From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Mon Apr 8 00:18:11 2013 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 21:18:11 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule Message-ID: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> Hi, Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's proposed fee schedule. Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category. However, the current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in the XX-small category. See the tables here for more info: https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6. A policy proposal (2013-3) has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP, some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without justification. However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive of that discussion. Briefly summarized: o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it. This, in turn leads to two consequences: o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes increasingly parsimonious with address space. o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if that space is from a single aggregable /32. I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows: "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or IPv6 allocation." This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee. It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need to be revisited anyway. I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing. Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not impact myself nor my current or previous employers. Michael Sinatra Energy Sciences Network LBNL/DOE Office of Science From rcarpen at network1.net Mon Apr 8 00:44:52 2013 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 00:44:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <1205827997.101316.1365396292075.JavaMail.root@network1.net> I've been reading all of the discussion about the fee schedule and proposal 2013-3. This is the first suggestion that makes sense to me. I think it is a great detriment to the deployment of IPv6 to hand out anything smaller than /32 to ISPs. I also think that the proposed fee schedule does potentially have an unintended side-effect of encouraging bad behavior. Disclaimer: This potentially would affect my company and my customers. Although, I do not have any problem at all paying (or suggesting to my ISP customers that they should be paying) the rates set forth by the pending fee schedule. I would always choose a /32 for an ISP, as that is the proper thing to do. thanks, -Randy ----- Original Message ----- > Hi, > > Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy > 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's > proposed fee schedule. Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows > for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category. However, the > current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the > "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in > the XX-small category. > > See the tables here for more info: > > https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html > > Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a > disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6. A policy proposal (2013-3) > has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as > small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP, > some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without > justification. > > However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of > number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have > been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive > of that discussion. Briefly summarized: > > o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit > into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it. > This, in turn leads to two consequences: > > o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes > increasingly parsimonious with address space. > o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less > likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, > and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its > space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if > that space is from a single aggregable /32. > > I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows: > > "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 > will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on > their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be > calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or > IPv6 allocation." > > This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or > XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with > allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay > the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee. > > It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined > with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of > the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a > sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to > provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need > to be revisited anyway. > > I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize > the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to > get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, > please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if > there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing. > > Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not > impact myself nor my current or previous employers. > > Michael Sinatra > Energy Sciences Network > LBNL/DOE Office of Science > _______________________________________________ > 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 bjones at vt.edu Tue Apr 9 08:41:43 2013 From: bjones at vt.edu (Brian Jones) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:41:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <1205827997.101316.1365396292075.JavaMail.root@network1.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <1205827997.101316.1365396292075.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Message-ID: Here here! This is the most reasonable suggestion I have heard as well. " This is the first suggestion that makes sense to me. I think it is a great detriment to the deployment of IPv6 to hand out anything smaller than /32 to ISPs. I also think that the proposed fee schedule does potentially have an unintended side-effect of encouraging bad behavior. " -- Brian On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > > I've been reading all of the discussion about the fee schedule and > proposal 2013-3. > > This is the first suggestion that makes sense to me. I think it is a great > detriment to the deployment of IPv6 to hand out anything smaller than /32 > to ISPs. I also think that the proposed fee schedule does potentially have > an unintended side-effect of encouraging bad behavior. > > Disclaimer: This potentially would affect my company and my customers. > Although, I do not have any problem at all paying (or suggesting to my ISP > customers that they should be paying) the rates set forth by the pending > fee schedule. I would always choose a /32 for an ISP, as that is the proper > thing to do. > > thanks, > -Randy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Hi, > > > > Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy > > 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's > > proposed fee schedule. Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows > > for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category. However, the > > current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the > > "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in > > the XX-small category. > > > > See the tables here for more info: > > > > https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html > > > > Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a > > disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6. A policy proposal (2013-3) > > has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as > > small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP, > > some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without > > justification. > > > > However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of > > number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have > > been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive > > of that discussion. Briefly summarized: > > > > o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit > > into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it. > > This, in turn leads to two consequences: > > > > o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes > > increasingly parsimonious with address space. > > o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less > > likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, > > and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its > > space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if > > that space is from a single aggregable /32. > > > > I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows: > > > > "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 > > will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on > > their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be > > calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or > > IPv6 allocation." > > > > This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or > > XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with > > allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay > > the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee. > > > > It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined > > with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of > > the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a > > sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to > > provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need > > to be revisited anyway. > > > > I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize > > the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to > > get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, > > please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if > > there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing. > > > > Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not > > impact myself nor my current or previous employers. > > > > Michael Sinatra > > Energy Sciences Network > > LBNL/DOE Office of Science > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: From sweeny at indiana.edu Tue Apr 9 09:05:28 2013 From: sweeny at indiana.edu (Brent Sweeny) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:05:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <51641218.7030509@indiana.edu> I agree that it makes a lot of sense and seems to incorporate the right kind of incentives (for adoption of v6) without too much 'cost'. I'd also like to hear, as Michael solicited, if there are good reasons not to do this; absent them, this sounds like a good way to go. Brent Sweeny, Indiana University On 4/8/2013 12:18 AM, Michael Sinatra wrote: > Hi, > > Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy > 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's > proposed fee schedule. Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows > for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category. However, the > current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the > "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in > the XX-small category. > > See the tables here for more info: > > https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html > > Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a > disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6. A policy proposal (2013-3) > has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as > small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP, > some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without > justification. > > However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of > number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have > been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive > of that discussion. Briefly summarized: > > o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit > into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it. > This, in turn leads to two consequences: > > o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes > increasingly parsimonious with address space. > o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less > likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, > and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its > space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if > that space is from a single aggregable /32. > > I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows: > > "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 > will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on > their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be > calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or > IPv6 allocation." > > This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or > XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with > allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay > the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee. > > It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined > with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of > the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a > sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to > provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need > to be revisited anyway. > > I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize > the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to > get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, > please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if > there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing. > > Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not > impact myself nor my current or previous employers. > > Michael Sinatra > Energy Sciences Network > LBNL/DOE Office of Science > _______________________________________________ > 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 tim at communicatefreely.net Tue Apr 9 09:44:19 2013 From: tim at communicatefreely.net (Tim St. Pierre) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:44:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <51641218.7030509@indiana.edu> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <51641218.7030509@indiana.edu> Message-ID: <51641B33.9000004@communicatefreely.net> I'm all for this as well. We are a very small ISP, and we requested a /32 because that was the "correct" thing to do. We don't have any IPv4 allocations yet, so we are paying quite a lot just to be forward thinking with IPv6. This also provides an incentive to be frugal with IPv4 space. Once IPv4 is done, we can revisit the fee structure, it's important that economic considerations don't get in the way of sound technical principles. -Tim St. Pierre, Communicate Freely On 13-04-09 09:05 AM, Brent Sweeny wrote: > I agree that it makes a lot of sense and seems to incorporate the right > kind of incentives (for adoption of v6) without too much 'cost'. I'd > also like to hear, as Michael solicited, if there are good reasons not > to do this; absent them, this sounds like a good way to go. > Brent Sweeny, Indiana University > > On 4/8/2013 12:18 AM, Michael Sinatra wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy >> 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's >> proposed fee schedule. Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows >> for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category. However, the >> current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the >> "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in >> the XX-small category. >> >> See the tables here for more info: >> >> https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html >> >> Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a >> disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6. A policy proposal (2013-3) >> has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as >> small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP, >> some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without >> justification. >> >> However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of >> number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have >> been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive >> of that discussion. Briefly summarized: >> >> o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit >> into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it. >> This, in turn leads to two consequences: >> >> o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes >> increasingly parsimonious with address space. >> o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less >> likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, >> and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its >> space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if >> that space is from a single aggregable /32. >> >> I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows: >> >> "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 >> will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on >> their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be >> calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or >> IPv6 allocation." >> >> This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or >> XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with >> allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay >> the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee. >> >> It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined >> with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of >> the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a >> sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to >> provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need >> to be revisited anyway. >> >> I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize >> the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to >> get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, >> please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if >> there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing. >> >> Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not >> impact myself nor my current or previous employers. >> >> Michael Sinatra >> Energy Sciences Network >> LBNL/DOE Office of Science >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. -- -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289 225 1220 x5101 tim at communicatefreely.net www.communicatefreely.net From mstotyn at enmax.com Thu Apr 11 11:15:18 2013 From: mstotyn at enmax.com (Stotyn, Mel) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:15:18 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <1205827997.101316.1365396292075.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Message-ID: <16377D27BA4075438EC19DE72E29156AC5D0E4D1@CORPMBXEP02.enmax.com> +1 Mel Stotyn Senior Operations Specialist ENMAX Envision Inc. mstotyn at enmax.com Phone: 403 514-3443 ________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Jones Sent: April 9, 2013 6:42 AM To: Randy Carpenter Cc: arin-discuss Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule Here here! This is the most reasonable suggestion I have heard as well. " This is the first suggestion that makes sense to me. I think it is a great detriment to the deployment of IPv6 to hand out anything smaller than /32 to ISPs. I also think that the proposed fee schedule does potentially have an unintended side-effect of encouraging bad behavior. " -- Brian On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Randy Carpenter > wrote: I've been reading all of the discussion about the fee schedule and proposal 2013-3. This is the first suggestion that makes sense to me. I think it is a great detriment to the deployment of IPv6 to hand out anything smaller than /32 to ISPs. I also think that the proposed fee schedule does potentially have an unintended side-effect of encouraging bad behavior. Disclaimer: This potentially would affect my company and my customers. Although, I do not have any problem at all paying (or suggesting to my ISP customers that they should be paying) the rates set forth by the pending fee schedule. I would always choose a /32 for an ISP, as that is the proper thing to do. thanks, -Randy ----- Original Message ----- > Hi, > > Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy > 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's > proposed fee schedule. Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows > for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category. However, the > current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the > "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in > the XX-small category. > > See the tables here for more info: > > https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html > > Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a > disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6. A policy proposal (2013-3) > has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as > small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP, > some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without > justification. > > However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of > number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have > been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive > of that discussion. Briefly summarized: > > o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit > into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it. > This, in turn leads to two consequences: > > o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes > increasingly parsimonious with address space. > o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less > likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, > and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its > space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if > that space is from a single aggregable /32. > > I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows: > > "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 > will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on > their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be > calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or > IPv6 allocation." > > This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or > XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with > allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay > the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee. > > It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined > with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of > the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a > sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to > provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need > to be revisited anyway. > > I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize > the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to > get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, > please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if > there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing. > > Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not > impact myself nor my current or previous employers. > > Michael Sinatra > Energy Sciences Network > LBNL/DOE Office of Science > _______________________________________________ > 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. ************************************************************* This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding. ************************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Kuhn at ontario.ca Thu Apr 11 11:37:35 2013 From: John.Kuhn at ontario.ca (Kuhn, John (MGS)) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:37:35 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <16377D27BA4075438EC19DE72E29156AC5D0E4D1@CORPMBXEP02.enmax.com> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <1205827997.101316.1365396292075.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <16377D27BA4075438EC19DE72E29156AC5D0E4D1@CORPMBXEP02.enmax.com> Message-ID: Totally agree John kuhn enterprise Solution Architect Information Protection Centre OCCIO, Corporate Security Branch Ministry of Government Services Personal * 416-212-0684 | * john.kuhn at ontario.ca Urgent Inquires (24/7) * 416-327-2100 * corporate.security at ontario.ca From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Stotyn, Mel Sent: April-11-13 11:15 AM To: arin-discuss Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule +1 Mel Stotyn Senior Operations Specialist ENMAX Envision Inc. mstotyn at enmax.com Phone: 403 514-3443 ________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Jones Sent: April 9, 2013 6:42 AM To: Randy Carpenter Cc: arin-discuss Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule Here here! This is the most reasonable suggestion I have heard as well. " This is the first suggestion that makes sense to me. I think it is a great detriment to the deployment of IPv6 to hand out anything smaller than /32 to ISPs. I also think that the proposed fee schedule does potentially have an unintended side-effect of encouraging bad behavior. " -- Brian On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Randy Carpenter > wrote: I've been reading all of the discussion about the fee schedule and proposal 2013-3. This is the first suggestion that makes sense to me. I think it is a great detriment to the deployment of IPv6 to hand out anything smaller than /32 to ISPs. I also think that the proposed fee schedule does potentially have an unintended side-effect of encouraging bad behavior. Disclaimer: This potentially would affect my company and my customers. Although, I do not have any problem at all paying (or suggesting to my ISP customers that they should be paying) the rates set forth by the pending fee schedule. I would always choose a /32 for an ISP, as that is the proper thing to do. thanks, -Randy ----- Original Message ----- > Hi, > > Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy > 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's > proposed fee schedule. Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows > for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category. However, the > current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the > "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in > the XX-small category. > > See the tables here for more info: > > https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html > > Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a > disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6. A policy proposal (2013-3) > has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as > small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP, > some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without > justification. > > However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of > number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have > been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive > of that discussion. Briefly summarized: > > o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit > into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it. > This, in turn leads to two consequences: > > o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes > increasingly parsimonious with address space. > o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less > likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, > and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its > space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if > that space is from a single aggregable /32. > > I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows: > > "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 > will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on > their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be > calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or > IPv6 allocation." > > This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or > XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with > allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay > the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee. > > It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined > with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of > the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a > sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to > provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need > to be revisited anyway. > > I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize > the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to > get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, > please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if > there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing. > > Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not > impact myself nor my current or previous employers. > > Michael Sinatra > Energy Sciences Network > LBNL/DOE Office of Science > _______________________________________________ > 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. ******************************* This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding. ****************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msalim at localweb.com Thu Apr 11 11:43:01 2013 From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:43:01 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: Hello, I am in agreement with Michael Sinatra's tweak. This seems to be a fair and balanced suggestion and only affects X-S and XX-S ISPs and who also have a /32 IPv6 allocation. There is no affect for ISPs who are S or larger, nor for ISPs who are X-S or XX-S and have a /36 IPv6 allocation or no IPv6 allocation. On the topic of /32 vs /36, I do not understand why a /32 should not be the smallest allocation that ARIN carves out. This is a very convenient size that readily allows ISPs to aggregate and accommodate IPv4 addressing. A /32 still allows for up to 4 billion allocations. Is there a chance that we will need more than 4 billion allocations any time soon (e.g. more than 4 billion ISPs wanting allocations)? If so, how about reserving or setting aside some portion to carve into /36 if we ever need to, and only allocating /32 for now. 