-4B5F-A9CF-1EC49F592170@media-hosts.com>

If you apply the "invisible hand" theory here, then technically no ISP (or at least small one) should be purchasing any IPv6 at all. IPv6 in it's current state and fee structure doesn't generate any profit for ISP's. The cost of it (by ARIN) should be little to none, until such a time that the equilibrium you mention is possible.

Being a small ISP, if we had the choice of taking a /36 instead of a /32 and able to pay the same as we do in our x-small category we would have. In-fact, we even asked for a smaller allocation in the first place, but were denied (policy at the time).

Fact of the matter remains, if an ORG is in an x-small category for IPv4, there should be an equivalent for IPv6 as right now it doubles the annual fee and doesn't generate any revenue in it's current state.

What we are essentially doing now, is paying double for an allocation that we will likely never outgrow. For larger ISP's this may be different.

Joseph Conti
Media-Hosts Inc.

On 2012-03-14, at 5:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:

> There are two layers of fees
> 
> 1. Those charged by ARIN to the carriers.
> 2. Those charged by the carriers to their customers.
> 
> Layer 1 is not for profit as ARIN is, as I said, a steward. Saying ARIN is a geographic monopoly misappropriates the term since it is not a for profit organisation. ARIN's sole purpose is to delegate those resources in a needs baser manner to other organisations.
> 
> Layer 2 is generally for profit. Here is where supply and demand comes into play for address space. If you have limited ipv4 address space you will charge your customer more. If you charge too much they will go elsewhere until an equilibrium is found in the price. This is how the 'invisible hand' operates.
> 
> 
> Jesse Geddis
> LA Broadband LLC
> ASN 16602
> 
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
>>> ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is not done for profit. ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address space. The fees are to pay for administration and advocacy. The fees charged in the marketplace for that address space is dictated by the free market as it should be. Not by ARIN. 
>> 
>> I'm not understanding what you're saying. ARIN is a geographic monopoly.  The fees are not dictated by a free market.  They are dictated by ARIN.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/50c759e0/attachment.html>

From alec at ionity.com  Wed Mar 14 17:37:13 2012
From: alec at ionity.com (Alec Ginsberg)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:37:13 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <B50454C1-31A7-4B5F-A9CF-1EC49F592170@media-hosts.com>
Message-ID: <CB86793D.C066%alec@ionity.com>

It would be nice if everyone would  cease to worry about revenue (For the moment), and start to consider methods to increase the IPv6 adoption rate (on a global scale), so that it can actually be usable end-to-end on the Internet so that we don't have this IPv4 problem going on forever and ever and ever.

From: Joseph Conti <joseph at media-hosts.com<mailto:joseph at media-hosts.com>>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:32:21 -0400
To: "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com<mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com>>
Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>" <arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

If you apply the "invisible hand" theory here, then technically no ISP (or at least small one) should be purchasing any IPv6 at all. IPv6 in it's current state and fee structure doesn't generate any profit for ISP's. The cost of it (by ARIN) should be little to none, until such a time that the equilibrium you mention is possible.

Being a small ISP, if we had the choice of taking a /36 instead of a /32 and able to pay the same as we do in our x-small category we would have. In-fact, we even asked for a smaller allocation in the first place, but were denied (policy at the time).

Fact of the matter remains, if an ORG is in an x-small category for IPv4, there should be an equivalent for IPv6 as right now it doubles the annual fee and doesn't generate any revenue in it's current state.

What we are essentially doing now, is paying double for an allocation that we will likely never outgrow. For larger ISP's this may be different.

Joseph Conti
Media-Hosts Inc.

On 2012-03-14, at 5:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:

There are two layers of fees

1. Those charged by ARIN to the carriers.
2. Those charged by the carriers to their customers.

Layer 1 is not for profit as ARIN is, as I said, a steward. Saying ARIN is a geographic monopoly misappropriates the term since it is not a for profit organisation. ARIN's sole purpose is to delegate those resources in a needs baser manner to other organisations.

Layer 2 is generally for profit. Here is where supply and demand comes into play for address space. If you have limited ipv4 address space you will charge your customer more. If you charge too much they will go elsewhere until an equilibrium is found in the price. This is how the 'invisible hand' operates.


Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
ASN 16602

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com<mailto:david at cloudflare.com>> wrote:

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is not done for profit. ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address space. The fees are to pay for administration and advocacy. The fees charged in the marketplace for that address space is dictated by the free market as it should be. Not by ARIN.

I'm not understanding what you're saying. ARIN is a geographic monopoly.  The fees are not dictated by a free market.  They are dictated by ARIN.

Regards,
-drc

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/8cab9b68/attachment.html>

From ram at robertmarder.com  Wed Mar 14 17:26:09 2012
From: ram at robertmarder.com (Robert Marder)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:26:09 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss]
 =?utf-8?q?Status_of_realigning_the_IPv6_fee_struct?=
 =?utf-8?q?ure=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
Message-ID: <20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>

I would agree with this.

The smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv4 (the /22) should 
cost the same as the smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv6 
(the /32).

That just seems like common sense to me.

Changing the smallest allocation available under IPv6 isn't very fair 
to those that adopted IPv6 early - early adopters shouldn't be stuck 
with higher fees because the goal posts were moved.

On 14.03.2012 14:14, John Brown wrote:
> Could you see calling a /32 Extra-Small ??
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:59 PM
>> To: Mike A. Salim
>> Cc: arin-discuss
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee 
>> structure?
>>
>> I don't believe anyone is discussing increasing current IPv6 fees.
>>
>> What is under discussion, I believe, is the exact manner in which to 
>> make it
>> possible to get an IPv6 allocation without having it cause an 
>> increase over
>> what current subscribers are paying for IPv4.
>>
>> If you were an X-Small IPv4 subscriber, then when you got your /32, 
>> you
>> moved into the small category and went from paying $1250/year to 
>> paying at
>> least $2250/year (nearly doubling your fees) except to the extent 
>> that you've
>> been receiving a fee waiver as has been the case so far for all IPv6
>> subscribers. (not IPv6 end users).
>>
>> I'm not privy to what the board and the finance committee have been
>> discussing, but, what has been discussed on this list so far that I 
>> recall are
>> these three possibilities:
>>
>> 1.	Lower fees for existing /32 and smaller subscribers to equivalent 
>> to
>> IPv4 X-Small ($1,250/year)
>> 2.	Leave existing /32 and larger subscribers with their current fees
>> ($2,250+/year) and create the X-Small
>> 	category for /36 subscribers only at $1,250/year.
>> 3.	Change the fee for the small category to $1,250/year, but leave 
>> the
>> boundary between small and medium at /40.
>>
>> Personally, I think 3 is absurd. I just can't see calling an 
>> organization with a /40
>> "extra small".
>>
>> Your second paragraph is not clear as to whether you are advocating 
>> 1 or 2 or
>> some different mixture of the two.
>>
>> I would be OK with extending X-Small up to and including /32 and I 
>> agree that
>> is the best alternative if it can be done without too much of a 
>> revenue hit to
>> ARIN.
>>
>> I would also be OK with treating existing /32 subscribers as x-small 
>> and
>> marking new /32s as small, though ARIN may not want the accounting
>> overhead associated with that.
>>
>> I don't think that anyone should be forced to renumber or pay higher 
>> fees
>> than they are already paying as part of this. However, I'm not sure 
>> that
>> people who want to have their existing fees lowered by $1,000/year
>> shouldn't have to vacate 15/16ths of their address space to receive 
>> that fee
>> reduction. I'm undecided on this issue as I don't have full 
>> knowledge of the
>> impact of the various alternatives on ARIN's financial state.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:
>>
>> > This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32 
>> IPv6 space.  If
>> we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point we would 
>> be forced to
>> renumber, and it would cause issues for us and for our customers.  
>> And I
>> totally concur that an increase in IPv6 fees at this early stage of 
>> IPv6 adoption
>> will be counter productive.
>> >
>> > I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced, that 
>> existing
>> allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There is 
>> enough IPv6
>> space that this should not be a problem.
>> >
>> > Best regards
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > A. Michael Salim
>> > VP and Chief Technology Officer,
>> > American Data Technology, Inc.
>> > PO Box 12892
>> > Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
>> > P: (919)544-4101 x101
>> > F: (919)544-5345
>> > E: msalim at localweb.com
>> > W: http://www.localweb.com
>> >
>> > PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any 
>> attachments,
>> is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 
>> 2510-2521,
>> and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain
>> confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized 
>> review, use,
>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the 
>> intended recipient,
>> please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of 
>> the
>> original message.
>> >
>> > P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>> > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy 
>> Carpenter
>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:47 PM
>> > To: arin-discuss
>> > Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee 
>> structure?
>> >
>> >
>> > What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it 
>> matches the
>> current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has 
>> been
>> discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately. Jumping 
>> from
>> $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > -Randy
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 msalim at localweb.com  Wed Mar 14 17:51:28 2012
From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:51:28 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net><F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com><4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>	<4F60E303.1090105@teliphone.ca><20120314200245.GA15453@luke.xen.prgmr.com>,
	<4F60FB64.3030802@SkylineBroadbandService.com><8EDF0B5B-498B-4CF0-8FB8-6873F9A81993@la-broadband.com>,
	<FFE8DE26-14E2-4D51-9619-184A67FDD4FF@cloudflare.com><C1C32F2E-6EAE-485D-AD49-AF58EFE37447@la-broadband.com>
	<B50454C1-31A7-4B5F-A9CF-1EC49F592170@media-hosts.com>
Message-ID: <F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17048@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>

Joseph,

 

I am not familiar with the "invisible hand theory" J  We are a small
ISP.  We have IPv6 in production because several of our large customers
had, and still have, non-negotiable mandates to be live on IPv6 as of
June 15th, 2011.  We did not get IPv6 because it was a luxury for us but
a business necessity.  So I can't share your sentiment that small ISP's
don't need IPv6.  And yes, there is no profit in IPv6 as far as we are
concerned. 

 

Best regards

Mike

 

A. Michael Salim

VP and Chief Technology Officer,

American Data Technology, Inc.

PO Box 12892

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA

P: (919)544-4101 x101

F: (919)544-5345

E: msalim at localweb.com

W: http://www.localweb.com <http://www.localweb.com/> 

 

PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments,
is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may
contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.

 

P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 

 

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joseph Conti
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:32 PM
To: Jesse D. Geddis
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

 

If you apply the "invisible hand" theory here, then technically no ISP
(or at least small one) should be purchasing any IPv6 at all. IPv6 in
it's current state and fee structure doesn't generate any profit for
ISP's. The cost of it (by ARIN) should be little to none, until such a
time that the equilibrium you mention is possible.

 

Being a small ISP, if we had the choice of taking a /36 instead of a /32
and able to pay the same as we do in our x-small category we would have.
In-fact, we even asked for a smaller allocation in the first place, but
were denied (policy at the time).

 

Fact of the matter remains, if an ORG is in an x-small category for
IPv4, there should be an equivalent for IPv6 as right now it doubles the
annual fee and doesn't generate any revenue in it's current state.

 

What we are essentially doing now, is paying double for an allocation
that we will likely never outgrow. For larger ISP's this may be
different.

 

Joseph Conti

Media-Hosts Inc.

 

On 2012-03-14, at 5:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:





There are two layers of fees

1. Those charged by ARIN to the carriers.
2. Those charged by the carriers to their customers.

Layer 1 is not for profit as ARIN is, as I said, a steward. Saying ARIN
is a geographic monopoly misappropriates the term since it is not a for
profit organisation. ARIN's sole purpose is to delegate those resources
in a needs baser manner to other organisations.

Layer 2 is generally for profit. Here is where supply and demand comes
into play for address space. If you have limited ipv4 address space you
will charge your customer more. If you charge too much they will go
elsewhere until an equilibrium is found in the price. This is how the
'invisible hand' operates.


Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
ASN 16602

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com>
wrote:




On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:

		ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is
not done for profit. ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address
space. The fees are to pay for administration and advocacy. The fees
charged in the marketplace for that address space is dictated by the
free market as it should be. Not by ARIN. 

	 

	I'm not understanding what you're saying. ARIN is a geographic
monopoly.  The fees are not dictated by a free market.  They are
dictated by ARIN.

	 

	Regards,

	-drc

	 

_______________________________________________
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.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/38f68fa6/attachment.html>

From joseph at media-hosts.com  Wed Mar 14 17:55:11 2012
From: joseph at media-hosts.com (Joseph Conti)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:55:11 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <CB86793D.C066%alec@ionity.com>
References: <CB86793D.C066%alec@ionity.com>
Message-ID: <7193F825-62D3-4C4E-BD78-D332F8E54497@media-hosts.com>

You don't think aligning the fees to will help adoption rates?

At the current time it costs small organizations money to pick up v6. And there are a lot more "small" organizations out there than large. 

To make an informed decision you can't ignore the money factor here.  

Joseph

--- Sent from my iPhone

On 2012-03-14, at 5:37 PM, Alec Ginsberg <alec at ionity.com> wrote:

> It would be nice if everyone would  cease to worry about revenue (For the moment), and start to consider methods to increase the IPv6 adoption rate (on a global scale), so that it can actually be usable end-to-end on the Internet so that we don't have this IPv4 problem going on forever and ever and ever.
> 
> From: Joseph Conti <joseph at media-hosts.com>
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:32:21 -0400
> To: "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com>
> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" <arin-discuss at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> 
> If you apply the "invisible hand" theory here, then technically no ISP (or at least small one) should be purchasing any IPv6 at all. IPv6 in it's current state and fee structure doesn't generate any profit for ISP's. The cost of it (by ARIN) should be little to none, until such a time that the equilibrium you mention is possible.
> 
> Being a small ISP, if we had the choice of taking a /36 instead of a /32 and able to pay the same as we do in our x-small category we would have. In-fact, we even asked for a smaller allocation in the first place, but were denied (policy at the time).
> 
> Fact of the matter remains, if an ORG is in an x-small category for IPv4, there should be an equivalent for IPv6 as right now it doubles the annual fee and doesn't generate any revenue in it's current state.
> 
> What we are essentially doing now, is paying double for an allocation that we will likely never outgrow. For larger ISP's this may be different.
> 
> Joseph Conti
> Media-Hosts Inc.
> 
> On 2012-03-14, at 5:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
> 
>> There are two layers of fees
>> 
>> 1. Those charged by ARIN to the carriers.
>> 2. Those charged by the carriers to their customers.
>> 
>> Layer 1 is not for profit as ARIN is, as I said, a steward. Saying ARIN is a geographic monopoly misappropriates the term since it is not a for profit organisation. ARIN's sole purpose is to delegate those resources in a needs baser manner to other organisations.
>> 
>> Layer 2 is generally for profit. Here is where supply and demand comes into play for address space. If you have limited ipv4 address space you will charge your customer more. If you charge too much they will go elsewhere until an equilibrium is found in the price. This is how the 'invisible hand' operates.
>> 
>> 
>> Jesse Geddis
>> LA Broadband LLC
>> ASN 16602
>> 
>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
>>>> ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is not done for profit. ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address space. The fees are to pay for administration and advocacy. The fees charged in the marketplace for that address space is dictated by the free market as it should be. Not by ARIN. 
>>> 
>>> I'm not understanding what you're saying. ARIN is a geographic monopoly.  The fees are not dictated by a free market.  They are dictated by ARIN.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> -drc
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/35b0623c/attachment.html>

From eric at a5.com  Wed Mar 14 17:53:16 2012
From: eric at a5.com (Eric Fisher)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:53:16 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <B50454C1-31A7-4B5F-A9CF-1EC49F592170@media-hosts.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>	<4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>	<4F60E303.1090105@teliphone.ca>	<20120314200245.GA15453@luke.xen.prgmr.com>,
	<4F60FB64.3030802@SkylineBroadbandService.com>	<8EDF0B5B-498B-4CF0-8FB8-6873F9A81993@la-broadband.com>,
	<FFE8DE26-14E2-4D51-9619-184A67FDD4FF@cloudflare.com>	<C1C32F2E-6EAE-485D-AD49-AF58EFE37447@la-broadband.com>
	<B50454C1-31A7-4B5F-A9CF-1EC49F592170@media-hosts.com>
Message-ID: <021901cd022c$dcd69780$9683c680$@a5.com>

Ditto here---we have no economic incentive to deploy it currently. If/when
we run out of IPv4 or have a large enough client opportunity to justify the
additional cost we would take it on. At this point however there is no
carrot to motivate us---only stick. 

 

Thanks, Eric

A5.com

 

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Joseph Conti
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:32 PM
To: Jesse D. Geddis
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

 

If you apply the "invisible hand" theory here, then technically no ISP (or
at least small one) should be purchasing any IPv6 at all. IPv6 in it's
current state and fee structure doesn't generate any profit for ISP's. The
cost of it (by ARIN) should be little to none, until such a time that the
equilibrium you mention is possible.

 

Being a small ISP, if we had the choice of taking a /36 instead of a /32 and
able to pay the same as we do in our x-small category we would have.
In-fact, we even asked for a smaller allocation in the first place, but were
denied (policy at the time).

 

Fact of the matter remains, if an ORG is in an x-small category for IPv4,
there should be an equivalent for IPv6 as right now it doubles the annual
fee and doesn't generate any revenue in it's current state.

 

What we are essentially doing now, is paying double for an allocation that
we will likely never outgrow. For larger ISP's this may be different.

 

Joseph Conti

Media-Hosts Inc.

 

On 2012-03-14, at 5:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:





There are two layers of fees

1. Those charged by ARIN to the carriers.
2. Those charged by the carriers to their customers.

Layer 1 is not for profit as ARIN is, as I said, a steward. Saying ARIN is a
geographic monopoly misappropriates the term since it is not a for profit
organisation. ARIN's sole purpose is to delegate those resources in a needs
baser manner to other organisations.

Layer 2 is generally for profit. Here is where supply and demand comes into
play for address space. If you have limited ipv4 address space you will
charge your customer more. If you charge too much they will go elsewhere
until an equilibrium is found in the price. This is how the 'invisible hand'
operates.


Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
ASN 16602

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com> wrote:




On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:

ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is not done for profit.
ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address space. The fees are to
pay for administration and advocacy. The fees charged in the marketplace for
that address space is dictated by the free market as it should be. Not by
ARIN. 

 

I'm not understanding what you're saying. ARIN is a geographic monopoly.
The fees are not dictated by a free market.  They are dictated by ARIN.

 

Regards,

-drc

 

_______________________________________________
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.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/a827bd4d/attachment.html>

From greg at rhservices.us  Wed Mar 14 17:49:05 2012
From: greg at rhservices.us (Greg Martin)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:49:05 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <CB86793D.C066%alec@ionity.com>
References: <B50454C1-31A7-4B5F-A9CF-1EC49F592170@media-hosts.com>
	<CB86793D.C066%alec@ionity.com>
Message-ID: <026c01cd022c$482233b0$d8669b10$@us>

Adjusting the fee scale to align with IPv4 would help this.  We're paying an
extra $1250/yr over what we do for IPv4 resources.  Our demand for IPv6 is
low and costs twice the amount for something in higher demand.

 

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Alec Ginsberg
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:37 PM
To: Joseph Conti; Jesse D. Geddis
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

 

It would be nice if everyone would  cease to worry about revenue (For the
moment), and start to consider methods to increase the IPv6 adoption rate
(on a global scale), so that it can actually be usable end-to-end on the
Internet so that we don't have this IPv4 problem going on forever and ever
and ever.

 

From: Joseph Conti <joseph at media-hosts.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:32:21 -0400
To: "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com>
Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

 

If you apply the "invisible hand" theory here, then technically no ISP (or
at least small one) should be purchasing any IPv6 at all. IPv6 in it's
current state and fee structure doesn't generate any profit for ISP's. The
cost of it (by ARIN) should be little to none, until such a time that the
equilibrium you mention is possible.

 

Being a small ISP, if we had the choice of taking a /36 instead of a /32 and
able to pay the same as we do in our x-small category we would have.
In-fact, we even asked for a smaller allocation in the first place, but were
denied (policy at the time).

 

Fact of the matter remains, if an ORG is in an x-small category for IPv4,
there should be an equivalent for IPv6 as right now it doubles the annual
fee and doesn't generate any revenue in it's current state.

 

What we are essentially doing now, is paying double for an allocation that
we will likely never outgrow. For larger ISP's this may be different.

 

Joseph Conti

Media-Hosts Inc.

 

On 2012-03-14, at 5:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:





There are two layers of fees

1. Those charged by ARIN to the carriers.
2. Those charged by the carriers to their customers.

Layer 1 is not for profit as ARIN is, as I said, a steward. Saying ARIN is a
geographic monopoly misappropriates the term since it is not a for profit
organisation. ARIN's sole purpose is to delegate those resources in a needs
baser manner to other organisations.

Layer 2 is generally for profit. Here is where supply and demand comes into
play for address space. If you have limited ipv4 address space you will
charge your customer more. If you charge too much they will go elsewhere
until an equilibrium is found in the price. This is how the 'invisible hand'
operates.


Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
ASN 16602

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com> wrote:




On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:

ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is not done for profit.
ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address space. The fees are to
pay for administration and advocacy. The fees charged in the marketplace for
that address space is dictated by the free market as it should be. Not by
ARIN. 

 

I'm not understanding what you're saying. ARIN is a geographic monopoly.
The fees are not dictated by a free market.  They are dictated by ARIN.

 

Regards,

-drc

 

_______________________________________________
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.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/7f9756b5/attachment.html>

From greg at rhservices.us  Wed Mar 14 17:50:50 2012
From: greg at rhservices.us (Greg Martin)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:50:50 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
References: <B50454C1-31A7-4B5F-A9CF-1EC49F592170@media-hosts.com>
	<CB86793D.C066%alec@ionity.com> 
Message-ID: <027101cd022c$856f4190$904dc4b0$@us>

Apologies, the second sentence should read:

 

Our demand for IPv6 is low and costs twice the amount as something in higher
demand (IPv4).

 

From: Greg Martin [mailto:greg at rhservices.us] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:49 PM
To: 'Alec Ginsberg'; 'Joseph Conti'; 'Jesse D. Geddis'
Cc: 'arin-discuss at arin.net'
Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

 

Adjusting the fee scale to align with IPv4 would help this.  We're paying an
extra $1250/yr over what we do for IPv4 resources.  Our demand for IPv6 is
low and costs twice the amount for something in higher demand.

 

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Alec Ginsberg
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:37 PM
To: Joseph Conti; Jesse D. Geddis
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

 

It would be nice if everyone would  cease to worry about revenue (For the
moment), and start to consider methods to increase the IPv6 adoption rate
(on a global scale), so that it can actually be usable end-to-end on the
Internet so that we don't have this IPv4 problem going on forever and ever
and ever.

 

From: Joseph Conti <joseph at media-hosts.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:32:21 -0400
To: "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com>
Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

 

If you apply the "invisible hand" theory here, then technically no ISP (or
at least small one) should be purchasing any IPv6 at all. IPv6 in it's
current state and fee structure doesn't generate any profit for ISP's. The
cost of it (by ARIN) should be little to none, until such a time that the
equilibrium you mention is possible.

 

Being a small ISP, if we had the choice of taking a /36 instead of a /32 and
able to pay the same as we do in our x-small category we would have.
In-fact, we even asked for a smaller allocation in the first place, but were
denied (policy at the time).

 

Fact of the matter remains, if an ORG is in an x-small category for IPv4,
there should be an equivalent for IPv6 as right now it doubles the annual
fee and doesn't generate any revenue in it's current state.

 

What we are essentially doing now, is paying double for an allocation that
we will likely never outgrow. For larger ISP's this may be different.

 

Joseph Conti

Media-Hosts Inc.

 

On 2012-03-14, at 5:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:

 

There are two layers of fees

1. Those charged by ARIN to the carriers.
2. Those charged by the carriers to their customers.

Layer 1 is not for profit as ARIN is, as I said, a steward. Saying ARIN is a
geographic monopoly misappropriates the term since it is not a for profit
organisation. ARIN's sole purpose is to delegate those resources in a needs
baser manner to other organisations.

Layer 2 is generally for profit. Here is where supply and demand comes into
play for address space. If you have limited ipv4 address space you will
charge your customer more. If you charge too much they will go elsewhere
until an equilibrium is found in the price. This is how the 'invisible hand'
operates.


Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
ASN 16602

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com> wrote:



On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:

ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is not done for profit.
ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address space. The fees are to
pay for administration and advocacy. The fees charged in the marketplace for
that address space is dictated by the free market as it should be. Not by
ARIN. 

 

I'm not understanding what you're saying. ARIN is a geographic monopoly.
The fees are not dictated by a free market.  They are dictated by ARIN.

 

Regards,

-drc

 

_______________________________________________
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.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/fbf987c8/attachment.html>

From lsc at prgmr.com  Wed Mar 14 18:48:55 2012
From: lsc at prgmr.com (Luke S. Crawford)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:48:55 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <4F60FB64.3030802@SkylineBroadbandService.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<4F60E081.7020703@jolokianetworks.com>
	<4F60E303.1090105@teliphone.ca>
	<20120314200245.GA15453@luke.xen.prgmr.com>
	<4F60FB64.3030802@SkylineBroadbandService.com>
Message-ID: <20120314224855.GB16114@luke.xen.prgmr.com>

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 01:11:16PM -0700, Bill Prince wrote:
> 
> In the world of supply and demand, IPv6 space should be less expensive
> because there is more of it than people want.  IPv4 space should be more
> expensive because there is a dwindling supply.

Meh, I'm coming at it from the 'public benifit regional monopoly' 
side, but I think we are in agreement. IPv6 blocks should be cheap
compared to IPv4.  

I'm just saying, from a 'public benifit' standpoint, I think it's 
reasonable that IPv4 fees should subsidize IPv6 until there is real 
demand for IPv6.  It is in all our interests to see to it that IPv6 
takes off, and I think, right now, a few dollars can get in the way 
of IPv6 takeoff. 

Yeah, it's a monopoly good, but it's a monopoly good that most people
don't need.   Morever, there is no urgency;  If IPv6 does take off, 
there is so much of it that it's not like it will be harder to get 
later on, so the rational business person is taking the 'wait and see' 
approach.  




From farmer at umn.edu  Wed Mar 14 19:05:44 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:05:44 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
Message-ID: <4F612448.30601@umn.edu>

On 3/14/12 16:26 CDT, Robert Marder wrote:
> I would agree with this.
>
> The smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv4 (the /22) should
> cost the same as the smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv6
> (the /32).
>
> That just seems like common sense to me.
>
> Changing the smallest allocation available under IPv6 isn't very fair to
> those that adopted IPv6 early - early adopters shouldn't be stuck with
> higher fees because the goal posts were moved.

I agree that there shouldn't be an early adopter TAX on X-small ISPs 
that moved forward with a /32 before the /36 option was available, if 
anything they should get some kind of benefit.  Therefore, I think my 
preferred solution is a grandfather clause in the fee structure, or a 
permanent fee waiver so to speak, for any ISPs that currently has an 
X-small IPv4 allocation that receives a /32 IPv6 allocation before 
December 31, 2012 can continue to be eligible for the X-small IPv6 
allocation rate as long as they don't grow their IPv4 allocation beyond 
X-small, or their IPv6 allocation beyond /32.

Then starting January 1, 2013 if you want to remain an X-small ISP you 
will have to select a /36 allocation.

I'm suggesting December 31, 2012 to hopefully create a small incentive 
for X-small ISPs that haven't move forward to get their IPv6 allocation, 
to do so yet this year.  Basically, for a limited remaining time, get a 
/32 for the price of a /36 deal to get the smaller guys moving.

Also I would like to remind everyone who grumbles about Legacy IPv4, 
that it is equally unfair to create an early adopter TAX for Legacy 
IPv4.  However, I equally believe it is time for Legacy IPv4 holders to 
step up to the plate and at least to start minimally contributing to the 
upkeep of the system too.  I think the current Legacy RSA and its flat 
Org ID based fee structure is a pretty reasonable compromise.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From jesse at la-broadband.com  Wed Mar 14 19:29:32 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:29:32 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <7193F825-62D3-4C4E-BD78-D332F8E54497@media-hosts.com>
Message-ID: <CB866E48.9424%jesse@la-broadband.com>

Joseph,

Thanks so much for your careful read of the invisible hand statement and you're right, it directly applies to IPv6.