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 Michael Sinatra Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 12:18 AM To: arin-discuss Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule Hi, Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's proposed fee schedule. Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category. However, the current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in the XX-small category. See the tables here for more info: https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6. A policy proposal (2013-3) has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP, some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without justification. However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive of that discussion. Briefly summarized: o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it. This, in turn leads to two consequences: o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes increasingly parsimonious with address space. o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if that space is from a single aggregable /32. I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows: "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or IPv6 allocation." This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee. It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need to be revisited anyway. I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing. Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not impact myself nor my current or previous employers. Michael Sinatra Energy Sciences Network LBNL/DOE Office of Science _______________________________________________ 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 tim at communicatefreely.net Thu Apr 11 11:48:39 2013 From: tim at communicatefreely.net (Tim St. Pierre) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:48:39 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <5166DB57.6080502@communicatefreely.net> I think if we get beyond 4 billion ISPs in the world, we are going to have other problems much more important that address space. -Tim On 13-04-11 11:43 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote: > Hello, > > I am in agreement with Michael Sinatra's tweak. This seems to be a fair and balanced suggestion and only affects X-S and XX-S ISPs and who also have a /32 IPv6 allocation. There is no affect for ISPs who are S or larger, nor for ISPs who are X-S or XX-S and have a /36 IPv6 allocation or no IPv6 allocation. > > On the topic of /32 vs /36, I do not understand why a /32 should not be the smallest allocation that ARIN carves out. This is a very convenient size that readily allows ISPs to aggregate and accommodate IPv4 addressing. A /32 still allows for up to 4 billion allocations. Is there a chance that we will need more than 4 billion allocations any time soon (e.g. more than 4 billion ISPs wanting allocations)? If so, how about reserving or setting aside some portion to carve into /36 if we ever need to, and only allocating /32 for now. > > 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 Michael Sinatra > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 12:18 AM > To: arin-discuss > Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule > > Hi, > > Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's proposed fee schedule. Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category. However, the current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in the XX-small category. > > See the tables here for more info: > > https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html > > Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6. A policy proposal (2013-3) has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP, some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without justification. > > However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive of that discussion. Briefly summarized: > > o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it. > This, in turn leads to two consequences: > > o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes increasingly parsimonious with address space. > o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if that space is from a single aggregable /32. > > I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows: > > "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or > IPv6 allocation." > > This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee. > > It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need to be revisited anyway. > > I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing. > > Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not impact myself nor my current or previous employers. > > Michael Sinatra > Energy Sciences Network > LBNL/DOE Office of Science > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289 225 1220 x5101 tim at communicatefreely.net www.communicatefreely.net From jcurran at arin.net Thu Apr 11 14:37:10 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:37:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote: > Hello, > > I am in agreement with Michael Sinatra's tweak. This seems to be a fair and balanced suggestion and only affects X-S and XX-S ISPs and who also have a /32 IPv6 allocation. There is no affect for ISPs who are S or larger, nor for ISPs who are X-S or XX-S and have a /36 IPv6 allocation or no IPv6 allocation. > > On the topic of /32 vs /36, I do not understand why a /32 should not be the smallest allocation that ARIN carves out. Under current policy, ISPs get a IPv6 /32 as their initial allocation, unless they specifically request a /36 instead: > 6.5.2. Initial allocation to LIRs > > 6.5.2.1. Size > ? All allocations shall be made on nibble boundaries. > ? In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless they specifically request a /36. In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation. Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to request a /36 IPv6 block at all, contrary to present policy? If so, this should raised on the Public Policy mailing list (ppml) for further discussion. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jesse at la-broadband.com Thu Apr 11 13:51:50 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:51:50 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <5166DB57.6080502@communicatefreely.net> Message-ID: Famous last words... Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/11/13 8:48 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" wrote: >I think if we get beyond 4 billion ISPs in the world, we are going to >have other problems much more important that address space. > >-Tim > >On 13-04-11 11:43 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am in agreement with Michael Sinatra's tweak. This seems to be a >>fair and balanced suggestion and only affects X-S and XX-S ISPs and who >>also have a /32 IPv6 allocation. There is no affect for ISPs who are S >>or larger, nor for ISPs who are X-S or XX-S and have a /36 IPv6 >>allocation or no IPv6 allocation. >> >> On the topic of /32 vs /36, I do not understand why a /32 should not be >>the smallest allocation that ARIN carves out. This is a very convenient >>size that readily allows ISPs to aggregate and accommodate IPv4 >>addressing. A /32 still allows for up to 4 billion allocations. Is >>there a chance that we will need more than 4 billion allocations any >>time soon (e.g. more than 4 billion ISPs wanting allocations)? If so, >>how about reserving or setting aside some portion to carve into /36 if >>we ever need to, and only allocating /32 for now. >> >> 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 Michael Sinatra >> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 12:18 AM >> To: arin-discuss >> Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule >> >> Hi, >> >> Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy >>2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's >>proposed fee schedule. Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows >>for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category. However, the >>current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the >>"standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in >>the XX-small category. >> >> See the tables here for more info: >> >> https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html >> >> Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a >>disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6. A policy proposal (2013-3) >>has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as >>small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP, >>some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without >>justification. >> >> However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of >>number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have >>been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive >>of that discussion. Briefly summarized: >> >> o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit >>into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it. >> This, in turn leads to two consequences: >> >> o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes >>increasingly parsimonious with address space. >> o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less >>likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, >>and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its >>space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if >>that space is from a single aggregable /32. >> >> I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows: >> >> "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 >>will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on >>their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be >>calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or >> IPv6 allocation." >> >> This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or >>XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with >>allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay >>the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee. >> >> It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined >>with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of >>the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a >>sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to >>provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need >>to be revisited anyway. >> >> I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize >>the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to >>get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, >>please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if >>there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing. >> >> Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not >>impact myself nor my current or previous employers. >> >> Michael Sinatra >> Energy Sciences Network >> LBNL/DOE Office of Science >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > >-- >-- >Tim St. Pierre >System Operator >Communicate Freely >289 225 1220 x5101 >tim at communicatefreely.net >www.communicatefreely.net > >_______________________________________________ >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 Thu Apr 11 16:11:18 2013 From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:11:18 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Thanks John, I stand corrected - the policy is indeed worded as you state. Having said that, the policy as proposed for the July implementation, has left me with the impression that ARIN is having regrets about parceling out /32 blocks early on for even the smallest requests (i.e. for early adopters), and wishes they had started with /36 instead. It being not feasible to forcibly retrieve those /32 blocks from ISPs, ARIN is saying to these early adopter X-S and XX-S ISP's: "Hand back your /32 and renumber to a new /36 or pay a higher fee if you want to keep your /32". Hence my comment. 