Alec,

The financial impact is at the very core of the discussion so one cannot simply set it aside. I suspect there are many carriers like mine so I'll throw this out there. I picked up a /32 for two reasons:

  1.  Because it was free with my IPv4 allocation.
  2.  Because I wanted to put all my residential customers on IPv6 address space as a matter of responsibility.

If #1 weren't the case I wouldn't have done it, flat out. IPv6 was not monetized for me and will not be for the foreseeable future. Now I'm faced with a fee hike for the next bill. The question asked is "does this make sense". Most appear to agree it does not. So we're left with the following competing interests:

  1.  We all seem to agree the goal is to encourage widespread adoption of IPv6
  2.  There is still very few compelling reasons for end users to adopt it
  3.  If it's too low will ARIN get flooded with silly requests? Perhaps Mr. Curran can speak to that from experience.

Taking the approach of IPv4 will all run out eventually so it doesn't matter isn't proactive and is very disruptive, technically. This is Joseph's reference to the "stick".

Taking the approach that was effectively "ARIN should just charge a bazillian dollars for IPv4 allocations" is simply an furtherance of the stick approach which, I would argue, has been relatively unsuccessful thus far. Attempting to link it with supply/demand principals is a reach far outside ARIN's scope and role.

David Farmer's suggestion that the original adopters of the /32's I think is a very interesting one. I think it's spot on. Continue to peg the /32 of the early adopters at their /22 yearly price until they either grow beyond their /22 or /32.

I think making allocations of /36's for free may also help get IPv6 out there. The point, I think, is to reduce the barriers for entry for business. The financial one is almost the only tool ARIN has in it's quiver outside of process oriented ones to make things easier.

Regarding continued mention of ARIN as a regional monopoly I'll post ARIN's mission statement below so we can, hopefully, end the conversation on whether or not ARIN is or should be a for profit player in the free market. ARIN is not and I think it's more constructive to have a conversation based in reality than fantasy :)

https://www.arin.net/about_us/overview.html
Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach.

--
Jesse D. Geddis
LA Broadband LLC


From: Joseph Conti <joseph at media-hosts.com<mailto:joseph at media-hosts.com>>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:55:11 -0400
To: Alec Ginsberg <alec at ionity.com<mailto:alec at ionity.com>>
Cc: Jesse Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com<mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com>>, "arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>" <arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

You don't think aligning the fees to will help adoption rates?

At the current time it costs small organizations money to pick up v6. And there are a lot more "small" organizations out there than large.

To make an informed decision you can't ignore the money factor here.

Joseph

--- Sent from my iPhone

On 2012-03-14, at 5:37 PM, Alec Ginsberg <alec at ionity.com<mailto:alec at ionity.com>> wrote:

It would be nice if everyone would  cease to worry about revenue (For the moment), and start to consider methods to increase the IPv6 adoption rate (on a global scale), so that it can actually be usable end-to-end on the Internet so that we don't have this IPv4 problem going on forever and ever and ever.

From: Joseph Conti <joseph at media-hosts.com<mailto:joseph at media-hosts.com>>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:32:21 -0400
To: "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com<mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com>>
Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>" <arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

If you apply the "invisible hand" theory here, then technically no ISP (or at least small one) should be purchasing any IPv6 at all. IPv6 in it's current state and fee structure doesn't generate any profit for ISP's. The cost of it (by ARIN) should be little to none, until such a time that the equilibrium you mention is possible.

Being a small ISP, if we had the choice of taking a /36 instead of a /32 and able to pay the same as we do in our x-small category we would have. In-fact, we even asked for a smaller allocation in the first place, but were denied (policy at the time).

Fact of the matter remains, if an ORG is in an x-small category for IPv4, there should be an equivalent for IPv6 as right now it doubles the annual fee and doesn't generate any revenue in it's current state.

What we are essentially doing now, is paying double for an allocation that we will likely never outgrow. For larger ISP's this may be different.

Joseph Conti
Media-Hosts Inc.

On 2012-03-14, at 5:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:

There are two layers of fees

1. Those charged by ARIN to the carriers.
2. Those charged by the carriers to their customers.

Layer 1 is not for profit as ARIN is, as I said, a steward. Saying ARIN is a geographic monopoly misappropriates the term since it is not a for profit organisation. ARIN's sole purpose is to delegate those resources in a needs baser manner to other organisations.

Layer 2 is generally for profit. Here is where supply and demand comes into play for address space. If you have limited ipv4 address space you will charge your customer more. If you charge too much they will go elsewhere until an equilibrium is found in the price. This is how the 'invisible hand' operates.


Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
ASN 16602

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com<mailto:david at cloudflare.com>> wrote:

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is not done for profit. ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address space. The fees are to pay for administration and advocacy. The fees charged in the marketplace for that address space is dictated by the free market as it should be. Not by ARIN.

I'm not understanding what you're saying. ARIN is a geographic monopoly.  The fees are not dictated by a free market.  They are dictated by ARIN.

Regards,
-drc

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/a35568f4/attachment.html>

From alec at ionity.com  Wed Mar 14 19:48:37 2012
From: alec at ionity.com (Alec Ginsberg)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:48:37 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <CB866E48.9424%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <CB8696E0.C078%alec@ionity.com>

Sorry, I was not clear with my point.  My point was that the fee for IPv6 cannot be too high, or it's going to hurt the adoption curve.

Especially when you have a smaller-ish company out there.  For example lets say you have a rural DSL provider.  If they are running on a thin budget as it is, and don't have a switch capable of IPv6, router, etc and your talking about a forklift upgrade of equipment + ARIN fees (Does ARIN need to make a ton of cash off IPv6 right now??), plus they may have some form of automation software, management utilities, etc that would all need to be modernized to be IPv6 capable.  It could almost be cost prohibitive, especially when paying Ipv6 fees on top of it all.

I know first hand there are providers that are faced between picking two switches, one that does support IPv6 and one that does not.  The IPv6 one is usually going to be more expensive.  If they have to pay for that plus additional fees, why not just stick with what has been working.

This is just one scenario.  In this case, possibly ARIN could issue a credit towards IPv6 for those that provide receipts that purchased new equipment to support IPv6.  In other instances maybe a ramped fee structure that allows the adoption of IPv6 to grow rapidly and generate a need (make a market for their product) by almost giving it away and charging an IPv4 premium in the future for machines that are not dual stacked.

An incentive to move towards IPv6.

From: "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com<mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com>>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:29:32 -0400
To: "arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>" <arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

Joseph,

Thanks so much for your careful read of the invisible hand statement and you're right, it directly applies to IPv6.

Alec,

The financial impact is at the very core of the discussion so one cannot simply set it aside. I suspect there are many carriers like mine so I'll throw this out there. I picked up a /32 for two reasons:

 1.  Because it was free with my IPv4 allocation.
 2.  Because I wanted to put all my residential customers on IPv6 address space as a matter of responsibility.

If #1 weren't the case I wouldn't have done it, flat out. IPv6 was not monetized for me and will not be for the foreseeable future. Now I'm faced with a fee hike for the next bill. The question asked is "does this make sense". Most appear to agree it does not. So we're left with the following competing interests:

 1.  We all seem to agree the goal is to encourage widespread adoption of IPv6
 2.  There is still very few compelling reasons for end users to adopt it
 3.  If it's too low will ARIN get flooded with silly requests? Perhaps Mr. Curran can speak to that from experience.

Taking the approach of IPv4 will all run out eventually so it doesn't matter isn't proactive and is very disruptive, technically. This is Joseph's reference to the "stick".

Taking the approach that was effectively "ARIN should just charge a bazillian dollars for IPv4 allocations" is simply an furtherance of the stick approach which, I would argue, has been relatively unsuccessful thus far. Attempting to link it with supply/demand principals is a reach far outside ARIN's scope and role.

David Farmer's suggestion that the original adopters of the /32's I think is a very interesting one. I think it's spot on. Continue to peg the /32 of the early adopters at their /22 yearly price until they either grow beyond their /22 or /32.

I think making allocations of /36's for free may also help get IPv6 out there. The point, I think, is to reduce the barriers for entry for business. The financial one is almost the only tool ARIN has in it's quiver outside of process oriented ones to make things easier.

Regarding continued mention of ARIN as a regional monopoly I'll post ARIN's mission statement below so we can, hopefully, end the conversation on whether or not ARIN is or should be a for profit player in the free market. ARIN is not and I think it's more constructive to have a conversation based in reality than fantasy :)

https://www.arin.net/about_us/overview.html
Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach.

--
Jesse D. Geddis
LA Broadband LLC


From: Joseph Conti <joseph at media-hosts.com<mailto:joseph at media-hosts.com>>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:55:11 -0400
To: Alec Ginsberg <alec at ionity.com<mailto:alec at ionity.com>>
Cc: Jesse Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com<mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com>>, "arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>" <arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

You don't think aligning the fees to will help adoption rates?

At the current time it costs small organizations money to pick up v6. And there are a lot more "small" organizations out there than large.

To make an informed decision you can't ignore the money factor here.

Joseph

--- Sent from my iPhone

On 2012-03-14, at 5:37 PM, Alec Ginsberg <alec at ionity.com<mailto:alec at ionity.com>> wrote:

It would be nice if everyone would  cease to worry about revenue (For the moment), and start to consider methods to increase the IPv6 adoption rate (on a global scale), so that it can actually be usable end-to-end on the Internet so that we don't have this IPv4 problem going on forever and ever and ever.

From: Joseph Conti <joseph at media-hosts.com<mailto:joseph at media-hosts.com>>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:32:21 -0400
To: "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com<mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com>>
Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>" <arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

If you apply the "invisible hand" theory here, then technically no ISP (or at least small one) should be purchasing any IPv6 at all. IPv6 in it's current state and fee structure doesn't generate any profit for ISP's. The cost of it (by ARIN) should be little to none, until such a time that the equilibrium you mention is possible.

Being a small ISP, if we had the choice of taking a /36 instead of a /32 and able to pay the same as we do in our x-small category we would have. In-fact, we even asked for a smaller allocation in the first place, but were denied (policy at the time).

Fact of the matter remains, if an ORG is in an x-small category for IPv4, there should be an equivalent for IPv6 as right now it doubles the annual fee and doesn't generate any revenue in it's current state.

What we are essentially doing now, is paying double for an allocation that we will likely never outgrow. For larger ISP's this may be different.

Joseph Conti
Media-Hosts Inc.

On 2012-03-14, at 5:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:

There are two layers of fees

1. Those charged by ARIN to the carriers.
2. Those charged by the carriers to their customers.

Layer 1 is not for profit as ARIN is, as I said, a steward. Saying ARIN is a geographic monopoly misappropriates the term since it is not a for profit organisation. ARIN's sole purpose is to delegate those resources in a needs baser manner to other organisations.

Layer 2 is generally for profit. Here is where supply and demand comes into play for address space. If you have limited ipv4 address space you will charge your customer more. If you charge too much they will go elsewhere until an equilibrium is found in the price. This is how the 'invisible hand' operates.


Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
ASN 16602

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com<mailto:david at cloudflare.com>> wrote:

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is not done for profit. ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address space. The fees are to pay for administration and advocacy. The fees charged in the marketplace for that address space is dictated by the free market as it should be. Not by ARIN.

I'm not understanding what you're saying. ARIN is a geographic monopoly.  The fees are not dictated by a free market.  They are dictated by ARIN.

Regards,
-drc

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/e569b295/attachment.html>

From owen at delong.com  Wed Mar 14 20:23:29 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:23:29 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <CB866E48.9424%jesse@la-broadband.com>
References: <CB866E48.9424%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <9170FF3F-5128-49DD-A4ED-90F99B7426CB@delong.com>


On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:

> Joseph,
> 
> Thanks so much for your careful read of the invisible hand statement and you're right, it directly applies to IPv6.
> 
> Alec,
> 
> The financial impact is at the very core of the discussion so one cannot simply set it aside. I suspect there are many carriers like mine so I'll throw this out there. I picked up a /32 for two reasons:
> Because it was free with my IPv4 allocation.
> Because I wanted to put all my residential customers on IPv6 address space as a matter of responsibility.
> If #1 weren't the case I wouldn't have done it, flat out. IPv6 was not monetized for me and will not be for the foreseeable future. Now I'm faced with a fee hike for the next bill. The question asked is "does this make sense". Most appear to agree it does not. So we're left with the following competing interests:

I want to be very clear about this because this seems to be a common misconception.


Nobody is talking about a fee hike on anyone's next bill.

The question is whether or not your annual fee (if you are an X-Small IPv4 and IPv6 organization) should be reduced from $2,250/year (small-category fee for IPv4 and/or IPv6) to $1,250/year (x-small category fee for IPv4 and/or IPv6).

Since it sounds like you are in the Small category for IPv4 (based on your statement that IPv6 was free), there is no fee hike contemplated and your /32 even in the worst case being discussed would continue to cost you $2,250/year.  Since you are in the small category for IPv4 and you pay the greater of your IPv4 or IPv6 fees, it sounds like even if the IPv6 /32 price were reduced to $1,250 as "x-small", you would still be paying $2,250/year based on your IPv4 and your IPv6 would still be essentially free.

The comments about early adopters paying higher fees are related to the question of how widely the proposed fee reduction for x-small should be applied. So far, the following possibilities have been discussed:

	1.	Apply it to all prefix holders /32-/36
		I think this is the next best choice from a fairness perspective, but, I would be concerned about
		the possibility that it may have a significant revenue impact on ARIN when providers that are in
		higher IPv4 fee tiers start returning their IPv4 allocations to ARIN and suddenly drop from
		Small or Medium to X-Small. I think it's not likely this is a significant problem, but, without the
		data, I'm not willing to make the assumption.

	2.	Apply it only to /36
		I think this is the cleanest approach from a pure accounting perspective, but it does have a
		fairness problem for early adopters.

	3.	Apply it to all existing prefix holders <= /32 and to new /36 prefix holders.
		I think this is the best option from a fairness perspective, but, I am not sure how much extra
		accounting complexity it would create for ARIN so I don't know if it is feasible.

> We all seem to agree the goal is to encourage widespread adoption of IPv6
> There is still very few compelling reasons for end users to adopt it
> If it's too low will ARIN get flooded with silly requests? Perhaps Mr. Curran can speak to that from experience.

I don't think 3 is a problem at all so long as it is at least $500/year and the fees go up if you get beyond a /32.