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: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:37 PM To: Mike A. Salim Cc: arin-discuss Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote: > Hello, > > I am in agreement with Michael Sinatra's tweak. This seems to be a fair and balanced suggestion and only affects X-S and XX-S ISPs and who also have a /32 IPv6 allocation. There is no affect for ISPs who are S or larger, nor for ISPs who are X-S or XX-S and have a /36 IPv6 allocation or no IPv6 allocation. > > On the topic of /32 vs /36, I do not understand why a /32 should not be the smallest allocation that ARIN carves out. Under current policy, ISPs get a IPv6 /32 as their initial allocation, unless they specifically request a /36 instead: > 6.5.2. Initial allocation to LIRs > > 6.5.2.1. Size > ? All allocations shall be made on nibble boundaries. > ? In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless they specifically request a /36. In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation. Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to request a /36 IPv6 block at all, contrary to present policy? If so, this should raised on the Public Policy mailing list (ppml) for further discussion. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Thu Apr 11 16:36:28 2013 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:36:28 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <51671ECC.4060206@umn.edu> I wouldn't say regrets, but that we want to allow people to have a smaller block with a smaller fee if that work for their business situation. With current policy and with ARIN-2013-3 every ISP is entitled to a /32, it would be a business choice of an ISP to select /35 or /40 with ARIN-2013-3. On 4/11/13 15:11 , Mike A. Salim wrote: > Thanks John, I stand corrected - the policy is indeed worded as you state. > > Having said that, the policy as proposed for the July implementation, has left me with the impression that ARIN is having regrets about parceling out /32 blocks early on for even the smallest requests (i.e. for early adopters), and wishes they had started with /36 instead. It being not feasible to forcibly retrieve those /32 blocks from ISPs, ARIN is saying to these early adopter X-S and XX-S ISP's: "Hand back your /32 and renumber to a new /36 or pay a higher fee if you want to keep your /32". Hence my comment. > > 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: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:37 PM > To: Mike A. Salim > Cc: arin-discuss > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule > > On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I am in agreement with Michael Sinatra's tweak. This seems to be a fair and balanced suggestion and only affects X-S and XX-S ISPs and who also have a /32 IPv6 allocation. There is no affect for ISPs who are S or larger, nor for ISPs who are X-S or XX-S and have a /36 IPv6 allocation or no IPv6 allocation. >> >> On the topic of /32 vs /36, I do not understand why a /32 should not be the smallest allocation that ARIN carves out. > > Under current policy, ISPs get a IPv6 /32 as their initial allocation, unless they specifically request a /36 instead: > > > >> 6.5.2. Initial allocation to LIRs >> >> 6.5.2.1. Size >> ? All allocations shall be made on nibble boundaries. >> ? In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless they specifically request a /36. In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation. > > Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to request a /36 IPv6 block at all, contrary to present policy? If so, this should raised on the Public Policy mailing list (ppml) for further 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. > -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ From jcurran at arin.net Thu Apr 11 16:39:32 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:39:32 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3BDB2@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 11, 2013, at 4:11 PM, "Mike A. Salim" wrote: > Thanks John, I stand corrected - the policy is indeed worded as you state. > > Having said that, the policy as proposed for the July implementation, has left me with the impression that ARIN is having regrets about parceling out /32 blocks early on for even the smallest requests (i.e. for early adopters), and wishes they had started with /36 instead. It being not feasible to forcibly retrieve those /32 blocks from ISPs, ARIN is saying to these early adopter X-S and XX-S ISP's: "Hand back your /32 and renumber to a new /36 or pay a higher fee if you want to keep your /32". Hence my comment. Mike - ARIN doesn't "have regrets" - we just follow the policy that you folks develop and support via this mailing list and the Public Policy meetings. It's been noticed that the Revised Fee schedule has an "xx-small" category (at $500/year) which has never been there before, and Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 "Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs" has been proposed which would allow ARIN to make /40 assignments if requested by ISPs to put them in that category (we've never had an xx-small category before) This effectively extends the present option of asking for a /36 (to be in x-small) down another tier. We are also lowering fees for ISPs in the x-small category (down to $1000/year) but the problem, as stated by some, is that having an option that is even lower (at $500/year) would tempt ISPs to ask unwisely for smaller allocations just to save some money, and that this should not be an option available to them as a result of the inadvertent technical harm that they would be doing to themselves. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Thu Apr 11 20:15:58 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:15:58 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:37 , John Curran wrote: > On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I am in agreement with Michael Sinatra's tweak. This seems to be a fair and balanced suggestion and only affects X-S and XX-S ISPs and who also have a /32 IPv6 allocation. There is no affect for ISPs who are S or larger, nor for ISPs who are X-S or XX-S and have a /36 IPv6 allocation or no IPv6 allocation. >> >> On the topic of /32 vs /36, I do not understand why a /32 should not be the smallest allocation that ARIN carves out. > > Under current policy, ISPs get a IPv6 /32 as their initial allocation, > unless they specifically request a /36 instead: > > > >> 6.5.2. Initial allocation to LIRs >> >> 6.5.2.1. Size >> ? All allocations shall be made on nibble boundaries. >> ? In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless they specifically request a /36. In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation. > > Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to request > a /36 IPv6 block at all, contrary to present policy? If so, > this should raised on the Public Policy mailing list (ppml) > for further discussion. If you take out the fee incentive to do so, I think the policy issue is largely moot. Owen > > 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 owen at delong.com Thu Apr 11 20:20:19 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:20:19 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <2B844D50-C32D-4E74-8219-650C642441B1@delong.com> I don't think that is true at all. I think, rather, that the boards taking a "compromise proposal" which included /36 into policy in order to try and accommodate the issue of x-small ISP blocks (previous boundary was /32) and going even a step beyond that compromise is now forcing us to consider the fact that perhaps making policy to work around problems with the fee structure is not the optimal solution to fee problems and that we should, instead, address the problems with the fee structure head on. I think that Michael Sinatra's proposal provides a fair and balanced way to address that concern in the fee structure. Once the fee structure is updated such that there is no longer a financial incentive to request a smaller than /32 block, that the policy support for /36 would become anachronistic and could be easily deprecated by consensus of the community. I think that the goal here is actually to avoid issuing smaller than /32 blocks to ISPs. When the concern was issuing /36s, it was an unpleasant compromise from the /32 ideal. When we started talking about moving to /40, /44, or /48, it rapidly became evident that the community absolutely lacked support for /44 or /48 and that /40 was considered far from ideal. Owen On Apr 11, 2013, at 13:11 , Mike A. Salim wrote: > Thanks John, I stand corrected - the policy is indeed worded as you state. > > Having said that, the policy as proposed for the July implementation, has left me with the impression that ARIN is having regrets about