> Taking the approach of IPv4 will all run out eventually so it doesn't matter isn't proactive and is very disruptive, technically. This is Joseph's reference to the "stick".
> 

I agree. At this point, the sooner IPv4 runs out, the sooner we as an industry can move on with the business of deploying an internet with a future.

> Taking the approach that was effectively "ARIN should just charge a bazillian dollars for IPv4 allocations" is simply an furtherance of the stick approach which, I would argue, has been relatively unsuccessful thus far. Attempting to link it with supply/demand principals is a reach far outside ARIN's scope and role.
> 

Agreed.

> I think making allocations of /36's for free may also help get IPv6 out there. The point, I think, is to reduce the barriers for entry for business. The financial one is almost the only tool ARIN has in it's quiver outside of process oriented ones to make things easier.

We tried giving away /32s a few years back. There weren't that many takers and very few of the takers actually bothered to get them routed.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/92b34d3b/attachment.html>

From swm at emanon.com  Wed Mar 14 20:42:02 2012
From: swm at emanon.com (Scott Morris)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:42:02 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <9170FF3F-5128-49DD-A4ED-90F99B7426CB@delong.com>
References: <CB866E48.9424%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<9170FF3F-5128-49DD-A4ED-90F99B7426CB@delong.com>
Message-ID: <4F613ADA.7030306@emanon.com>

I think #3 is the best choice, and looking at date assignments should be
a simple check to put in to a database to determine the earlier adopters.

#1 is fine as well, but my guess is that will be seen as a
longer-reaching economic impact, so #3 would become more feasible.

Scott


On 3/14/12 8:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
>
>> Joseph,
>>
>> Thanks so much for your careful read of the invisible hand statement
>> and you're right, it directly applies to IPv6.
>>
>> Alec,
>>
>> The financial impact is at the very core of the discussion so one
>> cannot simply set it aside. I suspect there are many carriers like
>> mine so I'll throw this out there. I picked up a /32 for two reasons:
>>
>>  1. Because it was free with my IPv4 allocation.
>>  2. Because I wanted to put all my residential customers on IPv6
>>     address space as a matter of responsibility.
>>
>> If #1 weren't the case I wouldn't have done it, flat out. IPv6 was
>> not monetized for me and will not be for the foreseeable future. Now
>> I'm faced with a fee hike for the next bill. The question asked is
>> "does this make sense". Most appear to agree it does not. So we're
>> left with the following competing interests:
>
> I want to be very clear about this because this seems to be a common
> misconception.
>
>
> Nobody is talking about a fee hike on anyone's next bill.
>
> The question is whether or not your annual fee (if you are an X-Small
> IPv4 and IPv6 organization) should be reduced from $2,250/year
> (small-category fee for IPv4 and/or IPv6) to $1,250/year (x-small
> category fee for IPv4 and/or IPv6).
>
> Since it sounds like you are in the Small category for IPv4 (based on
> your statement that IPv6 was free), there is no fee hike contemplated
> and your /32 even in the worst case being discussed would continue to
> cost you $2,250/year.  Since you are in the small category for IPv4
> and you pay the greater of your IPv4 or IPv6 fees, it sounds like even
> if the IPv6 /32 price were reduced to $1,250 as "x-small", you would
> still be paying $2,250/year based on your IPv4 and your IPv6 would
> still be essentially free.
>
> The comments about early adopters paying higher fees are related to
> the question of how widely the proposed fee reduction for x-small
> should be applied. So far, the following possibilities have been
> discussed:
>
> 1.Apply it to all prefix holders /32-/36
> I think this is the next best choice from a fairness perspective, but,
> I would be concerned about
> the possibility that it may have a significant revenue impact on ARIN
> when providers that are in
> higher IPv4 fee tiers start returning their IPv4 allocations to ARIN
> and suddenly drop from
> Small or Medium to X-Small. I think it's not likely this is a
> significant problem, but, without the
> data, I'm not willing to make the assumption.
>
> 2.Apply it only to /36
> I think this is the cleanest approach from a pure accounting
> perspective, but it does have a
> fairness problem for early adopters.
>
> 3.Apply it to all existing prefix holders <= /32 and to new /36 prefix
> holders.
> I think this is the best option from a fairness perspective, but, I am
> not sure how much extra
> accounting complexity it would create for ARIN so I don't know if it
> is feasible.
>
>>  1. We all seem to agree the goal is to encourage widespread adoption
>>     of IPv6
>>  2. There is still very few compelling reasons for end users to adopt it
>>  3. If it's too low will ARIN get flooded with silly requests?
>>     Perhaps Mr. Curran can speak to that from experience.
>>
>
> I don't think 3 is a problem at all so long as it is at least
> $500/year and the fees go up if you get beyond a /32.
>
>> Taking the approach of IPv4 will all run out eventually so it doesn't
>> matter isn't proactive and is very disruptive, technically. This is
>> Joseph's reference to the "stick".
>>
>
> I agree. At this point, the sooner IPv4 runs out, the sooner we as an
> industry can move on with the business of deploying an internet with a
> future.
>
>> Taking the approach that was effectively "ARIN should just charge a
>> bazillian dollars for IPv4 allocations" is simply an furtherance of
>> the stick approach which, I would argue, has been relatively
>> unsuccessful thus far. Attempting to link it with supply/demand
>> principals is a reach far outside ARIN's scope and role.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>> I think making allocations of /36's for free may also help get IPv6
>> out there. The point, I think, is to reduce the barriers for entry
>> for business. The financial one is almost the only tool ARIN has in
>> it's quiver outside of process oriented ones to make things easier.
>
> We tried giving away /32s a few years back. There weren't that many
> takers and very few of the takers actually bothered to get them routed.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 sweeny at indiana.edu  Wed Mar 14 20:57:16 2012
From: sweeny at indiana.edu (Brent Sweeny)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:57:16 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <4F612448.30601@umn.edu>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>

I like this suggestion.  it has good combinations of incentives for the
right Good Behaviors, what seem like reasonable charges, and a
reasonable sunset.
	Brent Sweeny, Indiana University

On 3/14/2012 7:05 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 3/14/12 16:26 CDT, Robert Marder wrote:
>> I would agree with this.
>>
>> The smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv4 (the /22) should
>> cost the same as the smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv6
>> (the /32).
>>
>> That just seems like common sense to me.
>>
>> Changing the smallest allocation available under IPv6 isn't very fair to
>> those that adopted IPv6 early - early adopters shouldn't be stuck with
>> higher fees because the goal posts were moved.
> 
> I agree that there shouldn't be an early adopter TAX on X-small ISPs
> that moved forward with a /32 before the /36 option was available, if
> anything they should get some kind of benefit.  Therefore, I think my
> preferred solution is a grandfather clause in the fee structure, or a
> permanent fee waiver so to speak, for any ISPs that currently has an
> X-small IPv4 allocation that receives a /32 IPv6 allocation before
> December 31, 2012 can continue to be eligible for the X-small IPv6
> allocation rate as long as they don't grow their IPv4 allocation beyond
> X-small, or their IPv6 allocation beyond /32.
> 
> Then starting January 1, 2013 if you want to remain an X-small ISP you
> will have to select a /36 allocation.
> 
> I'm suggesting December 31, 2012 to hopefully create a small incentive
> for X-small ISPs that haven't move forward to get their IPv6 allocation,
> to do so yet this year.  Basically, for a limited remaining time, get a
> /32 for the price of a /36 deal to get the smaller guys moving.
> 
> Also I would like to remind everyone who grumbles about Legacy IPv4,
> that it is equally unfair to create an early adopter TAX for Legacy
> IPv4.  However, I equally believe it is time for Legacy IPv4 holders to
> step up to the plate and at least to start minimally contributing to the
> upkeep of the system too.  I think the current Legacy RSA and its flat
> Org ID based fee structure is a pretty reasonable compromise.
> 


From jesse at la-broadband.com  Wed Mar 14 21:11:17 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:11:17 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu>,<4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
Message-ID: <B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>

On Mar 14, 2012, at 5:57 PM, "Brent Sweeny" <sweeny at indiana.edu> wrote:

> I like this suggestion.  it has good combinations of incentives for the
> right Good Behaviors, what seem like reasonable charges, and a
> reasonable sunset.
>    Brent Sweeny, Indiana University
> 
> On 3/14/2012 7:05 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>> On 3/14/12 16:26 CDT, Robert Marder wrote:
>>> I would agree with this.
>>> 
>>> The smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv4 (the /22) should
>>> cost the same as the smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv6
>>> (the /32).
>>> 
>>> That just seems like common sense to me.
>>> 
>>> Changing the smallest allocation available under IPv6 isn't very fair to
>>> those that adopted IPv6 early - early adopters shouldn't be stuck with
>>> higher fees because the goal posts were moved.
>> 
>> I agree that there shouldn't be an early adopter TAX on X-small ISPs
>> that moved forward with a /32 before the /36 option was available, if
>> anything they should get some kind of benefit.  Therefore, I think my
>> preferred solution is a grandfather clause in the fee structure, or a
>> permanent fee waiver so to speak, for any ISPs that currently has an
>> X-small IPv4 allocation that receives a /32 IPv6 allocation before
>> December 31, 2012 can continue to be eligible for the X-small IPv6
>> allocation rate as long as they don't grow their IPv4 allocation beyond
>> X-small, or their IPv6 allocation beyond /32.
>> 
>> Then starting January 1, 2013 if you want to remain an X-small ISP you
>> will have to select a /36 allocation.

Maybe I'm misreading this wording but this implies to me the suggestion is that people who adopted a /32 when that's all that was available should be forced to renumber onto a /36. If that's the case I don't think that's a reasonable expectation of anyone who took the time to get the address space and roll it out. I, for example, addressed all my infrastructure on ipv6 to the exclusion of ipv4. Saying in order to maintain a specific rate I have to swap out my /32 for a /36.

I think the /32s issued before the /36's were available should be charged at the xsmall rate. I didn't respond to Owen earlier but in my case my ipv4 is xsmall but my ipv6 (which was the smallest I could get) is "small" so orgs like mine will be getting a defacto rate increase as I will be charged for my ipv6 small and not my ipv4 extra small. Ipv6 is not monetized by most people but I will be paying an extra 1200 for it because the goal posts were moved as someone earlier mentioned. 

>> 
>> I'm suggesting December 31, 2012 to hopefully create a small incentive
>> for X-small ISPs that haven't move forward to get their IPv6 allocation,
>> to do so yet this year.  Basically, for a limited remaining time, get a
>> /32 for the price of a /36 deal to get the smaller guys moving.
>> 
>> Also I would like to remind everyone who grumbles about Legacy IPv4,
>> that it is equally unfair to create an early adopter TAX for Legacy
>> IPv4.  However, I equally believe it is time for Legacy IPv4 holders to
>> step up to the plate and at least to start minimally contributing to the
>> upkeep of the system too.  I think the current Legacy RSA and its flat
>> Org ID based fee structure is a pretty reasonable compromise.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 farmer at umn.edu  Wed Mar 14 21:44:46 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:44:46 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu>, <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>



On 3/14/12 20:11 CDT, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 5:57 PM, "Brent Sweeny"<sweeny at indiana.edu>  wrote:
>
>> I like this suggestion.  it has good combinations of incentives for the
>> right Good Behaviors, what seem like reasonable charges, and a
>> reasonable sunset.
>>     Brent Sweeny, Indiana University
>>
>> On 3/14/2012 7:05 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>>> On 3/14/12 16:26 CDT, Robert Marder wrote:
>>>> I would agree with this.
>>>>
>>>> The smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv4 (the /22) should
>>>> cost the same as the smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv6
>>>> (the /32).
>>>>
>>>> That just seems like common sense to me.
>>>>
>>>> Changing the smallest allocation available under IPv6 isn't very fair to
>>>> those that adopted IPv6 early - early adopters shouldn't be stuck with
>>>> higher fees because the goal posts were moved.
>>>
>>> I agree that there shouldn't be an early adopter TAX on X-small ISPs
>>> that moved forward with a /32 before the /36 option was available, if
>>> anything they should get some kind of benefit.  Therefore, I think my
>>> preferred solution is a grandfather clause in the fee structure, or a
>>> permanent fee waiver so to speak, for any ISPs that currently has an
>>> X-small IPv4 allocation that receives a /32 IPv6 allocation before
>>> December 31, 2012 can continue to be eligible for the X-small IPv6
>>> allocation rate as long as they don't grow their IPv4 allocation beyond
>>> X-small, or their IPv6 allocation beyond /32.
>>>
>>> Then starting January 1, 2013 if you want to remain an X-small ISP you
>>> will have to select a /36 allocation.
>
> Maybe I'm misreading this wording but this implies to me the suggestion is that people who adopted a /32 when that's all that was available should be forced to renumber onto a /36. If that's the case I don't think that's a reasonable expectation of anyone who took the time to get the address space and roll it out. I, for example, addressed all my infrastructure on ipv6 to the exclusion of ipv4. Saying in order to maintain a specific rate I have to swap out my /32 for a /36.

I think I may not have been as clear as I meant to be, my intent was 
that for any new allocations to qualify for X-small fee would need to 
select a /36 as of that date.  The idea is that /32s grandfathered as 
X-small would remain X-small until they grew beyond /32 or an X-small 
IPv4 allocation.

> I think the /32s issued before the /36's were available should be charged at the xsmall rate. I didn't respond to Owen earlier but in my case my ipv4 is xsmall but my ipv6 (which was the smallest I could get) is "small" so orgs like mine will be getting a defacto rate increase as I will be charged for my ipv6 small and not my ipv4 extra small. Ipv6 is not monetized by most people but I will be paying an extra 1200 for it because the goal posts were moved as someone earlier mentioned.

Yep, we intend the same thing, except I would to extend the ability to 
get a /32 at the X-small fee until the end of this year.

>>> I'm suggesting December 31, 2012 to hopefully create a small incentive
>>> for X-small ISPs that haven't move forward to get their IPv6 allocation,
>>> to do so yet this year.  Basically, for a limited remaining time, get a
>>> /32 for the price of a /36 deal to get the smaller guys moving.
>>>
>>> Also I would like to remind everyone who grumbles about Legacy IPv4,
>>> that it is equally unfair to create an early adopter TAX for Legacy
>>> IPv4.  However, I equally believe it is time for Legacy IPv4 holders to
>>> step up to the plate and at least to start minimally contributing to the
>>> upkeep of the system too.  I think the current Legacy RSA and its flat
>>> Org ID based fee structure is a pretty reasonable compromise.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net  Wed Mar 14 21:45:39 2012
From: nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net (Nathaniel B. Lyon)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:45:39 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <2016932028.2000.1331775939230.JavaMail.root@mailserver2>


Agreed, wording does seem a bit confusing. We were an early adopter of a /32, a /36 was not available to us. The early adopters of the /32'ers should be grandfathered into the X-Small category. 


? 
Nathaniel B. Lyon 
President and Founder 
NorthfieldWiFi - Leave the Cable Behind! 
nate . lyon @ nfldwifi .net 
www . northfieldwifi .com 

The information in this e-mail is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.? If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use of, or reliance on, the contents of this e-mail is prohibited.? If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying back to the sending e-mail address, and delete this e-mail message from your computer. 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jesse D. Geddis " < jesse @la-broadband.com> 
To: "< sweeny @ indiana . edu >" < sweeny @ indiana . edu > 
Cc: arin -discuss@ arin .net 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:11:17 PM 
Subject: Re: [ arin -discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure? 

On Mar 14, 2012, at 5:57 PM, "Brent Sweeny " < sweeny @ indiana . edu > wrote: 

> I like this suggestion. ?it has good combinations of incentives for the 
> right Good Behaviors, what seem like reasonable charges, and a 
> reasonable sunset. 
> ? ?Brent Sweeny , Indiana University 
> 
> On 3/14/2012 7:05 PM, David Farmer wrote: 
>> On 3/14/12 16:26 CDT, Robert Marder wrote: 
>>> I would agree with this. 
>>> 
>>> The smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv4 (the /22) should 
>>> cost the same as the smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv6 
>>> (the /32). 
>>> 
>>> That just seems like common sense to me. 
>>> 
>>> Changing the smallest allocation available under IPv6 isn't very fair to 
>>> those that adopted IPv6 early - early adopters shouldn't be stuck with 
>>> higher fees because the goal posts were moved. 
>> 
>> I agree that there shouldn't be an early adopter TAX on X-small ISPs 
>> that moved forward with a /32 before the /36 option was available, if 
>> anything they should get some kind of benefit. ?Therefore, I think my 
>> preferred solution is a grandfather clause in the fee structure, or a 
>> permanent fee waiver so to speak, for any ISPs that currently has an 
>> X-small IPv4 allocation that receives a /32 IPv6 allocation before 
>> December 31, 2012 can continue to be eligible for the X-small IPv6 
>> allocation rate as long as they don't grow their IPv4 allocation beyond 
>> X-small, or their IPv6 allocation beyond /32. 
>> 
>> Then starting January 1, 2013 if you want to remain an X-small ISP you 
>> will have to select a /36 allocation. 

Maybe I'm misreading this wording but this implies to me the suggestion is that people who adopted a /32 when that's all that was available should be forced to renumber onto a /36. If that's the case I don't think that's a reasonable expectation of anyone who took the time to get the address space and roll it out. I, for example, addressed all my infrastructure on ipv6 to the exclusion of ipv4. Saying in order to maintain a specific rate I have to swap out my /32 for a /36. 

I think the /32s issued before the /36's were available should be charged at the xsmall rate. I didn't respond to Owen earlier but in my case my ipv4 is xsmall but my ipv6 (which was the smallest I could get) is "small" so orgs like mine will be getting a defacto rate increase as I will be charged for my ipv6 small and not my ipv4 extra small. Ipv6 is not monetized by most people but I will be paying an extra 1200 for it because the goal posts were moved as someone earlier mentioned. 

>> 
>> I'm suggesting December 31, 2012 to hopefully create a small incentive 
>> for X-small ISPs that haven't move forward to get their IPv6 allocation, 
>> to do so yet this year. ?Basically, for a limited remaining time, get a 
>> /32 for the price of a /36 deal to get the smaller guys moving. 
>> 
>> Also I would like to remind everyone who grumbles about Legacy IPv4, 
>> that it is equally unfair to create an early adopter TAX for Legacy 
>> IPv4. ?However, I equally believe it is time for Legacy IPv4 holders to 
>> step up to the plate and at least to start minimally contributing to the 
>> upkeep of the system too. ?I think the current Legacy RSA and its flat 
>> Org ID based fee structure is a pretty reasonable compromise. 
>> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> ARIN-Discuss 
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss@ arin .net). 
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: 
> http ://lists. arin .net/mailman/ listinfo / arin -discuss 
> Please contact info@ 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@ arin .net). 
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: 
http ://lists. arin .net/mailman/ listinfo / arin -discuss 
Please contact info@ arin .net if you experience any issues. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/795aed04/attachment.html>

From nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net  Wed Mar 14 21:49:07 2012
From: nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net (Nathaniel B. Lyon)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:49:07 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <35092512.2014.1331776147174.JavaMail.root@mailserver2>

There definitely needs to be a clear cut start date.? December 31st 2012 makes the most sense.? With that in mind, it might make some?on the fence jump. 


Nathaniel B. Lyon 
President and Founder 
NorthfieldWiFi - Leave the Cable Behind! 
nate . lyon @ nfldwifi .net 
www . northfieldwifi .com 

The information in this e-mail is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.? If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use of, or reliance on, the contents of this e-mail is prohibited.? If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying back to the sending e-mail address, and delete this e-mail message from your computer. 

----- Original Message -----

From: "David Farmer" <farmer@ umn . edu > 
To: "Jesse D. Geddis " < jesse @la-broadband.com> 
Cc: arin -discuss@ arin .net 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:44:46 PM 
Subject: Re: [ arin -discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure? 



On 3/14/12 20:11 CDT, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: 
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 5:57 PM, "Brent Sweeny "< sweeny @ indiana . edu > ?wrote: 
> 
>> I like this suggestion. ?it has good combinations of incentives for the 
>> right Good Behaviors, what seem like reasonable charges, and a 
>> reasonable sunset. 
>> ? ? Brent Sweeny , Indiana University 
>> 
>> On 3/14/2012 7:05 PM, David Farmer wrote: 
>>> On 3/14/12 16:26 CDT, Robert Marder wrote: 
>>>> I would agree with this. 
>>>> 
>>>> The smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv4 (the /22) should 
>>>> cost the same as the smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv6 
>>>> (the /32). 
>>>> 
>>>> That just seems like common sense to me. 
>>>> 
>>>> Changing the smallest allocation available under IPv6 isn't very fair to 
>>>> those that adopted IPv6 early - early adopters shouldn't be stuck with 
>>>> higher fees because the goal posts were moved. 
>>> 
>>> I agree that there shouldn't be an early adopter TAX on X-small ISPs 
>>> that moved forward with a /32 before the /36 option was available, if 
>>> anything they should get some kind of benefit. ?Therefore, I think my 
>>> preferred solution is a grandfather clause in the fee structure, or a 
>>> permanent fee waiver so to speak, for any ISPs that currently has an 
>>> X-small IPv4 allocation that receives a /32 IPv6 allocation before 
>>> December 31, 2012 can continue to be eligible for the X-small IPv6 
>>> allocation rate as long as they don't grow their IPv4 allocation beyond 
>>> X-small, or their IPv6 allocation beyond /32. 
>>> 
>>> Then starting January 1, 2013 if you want to remain an X-small ISP you 
>>> will have to select a /36 allocation. 
> 
> Maybe I'm misreading this wording but this implies to me the suggestion is that people who adopted a /32 when that's all that was available should be forced to renumber onto a /36. If that's the case I don't think that's a reasonable expectation of anyone who took the time to get the address space and roll it out. I, for example, addressed all my infrastructure on ipv6 to the exclusion of ipv4. Saying in order to maintain a specific rate I have to swap out my /32 for a /36. 

I think I may not have been as clear as I meant to be, my intent was 
that for any new allocations to qualify for X-small fee would need to 
select a /36 as of that date. ?The idea is that /32s grandfathered as 
X-small would remain X-small until they grew beyond /32 or an X-small 
IPv4 allocation. 

> I think the /32s issued before the /36's were available should be charged at the xsmall rate. I didn't respond to Owen earlier but in my case my ipv4 is xsmall but my ipv6 (which was the smallest I could get) is "small" so orgs like mine will be getting a defacto rate increase as I will be charged for my ipv6 small and not my ipv4 extra small. Ipv6 is not monetized by most people but I will be paying an extra 1200 for it because the goal posts were moved as someone earlier mentioned. 

Yep, we intend the same thing, except I would to extend the ability to 
get a /32 at the X-small fee until the end of this year. 

>>> I'm suggesting December 31, 2012 to hopefully create a small incentive 
>>> for X-small ISPs that haven't move forward to get their IPv6 allocation, 
>>> to do so yet this year. ?Basically, for a limited remaining time, get a 
>>> /32 for the price of a /36 deal to get the smaller guys moving. 
>>> 
>>> Also I would like to remind everyone who grumbles about Legacy IPv4, 
>>> that it is equally unfair to create an early adopter TAX for Legacy 
>>> IPv4. ?However, I equally believe it is time for Legacy IPv4 holders to 
>>> step up to the plate and at least to start minimally contributing to the 
>>> upkeep of the system too. ?I think the current Legacy RSA and its flat 
>>> Org ID based fee structure is a pretty reasonable compromise. 

-- 
=============================================== 
David Farmer ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Email:farmer@ umn . edu 
Networking & Telecommunication Services 
Office of Information Technology 
University of Minnesota???????? 
2218 University Ave SE???????? ? ?Phone: 612-626-0815 
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 ? Cell: 612-812-9952 
=============================================== 
_______________________________________________ 
ARIN-Discuss 
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss@ arin .net). 
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: 
http ://lists. arin .net/mailman/ listinfo / arin -discuss 
Please contact info@ arin .net if you experience any issues. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/b4ee70b9/attachment.html>

From jcoleman at centauricom.com  Wed Mar 14 21:59:34 2012
From: jcoleman at centauricom.com (Josh Coleman)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu>, <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>

I also agree with the below statement. I think it is very clear and
precise to the point and not punish ISP's for rolling out IPv6 when the
financial incentive is just not there.

Josh Coleman
Chief Architect
Cell +1 510.585.6534
Work +1 415.294.2240 X1010
Email: jcoleman at centauricom.com



>
>
> On 3/14/12 20:11 CDT, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 5:57 PM, "Brent Sweeny"<sweeny at indiana.edu>  wrote:
>>
>>> I like this suggestion.  it has good combinations of incentives for the
>>> right Good Behaviors, what seem like reasonable charges, and a
>>> reasonable sunset.
>>>     Brent Sweeny, Indiana University
>>>
>>> On 3/14/2012 7:05 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/12 16:26 CDT, Robert Marder wrote:
>>>>> I would agree with this.
>>>>>
>>>>> The smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv4 (the /22)
>>>>> should
>>>>> cost the same as the smallest allocation available to ISP's under
>>>>> IPv6
>>>>> (the /32).
>>>>>
>>>>> That just seems like common sense to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changing the smallest allocation available under IPv6 isn't very fair
>>>>> to
>>>>> those that adopted IPv6 early - early adopters shouldn't be stuck
>>>>> with
>>>>> higher fees because the goal posts were moved.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that there shouldn't be an early adopter TAX on X-small ISPs
>>>> that moved forward with a /32 before the /36 option was available, if
>>>> anything they should get some kind of benefit.  Therefore, I think my
>>>> preferred solution is a grandfather clause in the fee structure, or a
>>>> permanent fee waiver so to speak, for any ISPs that currently has an
>>>> X-small IPv4 allocation that receives a /32 IPv6 allocation before
>>>> December 31, 2012 can continue to be eligible for the X-small IPv6
>>>> allocation rate as long as they don't grow their IPv4 allocation
>>>> beyond
>>>> X-small, or their IPv6 allocation beyond /32.
>>>>
>>>> Then starting January 1, 2013 if you want to remain an X-small ISP you
>>>> will have to select a /36 allocation.
>>
>> Maybe I'm misreading this wording but this implies to me the suggestion
>> is that people who adopted a /32 when that's all that was available
>> should be forced to renumber onto a /36. If that's the case I don't
>> think that's a reasonable expectation of anyone who took the time to get
>> the address space and roll it out. I, for example, addressed all my
>> infrastructure on ipv6 to the exclusion of ipv4. Saying in order to
>> maintain a specific rate I have to swap out my /32 for a /36.
>
> I think I may not have been as clear as I meant to be, my intent was
> that for any new allocations to qualify for X-small fee would need to
> select a /36 as of that date.  The idea is that /32s grandfathered as
> X-small would remain X-small until they grew beyond /32 or an X-small
> IPv4 allocation.
>
>> I think the /32s issued before the /36's were available should be
>> charged at the xsmall rate. I didn't respond to Owen earlier but in my
>> case my ipv4 is xsmall but my ipv6 (which was the smallest I could get)
>> is "small" so orgs like mine will be getting a defacto rate increase as
>> I will be charged for my ipv6 small and not my ipv4 extra small. Ipv6 is
>> not monetized by most people but I will be paying an extra 1200 for it
>> because the goal posts were moved as someone earlier mentioned.
>
> Yep, we intend the same thing, except I would to extend the ability to
> get a /32 at the X-small fee until the end of this year.
>
>>>> I'm suggesting December 31, 2012 to hopefully create a small incentive
>>>> for X-small ISPs that haven't move forward to get their IPv6
>>>> allocation,
>>>> to do so yet this year.  Basically, for a limited remaining time, get
>>>> a
>>>> /32 for the price of a /36 deal to get the smaller guys moving.
>>>>
>>>> Also I would like to remind everyone who grumbles about Legacy IPv4,
>>>> that it is equally unfair to create an early adopter TAX for Legacy
>>>> IPv4.  However, I equally believe it is time for Legacy IPv4 holders
>>>> to
>>>> step up to the plate and at least to start minimally contributing to
>>>> the
>>>> upkeep of the system too.  I think the current Legacy RSA and its flat
>>>> Org ID based fee structure is a pretty reasonable compromise.
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>




---
Centauri Communications
Light years ahead of the Internet.
http://www.centauricom.com


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



From kevinb at thewire.ca  Wed Mar 14 23:10:36 2012
From: kevinb at thewire.ca (Kevin Blumberg)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:10:36 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu>, <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
	<57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>
Message-ID: <7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>

I wanted to chime in on a couple of items.