parceling out /32 blocks early on for even the smallest requests (i.e. for early adopters), and wishes they had started with /36 instead. It being not feasible to forcibly retrieve those /32 blocks from ISPs, ARIN is saying to these early adopter X-S and XX-S ISP's: "Hand back your /32 and renumber to a new /36 or pay a higher fee if you want to keep your /32". Hence my comment. > > 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: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:37 PM > To: Mike A. Salim > Cc: arin-discuss > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule > > On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I am in agreement with Michael Sinatra's tweak. This seems to be a fair and balanced suggestion and only affects X-S and XX-S ISPs and who also have a /32 IPv6 allocation. There is no affect for ISPs who are S or larger, nor for ISPs who are X-S or XX-S and have a /36 IPv6 allocation or no IPv6 allocation. >> >> On the topic of /32 vs /36, I do not understand why a /32 should not be the smallest allocation that ARIN carves out. > > Under current policy, ISPs get a IPv6 /32 as their initial allocation, unless they specifically request a /36 instead: > > > >> 6.5.2. Initial allocation to LIRs >> >> 6.5.2.1. Size >> ? All allocations shall be made on nibble boundaries. >> ? In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless they specifically request a /36. In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation. > > Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to request a /36 IPv6 block at all, contrary to present policy? If so, this should raised on the Public Policy mailing list (ppml) for further 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 Fri Apr 12 08:40:58 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:40:58 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 11, 2013, at 8:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to request >> a /36 IPv6 block at all, contrary to present policy? If so, >> this should raised on the Public Policy mailing list (ppml) >> for further discussion. > > If you take out the fee incentive to do so, I think the policy issue is largely moot. Owen - It is very important to have a fee schedule which is "complete"; i.e. covers the entire range of possible address holdings. It is also good for the Board to be clear regarding the corresponding fee expectations for all ranges. The fee schedule should not be constraining the community discussion in any manner, and it would not be appropriate for the ARIN Board to use the fee schedule to preempt discussion of policy, including the proposed change in Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 "Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs" . The community should have the opportunity to consider the various of aspects of any proposed policy, including any fairness or technical concerns, and come to a conclusion regarding support or lack thereof. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Fri Apr 12 13:01:38 2013 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:01:38 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <51683DF2.3080907@burnttofu.net> On 04/12/13 05:40, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 11, 2013, at 8:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to request >>> a /36 IPv6 block at all, contrary to present policy? If so, >>> this should raised on the Public Policy mailing list (ppml) >>> for further discussion. >> >> If you take out the fee incentive to do so, I think the policy issue is largely moot. > > Owen - > > It is very important to have a fee schedule which is "complete"; > i.e. covers the entire range of possible address holdings. That's exactly why I proposed my tweak. Technically, a /36 ISP holding is still covered under the revised (and tweaked) schedule, but there is no incentive to ask for a /36, nor to refrain from automatically "upgrading" to the /32 that is already being held in reserve for each small ISP. I don't really care about the /36 issue; I personally think it's wrong and should go away, but I don't think that my tweak constrains current policy in any way, nor does it lead to an incomplete fee schedule. > It is > also good for the Board to be clear regarding the corresponding > fee expectations for all ranges. The fee schedule should not be > constraining the community discussion in any manner, Unfortunately, John, I believe this to already be the case. The pending fee schedule is driving 2013-3, a policy which nobody so far has professed to really like, but some people believe it's necessary to patch over the incentive issue with the pending fee schedule. The purpose of the tweak that I proposed is to remove the policy constraints that the fee schedule is creating. > and it would > not be appropriate for the ARIN Board to use the fee schedule to > preempt discussion of policy, including the proposed change in > Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 "Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs" > . Nobody is suggesting that the Board do this. It is also not appropriate for the Board, or the ARIN community, for that matter, to say that the fee schedule is immutable (when the reality is that it isn't) and drive sub-optimal policy as a result. If the Board adopts my suggestion, the ARIN community is still free to consider 2013-3, and there may even be reasons absent the pending fee schedule to consider that proposal. > The community should have the opportunity to consider the various > of aspects of any proposed policy, including any fairness or technical > concerns, and come to a conclusion regarding support or lack thereof. For the record, I have proposed this fee schedule tweak on PPML--twice so far. The closest thing I have received to an objection from that mailing list is that I should take it to -discuss, which I did. I plan to go back to PPML with a summary of what has been discussed on this list. Beyond that, I am not sure how to make a more formal proposal to the Board regarding fees. (It's probably on documented on somewhere, but, as you have seen, I can be a bit lazy at looking these things up. :) ) michael From rs at seastrom.com Fri Apr 12 13:13:04 2013 From: rs at seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:13:04 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <51683DF2.3080907@burnttofu.net> (Michael Sinatra's message of "Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:01:38 -0700") References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <51683DF2.3080907@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <86ppxzk6zj.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> Michael Sinatra writes: > For the record, I have proposed this fee schedule tweak on PPML--twice > so far. The closest thing I have received to an objection from that > mailing list is that I should take it to -discuss, which I did. I plan > to go back to PPML with a summary of what has been discussed on this > list. Beyond that, I am not sure how to make a more formal proposal to > the Board regarding fees. (It's probably on documented on somewhere, > but, as you have seen, I can be a bit lazy at looking these things up. :) ) It probably ought to get submitted via ACSP as well. -r From jcurran at arin.net Fri Apr 12 13:19:27 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:19:27 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <51683DF2.3080907@burnttofu.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <51683DF2.3080907@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB51963@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 12, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Michael Sinatra wrote: > > For the record, I have proposed this fee schedule tweak on PPML--twice > so far. The closest thing I have received to an objection from that > mailing list is that I should take it to -discuss, which I did. Which is excellent... > I plan to go back to PPML with a summary of what has been discussed on this > list. We've ac tually had quite a few proposals for changes to the structure of fee schedule, including rescaling the IPv6 categories upwards to provide for larger blocks in each range, completing waiving IPv6 fees, moving to a flat per-ISP fee, moving to per-record fees and substantial transaction fees including customer support, fees based on organizational revenue, etc. As a result, I'll raising the topic of overall structure and approach of the fee schedule to the ARIN Board at its next meeting to determine how they wish to proceed. The Board typically refers such things to its Finance Committee per its charter to review and recommend fee changes , and this may involve one or more rounds of community consultation as appropriate. I will be bringing your proposal to this discussion as well as others as a I can best describe. > Beyond that, I am not sure how to make a more formal proposal to > the Board regarding fees. (It's probably on documented on somewhere, > but, as you have seen, I can be a bit lazy at looking these things up. :) ) For the record, suggestions regarding ARIN's fees, services, and practices can be formally submitted here via the ARIN Suggestion Process , although that simply adds formal tracking to the receipt and disposition of anything submitted. To the extent that we can discern a suggestion on the mailing lists that is timely and topical, I will review them as well. FYI and thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Fri Apr 12 14:36:43 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:36:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> On Apr 12, 2013, at 05:40 , John Curran wrote: > On Apr 11, 2013, at 8:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to request >>> a /36 IPv6 block at all, contrary to present policy? If so, >>> this should raised on the Public Policy mailing list (ppml) >>> for further discussion. >> >> If you take out the fee incentive to do so, I think the policy issue is largely moot. > > Owen - > > It is very important to have a fee schedule which is "complete"; > i.e. covers the entire range of possible address holdings. It is Having a tier or tiers which is ?/32 would do that just fine. In the case of tiers, it would be important that these not be differentiated based on smaller IPv6 holdings in order to avoid creating an incentive for harmful policy. > also good for the Board to be clear regarding the corresponding > fee expectations for all ranges. The fee schedule should not be > constraining the community discussion in any manner, and it would > not be appropriate for the ARIN Board to use the fee schedule to > preempt discussion of policy, including the proposed change in > Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 "Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs" > . I don't see it that way. I see it as the entire reason 2013-3 exists is because the board created a problem by implementing a fee-structure which contains bad policy incentives. I realize this happened with the best of intentions. There is a relatively broad perception in the community (which is admittedly not 100% correct) that the policy process is open to everyone, but fee discussions are limited to members and the board sets fees without any requirement to take community input into account. I say not 100% correct because there are avenues for the community to provide input and because I believe that the board is unlikely to ignore community input even though it is within the board's purview to ignore it if they so choose. However, this means that once the board makes a decision on a fee structure, a perception begins to develop (again, not 100% accurate) that the clearest path to desirable results is to find that best result that can be achieved within the limits of the PDP and aim for that. This perception is the reason that the initial version of 2013-3 proposed issuing /48s to ISPs. It wasn't until statements were made indicating that the board would be very likely amenable to moving the XX-Small boundary to /40 that acceptance of moving the policy proposal from /48 to /40 began to gain acceptance. As such, from my perspective, the board would not be pre-empting discussion on this policy proposal, the board would be addressing a problem they (accidentally) created. The policy proposal is an inferior attempt to address that same issue. I assure you that if the community does not think that the board's solution is better than what is in the policy proposal, it will in no way inhibit discussion or preempt the proposal. > The community should have the opportunity to consider the various > of aspects of any proposed policy, including any fairness or technical > concerns, and come to a conclusion regarding support or lack thereof. Nobody is proposing otherwise. However, in this case, the proposal is an attempt to shoe-horn a correction to the fee structure into a corner of policy where it really doesn't belong. Owen From jcurran at arin.net Fri Apr 12 15:11:22 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:11:22 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 12, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Owen - >> >> It is very important to have a fee schedule which is "complete"; >> i.e. covers the entire range of possible address holdings. It is > > Having a tier or tiers which is ?/32 would do that just fine. > In the case of tiers, it would be important that these not be differentiated > based on smaller IPv6 holdings in order to avoid creating an incentive > for harmful policy. Owen - the community should be free to discuss and decide whether or not any given policy proposal is "harmful policy"... >> also good for the Board to be clear regarding the corresponding >> fee expectations for all ranges. The fee schedule should not be >> constraining the community discussion in any manner, and it would >> not be appropriate for the ARIN Board to use the fee schedule to >> preempt discussion of policy, including the proposed change in >> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 "Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs" >> . > ... > This perception is the reason that the initial version of 2013-3 proposed > issuing /48s to ISPs. It wasn't until statements were made indicating that > the board would be very likely amenable to moving the XX-Small > boundary to /40 that acceptance of moving the policy proposal from /48 > to /40 began to gain acceptance. My apologies at that initial confusion; as was pointed out be several folks, having the xx-small category at /48 neither made sense nor did it match the otherwise predictable linear progression that we were trying to achieve. The mistake was mine, and as previously noted, it is likely to be corrected as a matter of record. This does not mean that the Board "wants" or "doesn't want" IPv6 allocation policy to change, only that we want the community to have a predictable fee schedule as a backdrop for its policy considerations. We already have policy allowing ISPs to opt to receive a /36 and hence have aligned that on Revised fee schedule to match the x-small category (and are able to have lower fee for that x-small category because it is an opt-in category which is unlikely to consist of all ISPs.) In truth, the community needs to consider the smallest IPv6 allocation that is technically sound for ISPs. If there is no policy for /40 allocations, then none will be made, and today's x-small category will effectively remain the smallest fee category in use. One excellent aspect of this discussion is that it has raised a valid question as to whether the fee structure that we have used since ARIN's inception (that of size categories) is the best structure going forward, and that is an important question that the Board has looked at in the past but should likely revisit in light of the increased interest by the community and excellent suggestions for alternative structures... For example, would a fee structure which is unrelated to address holdings be a better approach and prevent fee/policy interactions? Would a fee structure which is tied more directly to registry costs (e.g. registry objects and/or transaction costs) be more appropriate? I believe that these are some aspects of a longer discussion to be held on this topic. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Fri Apr 12 15:41:38 2013 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:41:38 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <51686372.5020307@burnttofu.net> On 04/12/13 12:11, John Curran wrote: > In truth, the community needs to consider the smallest IPv6 allocation > that is technically sound for ISPs. I agree, and the pending fee schedule throws a financial wrench into that consideration. I am attempting to remove that wrench with my proposed tweak to the pending fee schedule. michael From owen at delong.com Fri Apr 12 15:55:56 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:55:56 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <51686372.5020307@burnttofu.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <51686372.5020307@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:41 , Michael Sinatra wrote: > On 04/12/13 12:11, John Curran wrote: > >> In truth, the community needs to consider the smallest IPv6 allocation >> that is technically sound for ISPs. > > I agree, and the pending fee schedule throws a financial wrench into > that consideration. I am attempting to remove that wrench with my > proposed tweak to the pending fee schedule. > > michael > Exactly. Owen From jesse at la-broadband.com Fri Apr 12 15:50:04 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:50:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: > >One excellent aspect of this discussion is that it has raised a valid >question as to whether the fee structure that we have used since ARIN's >inception (that of size categories) is the best structure going forward, >and that is an important question that the Board has looked at in the >past but should likely revisit in light of the increased interest by >the community and excellent suggestions for alternative structures... >For example, would a fee structure which is unrelated to address holdings >be a better approach and prevent fee/policy interactions? Would a fee >structure which is tied more directly to registry costs (e.g. registry >objects and/or transaction costs) be more appropriate? I believe that >these are some aspects of a longer discussion to be held on this topic. > >Thanks! >/John John, I agree that revisiting the foundation of the fee schedule is very important here. However, I completely disagree with the presumption that there is a direct relation in the current policy between fees & address holdings. I would argue that there's no relation, whatsoever, since the per annum fee difference between a /14 and a /8 is $0.00. Even though the allocation delta is 16.5million IP's there is no increase in price. While for all the lower tiers the price doubles with each tiny bump in allocation. I think the fee schedule should be tied *directly* to allocation and they aren't at all right now. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC. From drake.pallister at duraserver.com Fri Apr 12 22:56:49 2013 From: drake.pallister at duraserver.com (Drake Pallister) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:56:49 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <119A82AA25EC48A7AC8FB69C33434C0F@dp9100> Hello Folks, May I offer some thoughts relative to this V6 xxx-small fee schedule discussion? I agree with a recent comment / clarification that I will paraphrase part. It may have been by John Curran, but was part of a posting of his and have seen it in many postings. ***"Hand back your /32 and renumber to a new /36 or pay a higher fee if you want to keep your /32". Hence my comment.