1) When selecting the correct allocation size for IPv6 you are looking at forecasting a minimum of 5 years out. The allocation size
you choose is not what is needed today but what you will need years from now. This is in sharp contrast to IPv4 which at most is
a 12 month forecast. This to me is one of the key issues that are jumping ISP's from the X-SMALL to SMALL category.

2) We are missing critical data in being able to see the whole picture. If we go on the premise that ARIN wishes to be revenue neutral
with IPv6 then we need to know how many ISP's are in the categories. It will take X number of years before IPv4 use lowers and moves
companies into lower tier category (I really don't see being less than 5-8 years). If that is the case then you could bill people based on there
IPv4 allocation and at such time as the pendulum swings ARIN could revise the fee schedule to account for the loss.

3) The initial allocation size for IPv6 and what is suggested as the correct end user assignment have been moving targets. As an example if the 
fee structure was set to be based on each end user getting a /64 or a /56 then a /32 as small or medium makes sense. If you are reserving a /48 
for each end user as seems to be the current trend then you are already significantly lowering the number of customers you would fit into that /32.
 
I truly believe that /32 should be set to X-Small and that once ARIN see's revenue loss it can adjust accordinly based on the /36 use concept that David
made earlier. That would put the change out years into the future and has the benefit of only happening at a time when the pendulum swing will have
occurred and IPv6 will not be an optional endevaour as some of the smaller companies are seeing it as.

Kevin Blumberg
T 416.214.9473 x31
F 416.862.9473
kevinb at thewire.ca






> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Josh Coleman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:00 PM
> To: David Farmer
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> 
> I also agree with the below statement. I think it is very clear and precise to
> the point and not punish ISP's for rolling out IPv6 when the financial incentive
> is just not there.
> 
> Josh Coleman
> Chief Architect
> Cell +1 510.585.6534
> Work +1 415.294.2240 X1010
> Email: jcoleman at centauricom.com
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > On 3/14/12 20:11 CDT, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
> >> On Mar 14, 2012, at 5:57 PM, "Brent Sweeny"<sweeny at indiana.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I like this suggestion.  it has good combinations of incentives for
> >>> the right Good Behaviors, what seem like reasonable charges, and a
> >>> reasonable sunset.
> >>>     Brent Sweeny, Indiana University
> >>>
> >>> On 3/14/2012 7:05 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> >>>> On 3/14/12 16:26 CDT, Robert Marder wrote:
> >>>>> I would agree with this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv4 (the /22)
> >>>>> should cost the same as the smallest allocation available to ISP's
> >>>>> under
> >>>>> IPv6
> >>>>> (the /32).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That just seems like common sense to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Changing the smallest allocation available under IPv6 isn't very
> >>>>> fair to those that adopted IPv6 early - early adopters shouldn't
> >>>>> be stuck with higher fees because the goal posts were moved.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree that there shouldn't be an early adopter TAX on X-small
> >>>> ISPs that moved forward with a /32 before the /36 option was
> >>>> available, if anything they should get some kind of benefit.
> >>>> Therefore, I think my preferred solution is a grandfather clause in
> >>>> the fee structure, or a permanent fee waiver so to speak, for any
> >>>> ISPs that currently has an X-small IPv4 allocation that receives a
> >>>> /32 IPv6 allocation before December 31, 2012 can continue to be
> >>>> eligible for the X-small IPv6 allocation rate as long as they don't
> >>>> grow their IPv4 allocation beyond X-small, or their IPv6 allocation
> >>>> beyond /32.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then starting January 1, 2013 if you want to remain an X-small ISP
> >>>> you will have to select a /36 allocation.
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm misreading this wording but this implies to me the
> >> suggestion is that people who adopted a /32 when that's all that was
> >> available should be forced to renumber onto a /36. If that's the case
> >> I don't think that's a reasonable expectation of anyone who took the
> >> time to get the address space and roll it out. I, for example,
> >> addressed all my infrastructure on ipv6 to the exclusion of ipv4.
> >> Saying in order to maintain a specific rate I have to swap out my /32 for a
> /36.
> >
> > I think I may not have been as clear as I meant to be, my intent was
> > that for any new allocations to qualify for X-small fee would need to
> > select a /36 as of that date.  The idea is that /32s grandfathered as
> > X-small would remain X-small until they grew beyond /32 or an X-small
> > IPv4 allocation.
> >
> >> I think the /32s issued before the /36's were available should be
> >> charged at the xsmall rate. I didn't respond to Owen earlier but in
> >> my case my ipv4 is xsmall but my ipv6 (which was the smallest I could
> >> get) is "small" so orgs like mine will be getting a defacto rate
> >> increase as I will be charged for my ipv6 small and not my ipv4 extra
> >> small. Ipv6 is not monetized by most people but I will be paying an
> >> extra 1200 for it because the goal posts were moved as someone earlier
> mentioned.
> >
> > Yep, we intend the same thing, except I would to extend the ability to
> > get a /32 at the X-small fee until the end of this year.
> >
> >>>> I'm suggesting December 31, 2012 to hopefully create a small
> >>>> incentive for X-small ISPs that haven't move forward to get their
> >>>> IPv6 allocation, to do so yet this year.  Basically, for a limited
> >>>> remaining time, get a
> >>>> /32 for the price of a /36 deal to get the smaller guys moving.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also I would like to remind everyone who grumbles about Legacy
> >>>> IPv4, that it is equally unfair to create an early adopter TAX for
> >>>> Legacy IPv4.  However, I equally believe it is time for Legacy IPv4
> >>>> holders to step up to the plate and at least to start minimally
> >>>> contributing to the upkeep of the system too.  I think the current
> >>>> Legacy RSA and its flat Org ID based fee structure is a pretty
> >>>> reasonable compromise.
> >
> > --
> > ===============================================
> > David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> > Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information
> > Technology University of Minnesota
> > 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> > ===============================================
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Centauri Communications
> Light years ahead of the Internet.
> http://www.centauricom.com
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 swm at emanon.com  Thu Mar 15 00:07:07 2012
From: swm at emanon.com (Scott Morris)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:07:07 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu>, <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
	<57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
Message-ID: <4F616AEB.5080701@emanon.com>

While an interesting thought about forecasting...  Even if you are
looking to allocate a /48 to every customer, you do realize this gives
you 65,536 customers (well, ok, subtract a few for your internal
networks) to deal with.

Even if coming off a /21 allocation in IPv4, the same number of
customers would mean that you are giving 3/8 of an IP to each of those
customers you are forecasting!  :)   So coming from 2,048 single IP
addresses to 2^96 (79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 or 79
octillion addresses) seems to represent a REALLY aggressive growth factor!

Just my two cents (or apparently $1,000).

Scott

On 3/14/12 11:10 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
> I wanted to chime in on a couple of items.
>
> 1) When selecting the correct allocation size for IPv6 you are looking at forecasting a minimum of 5 years out. The allocation size
> you choose is not what is needed today but what you will need years from now. This is in sharp contrast to IPv4 which at most is
> a 12 month forecast. This to me is one of the key issues that are jumping ISP's from the X-SMALL to SMALL category.
>
> 2) We are missing critical data in being able to see the whole picture. If we go on the premise that ARIN wishes to be revenue neutral
> with IPv6 then we need to know how many ISP's are in the categories. It will take X number of years before IPv4 use lowers and moves
> companies into lower tier category (I really don't see being less than 5-8 years). If that is the case then you could bill people based on there
> IPv4 allocation and at such time as the pendulum swings ARIN could revise the fee schedule to account for the loss.
>
> 3) The initial allocation size for IPv6 and what is suggested as the correct end user assignment have been moving targets. As an example if the 
> fee structure was set to be based on each end user getting a /64 or a /56 then a /32 as small or medium makes sense. If you are reserving a /48 
> for each end user as seems to be the current trend then you are already significantly lowering the number of customers you would fit into that /32.
>  
> I truly believe that /32 should be set to X-Small and that once ARIN see's revenue loss it can adjust accordinly based on the /36 use concept that David
> made earlier. That would put the change out years into the future and has the benefit of only happening at a time when the pendulum swing will have
> occurred and IPv6 will not be an optional endevaour as some of the smaller companies are seeing it as.
>
> Kevin Blumberg
> T 416.214.9473 x31
> F 416.862.9473
> kevinb at thewire.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Josh Coleman
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:00 PM
>> To: David Farmer
>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
>>
>> I also agree with the below statement. I think it is very clear and precise to
>> the point and not punish ISP's for rolling out IPv6 when the financial incentive
>> is just not there.
>>
>> Josh Coleman
>> Chief Architect
>> Cell +1 510.585.6534
>> Work +1 415.294.2240 X1010
>> Email: jcoleman at centauricom.com
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 3/14/12 20:11 CDT, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
>>>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 5:57 PM, "Brent Sweeny"<sweeny at indiana.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>>> I like this suggestion.  it has good combinations of incentives for
>>>>> the right Good Behaviors, what seem like reasonable charges, and a
>>>>> reasonable sunset.
>>>>>     Brent Sweeny, Indiana University
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/14/2012 7:05 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/14/12 16:26 CDT, Robert Marder wrote:
>>>>>>> I would agree with this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv4 (the /22)
>>>>>>> should cost the same as the smallest allocation available to ISP's
>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>> IPv6
>>>>>>> (the /32).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That just seems like common sense to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changing the smallest allocation available under IPv6 isn't very
>>>>>>> fair to those that adopted IPv6 early - early adopters shouldn't
>>>>>>> be stuck with higher fees because the goal posts were moved.
>>>>>> I agree that there shouldn't be an early adopter TAX on X-small
>>>>>> ISPs that moved forward with a /32 before the /36 option was
>>>>>> available, if anything they should get some kind of benefit.
>>>>>> Therefore, I think my preferred solution is a grandfather clause in
>>>>>> the fee structure, or a permanent fee waiver so to speak, for any
>>>>>> ISPs that currently has an X-small IPv4 allocation that receives a
>>>>>> /32 IPv6 allocation before December 31, 2012 can continue to be
>>>>>> eligible for the X-small IPv6 allocation rate as long as they don't
>>>>>> grow their IPv4 allocation beyond X-small, or their IPv6 allocation
>>>>>> beyond /32.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then starting January 1, 2013 if you want to remain an X-small ISP
>>>>>> you will have to select a /36 allocation.
>>>> Maybe I'm misreading this wording but this implies to me the
>>>> suggestion is that people who adopted a /32 when that's all that was
>>>> available should be forced to renumber onto a /36. If that's the case
>>>> I don't think that's a reasonable expectation of anyone who took the
>>>> time to get the address space and roll it out. I, for example,
>>>> addressed all my infrastructure on ipv6 to the exclusion of ipv4.
>>>> Saying in order to maintain a specific rate I have to swap out my /32 for a
>> /36.
>>> I think I may not have been as clear as I meant to be, my intent was
>>> that for any new allocations to qualify for X-small fee would need to
>>> select a /36 as of that date.  The idea is that /32s grandfathered as
>>> X-small would remain X-small until they grew beyond /32 or an X-small
>>> IPv4 allocation.
>>>
>>>> I think the /32s issued before the /36's were available should be
>>>> charged at the xsmall rate. I didn't respond to Owen earlier but in
>>>> my case my ipv4 is xsmall but my ipv6 (which was the smallest I could
>>>> get) is "small" so orgs like mine will be getting a defacto rate
>>>> increase as I will be charged for my ipv6 small and not my ipv4 extra
>>>> small. Ipv6 is not monetized by most people but I will be paying an
>>>> extra 1200 for it because the goal posts were moved as someone earlier
>> mentioned.
>>> Yep, we intend the same thing, except I would to extend the ability to
>>> get a /32 at the X-small fee until the end of this year.
>>>
>>>>>> I'm suggesting December 31, 2012 to hopefully create a small
>>>>>> incentive for X-small ISPs that haven't move forward to get their
>>>>>> IPv6 allocation, to do so yet this year.  Basically, for a limited
>>>>>> remaining time, get a
>>>>>> /32 for the price of a /36 deal to get the smaller guys moving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also I would like to remind everyone who grumbles about Legacy
>>>>>> IPv4, that it is equally unfair to create an early adopter TAX for
>>>>>> Legacy IPv4.  However, I equally believe it is time for Legacy IPv4
>>>>>> holders to step up to the plate and at least to start minimally
>>>>>> contributing to the upkeep of the system too.  I think the current
>>>>>> Legacy RSA and its flat Org ID based fee structure is a pretty
>>>>>> reasonable compromise.
>>> --
>>> ===============================================
>>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
>>> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information
>>> Technology University of Minnesota
>>> 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
>>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>>> ===============================================
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> --
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>>> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Centauri Communications
>> Light years ahead of the Internet.
>> http://www.centauricom.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 kevinb at thewire.ca  Thu Mar 15 00:25:20 2012
From: kevinb at thewire.ca (Kevin Blumberg)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 04:25:20 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
In-Reply-To: <4F616AEB.5080701@emanon.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu>, <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
	<57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<4F616AEB.5080701@emanon.com>
Message-ID: <7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0CB8@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>

If you base the IPv6 as a 10 year use window then you'd be looking at 10 /21's over
the 10 year period. 

It is also going to be far lower than 65,536 for the X-Small ISP's if they have a network 
plan in place, there will be decent portion of the /32 in place for growth and will be 
segmented. I suspect that the first allocation to an ISP could result in a significantly 
lower number of usable /48's based on build out.

The other issue is how many ARIN members are X-Small? I haven't been able to find
that data. If it is somewhere please share :) If 40 percent of the ISP base is X-Small then
that would be a significant windfall which probably is not the intended effect.

Kevin Blumberg
T 416.214.9473 x31
F 416.862.9473
kevinb at thewire.ca






> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Morris
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:07 AM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> 
> While an interesting thought about forecasting...  Even if you are looking to
> allocate a /48 to every customer, you do realize this gives you 65,536
> customers (well, ok, subtract a few for your internal
> networks) to deal with.
> 
> Even if coming off a /21 allocation in IPv4, the same number of customers
> would mean that you are giving 3/8 of an IP to each of those
> customers you are forecasting!  :)   So coming from 2,048 single IP
> addresses to 2^96 (79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 or 79 octillion
> addresses) seems to represent a REALLY aggressive growth factor!
> 
> Just my two cents (or apparently $1,000).
> 
> Scott
> 
> On 3/14/12 11:10 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
> > I wanted to chime in on a couple of items.
> >
> > 1) When selecting the correct allocation size for IPv6 you are looking
> > at forecasting a minimum of 5 years out. The allocation size you
> > choose is not what is needed today but what you will need years from
> now. This is in sharp contrast to IPv4 which at most is a 12 month forecast.
> This to me is one of the key issues that are jumping ISP's from the X-SMALL
> to SMALL category.
> >
> > 2) We are missing critical data in being able to see the whole
> > picture. If we go on the premise that ARIN wishes to be revenue
> > neutral with IPv6 then we need to know how many ISP's are in the
> > categories. It will take X number of years before IPv4 use lowers and
> > moves companies into lower tier category (I really don't see being
> > less than 5-8 years). If that is the case then you could bill people
> > based on there
> > IPv4 allocation and at such time as the pendulum swings ARIN could revise
> the fee schedule to account for the loss.
> >
> > 3) The initial allocation size for IPv6 and what is suggested as the
> > correct end user assignment have been moving targets. As an example if
> > the fee structure was set to be based on each end user getting a /64 or a
> /56 then a /32 as small or medium makes sense. If you are reserving a /48 for
> each end user as seems to be the current trend then you are already
> significantly lowering the number of customers you would fit into that /32.
> >
> > I truly believe that /32 should be set to X-Small and that once ARIN
> > see's revenue loss it can adjust accordinly based on the /36 use
> > concept that David made earlier. That would put the change out years into
> the future and has the benefit of only happening at a time when the
> pendulum swing will have occurred and IPv6 will not be an optional
> endevaour as some of the smaller companies are seeing it as.
> >
> > Kevin Blumberg
> > T 416.214.9473 x31
> > F 416.862.9473
> > kevinb at thewire.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> >> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Josh Coleman
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:00 PM
> >> To: David Farmer
> >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> >>
> >> I also agree with the below statement. I think it is very clear and
> >> precise to the point and not punish ISP's for rolling out IPv6 when
> >> the financial incentive is just not there.
> >>
> >> Josh Coleman
> >> Chief Architect
> >> Cell +1 510.585.6534
> >> Work +1 415.294.2240 X1010
> >> Email: jcoleman at centauricom.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 3/14/12 20:11 CDT, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 5:57 PM, "Brent Sweeny"<sweeny at indiana.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> I like this suggestion.  it has good combinations of incentives
> >>>>> for the right Good Behaviors, what seem like reasonable charges,
> >>>>> and a reasonable sunset.
> >>>>>     Brent Sweeny, Indiana University
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 3/14/2012 7:05 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/14/12 16:26 CDT, Robert Marder wrote:
> >>>>>>> I would agree with this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv4 (the /22)
> >>>>>>> should cost the same as the smallest allocation available to
> >>>>>>> ISP's under
> >>>>>>> IPv6
> >>>>>>> (the /32).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That just seems like common sense to me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Changing the smallest allocation available under IPv6 isn't very
> >>>>>>> fair to those that adopted IPv6 early - early adopters shouldn't
> >>>>>>> be stuck with higher fees because the goal posts were moved.
> >>>>>> I agree that there shouldn't be an early adopter TAX on X-small
> >>>>>> ISPs that moved forward with a /32 before the /36 option was
> >>>>>> available, if anything they should get some kind of benefit.
> >>>>>> Therefore, I think my preferred solution is a grandfather clause
> >>>>>> in the fee structure, or a permanent fee waiver so to speak, for
> >>>>>> any ISPs that currently has an X-small IPv4 allocation that
> >>>>>> receives a
> >>>>>> /32 IPv6 allocation before December 31, 2012 can continue to be
> >>>>>> eligible for the X-small IPv6 allocation rate as long as they
> >>>>>> don't grow their IPv4 allocation beyond X-small, or their IPv6
> >>>>>> allocation beyond /32.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then starting January 1, 2013 if you want to remain an X-small
> >>>>>> ISP you will have to select a /36 allocation.
> >>>> Maybe I'm misreading this wording but this implies to me the
> >>>> suggestion is that people who adopted a /32 when that's all that
> >>>> was available should be forced to renumber onto a /36. If that's
> >>>> the case I don't think that's a reasonable expectation of anyone
> >>>> who took the time to get the address space and roll it out. I, for
> >>>> example, addressed all my infrastructure on ipv6 to the exclusion of
> ipv4.
> >>>> Saying in order to maintain a specific rate I have to swap out my
> >>>> /32 for a
> >> /36.
> >>> I think I may not have been as clear as I meant to be, my intent was
> >>> that for any new allocations to qualify for X-small fee would need
> >>> to select a /36 as of that date.  The idea is that /32s
> >>> grandfathered as X-small would remain X-small until they grew beyond
> >>> /32 or an X-small
> >>> IPv4 allocation.
> >>>
> >>>> I think the /32s issued before the /36's were available should be
> >>>> charged at the xsmall rate. I didn't respond to Owen earlier but in
> >>>> my case my ipv4 is xsmall but my ipv6 (which was the smallest I
> >>>> could
> >>>> get) is "small" so orgs like mine will be getting a defacto rate
> >>>> increase as I will be charged for my ipv6 small and not my ipv4
> >>>> extra small. Ipv6 is not monetized by most people but I will be
> >>>> paying an extra 1200 for it because the goal posts were moved as
> >>>> someone earlier
> >> mentioned.
> >>> Yep, we intend the same thing, except I would to extend the ability
> >>> to get a /32 at the X-small fee until the end of this year.
> >>>
> >>>>>> I'm suggesting December 31, 2012 to hopefully create a small
> >>>>>> incentive for X-small ISPs that haven't move forward to get their
> >>>>>> IPv6 allocation, to do so yet this year.  Basically, for a
> >>>>>> limited remaining time, get a
> >>>>>> /32 for the price of a /36 deal to get the smaller guys moving.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also I would like to remind everyone who grumbles about Legacy
> >>>>>> IPv4, that it is equally unfair to create an early adopter TAX
> >>>>>> for Legacy IPv4.  However, I equally believe it is time for
> >>>>>> Legacy IPv4 holders to step up to the plate and at least to start
> >>>>>> minimally contributing to the upkeep of the system too.  I think
> >>>>>> the current Legacy RSA and its flat Org ID based fee structure is
> >>>>>> a pretty reasonable compromise.
> >>> --
> >>> ===============================================
> >>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> >>> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information
> >>> Technology University of Minnesota
> >>> 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
> >>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> >>> ===============================================
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> >>> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Centauri Communications
> >> Light years ahead of the Internet.
> >> http://www.centauricom.com
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> >> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 jcurran at arin.net  Thu Mar 15 16:36:35 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:36:35 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN registration fee data (was: Status of
 realigning the IPv6 fee structure?)
In-Reply-To: <7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0CB8@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu> <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
	<57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<4F616AEB.5080701@emanon.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0CB8@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
Message-ID: <B47D10CD-D165-45E6-AF38-97A79D5C5167@corp.arin.net>

On Mar 14, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
> The other issue is how many ARIN members are X-Small? I haven't been able to find
> that data. If it is somewhere please share :) 

Sorry for the delay in putting this information together...

I need to preface by noting that there is a distinct difference 
between how many member are in a given registration services 
category versus how many members are paying fees _because they 
are in that category_. We charge based the larger of the IPv4 
size and IPv6 size category fee, so many organizations with both
resources are simply paying the generally larger IPv4 registration 
services fees.

So, of the 4109 members with registration services, they break 
down as following with respect to registration services size 
category based on their IPv4 resource holdings:

x-small: 1,229   
  small: 1,902
 medium:   625
  large:   103
x-large:    72
 
Total  = 3,931 members with IPv4 registration services. 

With respect to just their IPv6 resource holdings:

x-small:     7   (smaller than /40 - critical inf.)
  small: 1,573   (/40 to /32)
 medium:    37   (/31 to /30)
  large:    29   ...
x-large:     8
xx-large:    1
 
Total  = 1,655 members with IPv6 registration services.

If you want to look at the full categories or associated fees,
go here: <https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html>

As noted, most members are paying based on their IPv4 category,
as their IPv6 fee is smaller.  This means that when it comes to 
actual registration services fees billed, the distribution is
as follows:

IPv4      
 Xtra Large  =    72
 Large       =   103
 Medium      =   625
 Small       = 1,902
 Xtra Small  =   995
 
IPv6
 Small       =   406    
 Medium      =     2
 Large       =     3
 XX Large    =     1
 
Total        = 4,109 Members with registration services.

Of the 406 members paying IPv6 small category, 234 were IPv4 
x-small member who ended up to paying slightly more ($438) 
in 2011 as IPv6 waiver went from 50% to %25. Rather than have
this happen again in 2012, the Board opted to maintain the 25% 
IPv6 fee waiver (it was originally scheduled to phase out as 
100/75/50/25/0 over 2008 through 2012.)  The exercise before
all of us is to determine an appropriate long-term fee schedule
that recognizes over time the member change from IPv4 to IPv6.

So, this is probably more a little more information than you 
wanted, but hopefully should help with the discussion.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




 



From owen at delong.com  Thu Mar 15 17:38:34 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:38:34 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN registration fee data (was: Status of
	realigning the IPv6 fee structure?)
In-Reply-To: <B47D10CD-D165-45E6-AF38-97A79D5C5167@corp.arin.net>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu> <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
	<57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<4F616AEB.5080701@emanon.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0CB8@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<B47D10CD-D165-45E6-AF38-97A79D5C5167@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <DD3E4BBD-E379-4265-A3C7-330D0FD69E34@delong.com>

Looks to me like the current scope of the problem is limited to $406,000
in reduced revenue with an overall scope limit of $1,229,000+growth
total scope.

By that, I mean that if we simply declared /32 to be x-small and set the
fee at $1,250, the loss to ARIN in revenue from current holders 
would be limited to the 406 currently paying based on their IPv6
small status (or less) and that there is no possibility of it applying
to more than the 1,229 x-small IPv4 members (+growth) even if
everyone were to take up IPv6 resources tomorrow.

Would that be an accurate conclusion from the data, John?

If that is the total impact, then, I would actually support declaring /32
to be extra-small and would support subsequent policy to eliminate
the /36 as moot.

Owen

On Mar 15, 2012, at 1:36 PM, John Curran wrote:

> On Mar 14, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
>> The other issue is how many ARIN members are X-Small? I haven't been able to find
>> that data. If it is somewhere please share :) 
> 
> Sorry for the delay in putting this information together...
> 
> I need to preface by noting that there is a distinct difference 
> between how many member are in a given registration services 
> category versus how many members are paying fees _because they 
> are in that category_. We charge based the larger of the IPv4 
> size and IPv6 size category fee, so many organizations with both
> resources are simply paying the generally larger IPv4 registration 
> services fees.
> 
> So, of the 4109 members with registration services, they break 
> down as following with respect to registration services size 
> category based on their IPv4 resource holdings:
> 
> x-small: 1,229   
>  small: 1,902
> medium:   625
>  large:   103
> x-large:    72
> 
> Total  = 3,931 members with IPv4 registration services. 
> 
> With respect to just their IPv6 resource holdings:
> 
> x-small:     7   (smaller than /40 - critical inf.)
>  small: 1,573   (/40 to /32)
> medium:    37   (/31 to /30)
>  large:    29   ...
> x-large:     8
> xx-large:    1
> 
> Total  = 1,655 members with IPv6 registration services.
> 
> If you want to look at the full categories or associated fees,
> go here: <https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html>
> 
> As noted, most members are paying based on their IPv4 category,
> as their IPv6 fee is smaller.  This means that when it comes to 
> actual registration services fees billed, the distribution is
> as follows:
> 
> IPv4      
> Xtra Large  =    72
> Large       =   103
> Medium      =   625
> Small       = 1,902
> Xtra Small  =   995
> 
> IPv6
> Small       =   406    
> Medium      =     2
> Large       =     3
> XX Large    =     1
> 
> Total        = 4,109 Members with registration services.
> 
> Of the 406 members paying IPv6 small category, 234 were IPv4 
> x-small member who ended up to paying slightly more ($438) 
> in 2011 as IPv6 waiver went from 50% to %25. Rather than have
> this happen again in 2012, the Board opted to maintain the 25% 
> IPv6 fee waiver (it was originally scheduled to phase out as 
> 100/75/50/25/0 over 2008 through 2012.)  The exercise before
> all of us is to determine an appropriate long-term fee schedule
> that recognizes over time the member change from IPv4 to IPv6.
> 
> So, this is probably more a little more information than you 
> wanted, but hopefully should help with the discussion.
> 
> Thanks!
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 arin.net  Thu Mar 15 17:59:02 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:59:02 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN registration fee data (was: Status of
 realigning the IPv6 fee structure?)
In-Reply-To: <DD3E4BBD-E379-4265-A3C7-330D0FD69E34@delong.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu> <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
	<57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<4F616AEB.5080701@emanon.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0CB8@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<B47D10CD-D165-45E6-AF38-97A79D5C5167@corp.arin.net>
	<DD3E4BBD-E379-4265-A3C7-330D0FD69E34@delong.com>
Message-ID: <B1621D06-195C-40DC-BFB7-BBF1585EFF52@arin.net>

On Mar 15, 2012, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Looks to me like the current scope of the problem is limited to $406,000
> in reduced revenue with an overall scope limit of $1,229,000+growth
> total scope.
> 
> By that, I mean that if we simply declared /32 to be x-small and set the
> fee at $1,250, the loss to ARIN in revenue from current holders 
> would be limited to the 406 currently paying based on their IPv6
> small status (or less) and that there is no possibility of it applying
> to more than the 1,229 x-small IPv4 members (+growth) even if
> everyone were to take up IPv6 resources tomorrow.
> 
> Would that be an accurate conclusion from the data, John?

Owen - 

 Your math appears correct.  Unless you are expecting IPv4
 address block returns, it would be unlikely to affect total
 receipts aside from the initial change with IPv6 x-small. 
 In effect, the IPv4 fee schedule would always dominate, thus
 making IPv6 "free" for those with IPv4 registration services.
  
 Let me know if you need any additional information.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From dk at intuix.com  Thu Mar 15 18:29:15 2012
From: dk at intuix.com (Dmitry Kohmanyuk)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:29:15 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN registration fee data (was: Status of
	realigning the IPv6 fee structure?)
In-Reply-To: <DD3E4BBD-E379-4265-A3C7-330D0FD69E34@delong.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu> <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
	<57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<4F616AEB.5080701@emanon.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0CB8@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<B47D10CD-D165-45E6-AF38-97A79D5C5167@corp.arin.net>
	<DD3E4BBD-E379-4265-A3C7-330D0FD69E34@delong.com>
Message-ID: <FB04A75F-8E88-47AC-A44D-99A24186A972@intuix.com>


On Mar 15, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Looks to me like the current scope of the problem is limited to $406,000
> in reduced revenue with an overall scope limit of $1,229,000+growth
> total scope.
> 
> By that, I mean that if we simply declared /32 to be x-small and set the
> fee at $1,250, the loss to ARIN in revenue from current holders 
> would be limited to the 406 currently paying based on their IPv6
> small status (or less) and that there is no possibility of it applying
> to more than the 1,229 x-small IPv4 members (+growth) even if
> everyone were to take up IPv6 resources tomorrow.
> 
> Would that be an accurate conclusion from the data, John?
> 
> If that is the total impact, then, I would actually support declaring /32
> to be extra-small and would support subsequent policy to eliminate
> the /36 as moot.

Well, we have to have X-small and Small categories, right?

And somebody suggested to put IPv6 category limits on nibble boundaries (divisible by 4.)

So, I see those action points:

1) consider whether ARIN can afford to lose $400K right now (with potential to lose more in 2013.)
2) if 1 is yes - move on adjusting fee for Small category now to march X-small IPv4 (see impact above.)
3) optional - introduce X-Small IPv6 at /36 and set its fees to match X-small IPv4, adjusting Small IPv6 up - from Jan1,2013.
4) optional - revise other IPv6 boundaries - probably does not really have big fiscal impact, and deserves separate discussion.

Now, I guess we can all benefit from John Curran opinion on point 1, at least.

-- dk@

From celestea at usc.edu  Thu Mar 15 18:47:10 2012
From: celestea at usc.edu (Celeste Anderson)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:47:10 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN registration fee data (was: Status of
	realigning the IPv6 fee structure?)
In-Reply-To: <B47D10CD-D165-45E6-AF38-97A79D5C5167@corp.arin.net>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu> <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
	<57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<4F616AEB.5080701@emanon.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0CB8@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<B47D10CD-D165-45E6-AF38-97A79D5C5167@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <070401cd02fd$8e604e30$ab20ea90$@usc.edu>

John,

Thank you for the information.  It is useful and I appreciated the details.

--celeste.

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:37 PM
To: Kevin Blumberg
Cc: arin-discuss List
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN registration fee data (was: Status of
realigning the IPv6 fee structure?)

On Mar 14, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
> The other issue is how many ARIN members are X-Small? I haven't been 
> able to find that data. If it is somewhere please share :)

Sorry for the delay in putting this information together...

I need to preface by noting that there is a distinct difference between how
many member are in a given registration services category versus how many
members are paying fees _because they are in that category_. We charge based
the larger of the IPv4 size and IPv6 size category fee, so many
organizations with both resources are simply paying the generally larger
IPv4 registration services fees.

So, of the 4109 members with registration services, they break down as
following with respect to registration services size category based on their
IPv4 resource holdings:

x-small: 1,229   
  small: 1,902
 medium:   625
  large:   103
x-large:    72
 
Total  = 3,931 members with IPv4 registration services. 

With respect to just their IPv6 resource holdings:

x-small:     7   (smaller than /40 - critical inf.)
  small: 1,573   (/40 to /32)
 medium:    37   (/31 to /30)
  large:    29   ...
x-large:     8
xx-large:    1
 
Total  = 1,655 members with IPv6 registration services.

If you want to look at the full categories or associated fees, go here:
<https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html>

As noted, most members are paying based on their IPv4 category, as their
IPv6 fee is smaller.  This means that when it comes to actual registration
services fees billed, the distribution is as follows:

IPv4      
 Xtra Large  =    72
 Large       =   103
 Medium      =   625
 Small       = 1,902
 Xtra Small  =   995
 
IPv6
 Small       =   406    
 Medium      =     2
 Large       =     3
 XX Large    =     1
 
Total        = 4,109 Members with registration services.

Of the 406 members paying IPv6 small category, 234 were IPv4 x-small member
who ended up to paying slightly more ($438) in 2011 as IPv6 waiver went from
50% to %25. Rather than have this happen again in 2012, the Board opted to
maintain the 25%
IPv6 fee waiver (it was originally scheduled to phase out as
100/75/50/25/0 over 2008 through 2012.)  The exercise before all of us is to
determine an appropriate long-term fee schedule that recognizes over time
the member change from IPv4 to IPv6.

So, this is probably more a little more information than you wanted, but
hopefully should help with the discussion.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




 

_______________________________________________
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 mark at visuallink.com  Thu Mar 15 18:57:44 2012
From: mark at visuallink.com (mark)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:57:44 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss]
	=?utf-8?q?ARIN_registration_fee_data_=28was=3A_Sta?=
	=?utf-8?q?tus_of=09realigning_the_IPv6_fee_structure_=3F=29?=
In-Reply-To: <FB04A75F-8E88-47AC-A44D-99A24186A972@intuix.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu>
	<4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>	<57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>	<4F616AEB.5080701@emanon.com>	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0CB8@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>	<B47D10CD-D165-45E6-AF38-97A79D5C5167@corp.arin.net>	<DD3E4BBD-E379-4265-A3C7-330D0FD69E34@delong.com>
	<FB04A75F-8E88-47AC-A44D-99A24186A972@intuix.com>
Message-ID: <088b269b-4932-42a9-b1e4-f843d95f9a00@blur>

John,

 I know it is public info but what is AIRN,s yearly cost of operation?  And  
how much money did AIRN take in last year. This would be usefull info  
reguarding this discussion.

           Mark Bayliss
        Visual Link Internet 
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

-----Original message-----
From: Dmitry Kohmanyuk <dk at intuix.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Cc: arin-discuss List <arin-discuss at arin.net>, John Curran  
<jcurran at arin.net>
Sent: Thu, Mar 15, 2012 22:29:15 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ARIN registration fee data (was: Status of	 
realigning the IPv6 fee structure?)


On Mar 15, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Looks to me like the current scope of the problem is limited to $406,000
> in reduced revenue with an overall scope limit of $1,229,000+growth
> total scope.
> 
> By that, I mean that if we simply declared /32 to be x-small and set the
> fee at $1,250, the loss to ARIN in revenue from current holders 
> would be limited to the 406 currently paying based on their IPv6
> small status (or less) and that there is no possibility of it applying
> to more than the 1,229 x-small IPv4 members (+growth) even if
> everyone were to take up IPv6 resources tomorrow.
> 
> Would that be an accurate conclusion from the data, John?
> 
> If that is the total impact, then, I would actually support declaring /32
> to be extra-small and would support subsequent policy to eliminate
> the /36 as moot.

Well, we have to have X-small and Small categories, right?

And somebody suggested to put IPv6 category limits on nibble boundaries  
(divisible by 4.)

So, I see those action points:

1) consider whether ARIN can afford to lose $400K right now (with potential  
to lose more in 2013.)
2) if 1 is yes - move on adjusting fee for Small category now to march  
X-small IPv4 (see impact above.)
3) optional - introduce X-Small IPv6 at /36 and set its fees to match  
X-small IPv4, adjusting Small IPv6 up - from Jan1,2013.
4) optional - revise other IPv6 boundaries - probably does not really have  
big fiscal impact, and deserves separate discussion.

Now, I guess we can all benefit from John Curran opinion on point 1, at  
least.

-- dk@
_______________________________________________
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120315/15758f88/attachment.html>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Mar 15 19:43:13 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:43:13 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN registration fee data (was: Status
	of	realigning the IPv6 fee structure ?)
In-Reply-To: <088b269b-4932-42a9-b1e4-f843d95f9a00@blur>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu> <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
	<57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<4F616AEB.5080701@emanon.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0CB8@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<B47D10CD-D165-45E6-AF38-97A79D5C5167@corp.arin.net>
	<DD3E4BBD-E379-4265-A3C7-330D0FD69E34@delong.com>
	<FB04A75F-8E88-47AC-A44D-99A24186A972@intuix.com>
	<088b269b-4932-42a9-b1e4-f843d95f9a00@blur>
Message-ID: <297476C5-9373-4D1A-B78B-D44031B59AFC@arin.net>

> On Mar 15, 2012, at 4:57 PM, mark wrote:
> 
> I know it is public info but what is AIRN,s yearly cost of operation?  And how much money did AIRN take in last year. This would be usefull info reguarding this discussion.

Mark - 
 
   The 2012 Budget is $16.9 Million.  The planned receipts for 2012
   are $15.7 Million.  You can find the budget here, as well as past
   budgets:  <https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html>

   You might also want to review the Financial Report from the Philly
   member meeting, which includes 2010 & 2009 numbers, details on
   depreciation, and trends.  You can find it online here:
   <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/stratton_fsd.pdf>

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Mar 15 19:45:47 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:45:47 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN registration fee data (was: Status of
 realigning the IPv6 fee structure?)
In-Reply-To: <FB04A75F-8E88-47AC-A44D-99A24186A972@intuix.com>
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu> <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
	<57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<4F616AEB.5080701@emanon.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0CB8@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<B47D10CD-D165-45E6-AF38-97A79D5C5167@corp.arin.net>
	<DD3E4BBD-E379-4265-A3C7-330D0FD69E34@delong.com>
	<FB04A75F-8E88-47AC-A44D-99A24186A972@intuix.com>
Message-ID: <BD886FE2-8542-40E2-83D7-F3FFC7144B23@arin.net>

On Mar 15, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote:

> So, I see those action points:
> 
> 1) consider whether ARIN can afford to lose $400K right now (with potential to lose more in 2013.)
> 2) if 1 is yes - move on adjusting fee for Small category now to march X-small IPv4 (see impact above.)
> 3) optional - introduce X-Small IPv6 at /36 and set its fees to match X-small IPv4, adjusting Small IPv6 up - from Jan1,2013.
> 4) optional - revise other IPv6 boundaries - probably does not really have big fiscal impact, and deserves separate discussion.
> 
> Now, I guess we can all benefit from John Curran opinion on point 1, at least.

Dmitry - 
 
  You've actually hit upon an item that is ultimately 
  a determination for the Board of Trustees, but given
  our strong reserve position, that level of reduction
  in planned receipts from fees is not inconceivable. 

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIn




From rs at seastrom.com  Thu Mar 15 20:07:49 2012
From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:07:49 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN registration fee data (was: Status of
	realigning the IPv6 fee structure?)
In-Reply-To: <FB04A75F-8E88-47AC-A44D-99A24186A972@intuix.com> (Dmitry
	Kohmanyuk's message of "Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:29:15 -0700")
References: <844e6fec-cc6d-40bd-be2b-6a10abf167c4@zimbra.network1.net>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801C17033@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<2E16B13E-44F8-427B-9529-EF50ED26CC90@delong.com>
	<DFB5A45D81B51545ABBBEDD2F167C29435577170@deathstar3.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<20eb48401a52f86f0ea64ec30e860838@robertmarder.com>
	<4F612448.30601@umn.edu> <4F613E6C.6000104@indiana.edu>
	<B7B92536-02ED-4A1D-B996-D244E746C7A7@la-broadband.com>
	<4F61498E.7050301@umn.edu>
	<57157.107.38.3.77.1331776774.squirrel@mail.centauricom.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0985@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<4F616AEB.5080701@emanon.com>
	<7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E7694C0CB8@SBS2011.thewireinc.local>
	<B47D10CD-D165-45E6-AF38-97A79D5C5167@corp.arin.net>
	<DD3E4BBD-E379-4265-A3C7-330D0FD69E34@delong.com>
	<FB04A75F-8E88-47AC-A44D-99A24186A972@intuix.com>
Message-ID: <86vcm5jtm2.fsf@seastrom.com>


Dmitry Kohmanyuk <dk at intuix.com> writes:

> Well, we have to have X-small and Small categories, right?

Not necessarily.  It would be possible, for instance, to leave out
Small and Medium as sizes that can be meaningfully set by IPv6
holdings.

Consider the following statement:

   One COULD BE x-small based on the totality of the evidence (v4 and v6)
   if you have a /32 which is the standard minimum allocation
   notwithstanding the historical /35 and the current /36) 

   BUT

   There is NO WAY you are Small or even Medium if you have more than a
   /32."  For instance, you could say /28 makes you at minimum Large and
   /24 makes you at minimum X-Large.  This follows the ranges where they
   currently reside and represents my advocacy for sliding the subnet
   mask in nybble quanta.

I suspect based on the IPv4 holdings of organizations that could
credibly qualify for that amount of space, there would be no change in
their payments if we went with that model.

> And somebody suggested to put IPv6 category limits on nibble
> boundaries (divisible by 4.)

Four bits, divisible by 16, and yeah, not just the boundaries for
billing but for allocation.  There are leftovers from IPv4 austerity
model thinking that we all have to get over, in the way we think about
IPv6 space.

> So, I see those action points:
>
> 1) consider whether ARIN can afford to lose $400K right now (with
> potential to lose more in 2013.)

I'm sure that won't be a problem, but leave that to the fincom.

> 2) if 1 is yes - move on adjusting fee for Small category now to
> march X-small IPv4 (see impact above.)

Not necessarily necessary, see the model I espouse above.

> 3) optional - introduce X-Small IPv6 at /36 and set its fees to
> match X-small IPv4, adjusting Small IPv6 up - from Jan1,2013.

Opposed in general to the notion of a /36, but specifically opposed to
any model that incents organizations to request a /36.  That smells
like slow-start, which is not the IPv6 way.

> 4) optional - revise other IPv6 boundaries - probably does not
> really have big fiscal impact, and deserves separate discussion.

I like nybbles.  Perhaps others will agree with me over time.

> Now, I guess we can all benefit from John Curran opinion on point 1, at least.

-r