*** BTW. Let me clarify that I'm speaking about of I.S.P./Provider non-end-user direct allocations (unless ARIN end-user direct assignments fall in here somehow) To that extent, in my own words; if a resources holder purchased a /32 because that was the closest desirable available size at the time; then the resource holder bought himself a /32 of v6. I diverse a moment: Analogy: I bought a 2012 Cherokee fully loaded with options I don't even need, because that was the only available package at the time, then 6 months later they post a blockbuster special price for the same vehicle with less options just as I originally wanted. Should Jeep have to buy mine back and sell me the current one that I really wanted? Nope. I bought mine under my own free will and could have waited to see what becomes available next. Back on subject: I don't fully understand why the amount of hub-bub about this because we're "not" talking about tens-of thousands of dollars annually. The only reasoning logical to me would be the difficulty in reassignments and utilization (assignments, reallocations -- getting usage onto the IP's) but that can be waived to a miniscule usage until the Internet is v6 Native enough. At 50 years old I begin to wonder if I'll ever see an entire Internet v4+v6 native environment and still be full active in this work. Perhaps it would help those org's if ARIN set up a kiddy-simple share/split-up list where an org could list that they have a /32 and want to split it with someone. If the split up of the net was successful, then each party would be annually paying for whatever percentage of the /32 each one ended up with. There might be guidelines limiting the minimum size to keep. /36 or /40 being the smallest to avoid 5XSmall stupid stuff. Then ARIN charges for a transfer fee, smaller because the bulk of the coordination would have been done by the org's via the split-up list, be it 2, 3, or more orgs. The orgs splitting and taking from offered split would each submit their paperwork to ARIN showing a matching split-up of all the orgs involved in that split-up. If they all match, then it's a done-deal. I believe such a v6 (semi-self service) split-up list would make make the orgs work out their splits among themslves and submit the paperwork to ARIN for a look-over and approval. This is also intended to take much labor off of ARIN as well. Re: New Prices/ Offerings However, ARIN formally sets up offerings for XX-Small or even XXX-Small v6 direct allocations, then an orgainzation could buy in on one of those. If an org doesn't need want a v6/32 and opt for a /36 or /40 (really pushing it), they're unlikely to need to come back for more v6 IP's very quickly. Suggestion, maybe wrong time/place: Additionally, to spark the IPv6 fires of small service providers who have no v6 wholesale or retail customers, not knowing how well it will take hold with their customer base, I would be pleased to see ARIN offer a very small, no questions asked, "Kickstart" direct allocation of (maybe a v6 /40 smallest allowed) whereas the only requirements are that they are already a member, resource holder, but most important-- completely paid up to date. This Kickstart would still equate to additional revenue for ARIN plus help get some org's feet wet into the cold water of the IPv6 swimming pool. Then when that org has jumped into the v6 swimming pool and their customers learned to swim; it would have to be ARIN's decision whether to allow them to keep the original `IPv6/kickstart` and acquire a larger block-- or force return and renumbering. Renumbering is pain in the neck, especially when you (the org) has to force it on its innocent downstream customers. If ARIN finds my phrase IPv6/Kickstart attractive, as an allocation name for v6 resources or a v6 campaign name they may call it theirs without royalties. To others, it just became copyrighted when I hit the send button for this public posting. Best regards, Drake Pallister ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" To: "Owen DeLong" Cc: "arin-discuss List" Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule > On Apr 12, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >>> Owen - >>> >>> It is very important to have a fee schedule which is "complete"; >>> i.e. covers the entire range of possible address holdings. It is >> >> Having a tier or tiers which is ?/32 would do that just fine. >> In the case of tiers, it would be important that these not be differentiated >> based on smaller IPv6 holdings in order to avoid creating an incentive >> for harmful policy. > > Owen - the community should be free to discuss and decide whether or > not any given policy proposal is "harmful policy"... > >>> also good for the Board to be clear regarding the corresponding >>> fee expectations for all ranges. The fee schedule should not be >>> constraining the community discussion in any manner, and it would >>> not be appropriate for the ARIN Board to use the fee schedule to >>> preempt discussion of policy, including the proposed change in >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 "Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs" >>> . >> ... >> This perception is the reason that the initial version of 2013-3 proposed >> issuing /48s to ISPs. It wasn't until statements were made indicating that >> the board would be very likely amenable to moving the XX-Small >> boundary to /40 that acceptance of moving the policy proposal from /48 >> to /40 began to gain acceptance. > > My apologies at that initial confusion; as was pointed out be several > folks, having the xx-small category at /48 neither made sense nor did > it match the otherwise predictable linear progression that we were trying > to achieve. The mistake was mine, and as previously noted, it is likely > to be corrected as a matter of record. This does not mean that the Board > "wants" or "doesn't want" IPv6 allocation policy to change, only that we > want the community to have a predictable fee schedule as a backdrop for > its policy considerations. > > We already have policy allowing ISPs to opt to receive a /36 and hence > have aligned that on Revised fee schedule to match the x-small category > (and are able to have lower fee for that x-small category because it is > an opt-in category which is unlikely to consist of all ISPs.) > > In truth, the community needs to consider the smallest IPv6 allocation > that is technically sound for ISPs. If there is no policy for /40 > allocations, then none will be made, and today's x-small category will > effectively remain the smallest fee category in use. > > One excellent aspect of this discussion is that it has raised a valid > question as to whether the fee structure that we have used since ARIN's > inception (that of size categories) is the best structure going forward, > and that is an important question that the Board has looked at in the > past but should likely revisit in light of the increased interest by > the community and excellent suggestions for alternative structures... > For example, would a fee structure which is unrelated to address holdings > be a better approach and prevent fee/policy interactions? Would a fee > structure which is tied more directly to registry costs (e.g. registry > objects and/or transaction costs) be more appropriate? I believe that > these are some aspects of a longer discussion to be held on this topic. > > 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 drake.pallister at duraserver.com Fri Apr 12 22:51:41 2013 From: drake.pallister at duraserver.com (Drake Pallister) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:51:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Hello Folks, May I offer some thoughts relative to this V6 xxx-small fee schedule discussion? I agree with a recent comment / clarification that I will paraphrase part. It may have been by John Curran, but was part of a posting of his and have seen it in many postings. ***"Hand back your /32 and renumber to a new /36 or pay a higher fee if you want to keep your /32". Hence my comment.*** BTW. Let me clarify that I'm speaking about of I.S.P./Provider non-end-user direct allocations (unless ARIN end-user direct assignments fall in here somehow) To that extent, in my own words; if a resources holder purchased a /32 because that was the closest desirable available size at the time; then the resource holder bought himself a /32 of v6. I diverse a moment: Analogy: I bought a 2012 Cherokee fully loaded with options I don't even need, because that was the only available package at the time, then 6 months later they post a blockbuster special price for the same vehicle with less options just as I originally wanted. Should Jeep have to buy mine back and sell me the current one that I really wanted? Nope. I bought mine under my own free will and could have waited to see what becomes available next. Back on subject: I don't fully understand why the amount of hub-bub about this because we're "not" talking about tens-of thousands of dollars annually. The only reasoning logical to me would be the difficulty in reassignments and utilization (assignments, reallocations -- getting usage onto the IP's) but that can be waived to a miniscule usage until the Internet is v6 Native enough. At 50 years old I begin to wonder if I'll ever see an entire Internet v4+v6 native environment and still be full active in this work. Perhaps it would help those org's if ARIN set up a kiddy-simple share/split-up list where an org could list that they have a /32 and want to split it with someone. If the split up of the net was successful, then each party would be annually paying for whatever percentage of the /32 each one ended up with. There might be guidelines limiting the minimum size to keep. /36 or /40 being the smallest to avoid 5XSmall stupid stuff. Then ARIN charges for a transfer fee, smaller because the bulk of the coordination would have been done by the org's via the split-up list, be it 2, 3, or more orgs. The orgs splitting and taking from offered split would each submit their paperwork to ARIN showing a matching split-up of all the orgs involved in that split-up. If they all match, then it's a done-deal. I believe such a v6 (semi-self service) split-up list would make make the orgs work out their splits among themslves and submit the paperwork to ARIN for a look-over and approval. This is also intended to take much labor off of ARIN as well. Re: New Prices/ Offerings However, ARIN formally sets up offerings for XX-Small or even XXX-Small v6 direct allocations, then an orgainzation could buy in on one of those. If an org doesn't need want a v6/32 and opt for a /36 or /40 (really pushing it), they're unlikely to need to come back for more v6 IP's very quickly. Suggestion, maybe wrong time/place: Additionally, to spark the IPv6 fires of small service providers who have no v6 wholesale or retail customers, not knowing how well it will take hold with their customer base, I would be pleased to see ARIN offer a very small, no questions asked, "Kickstart" direct allocation of (maybe a v6 /40 smallest allowed) whereas the only requirements are that they are already a member, resource holder, but most important-- completely paid up to date. This Kickstart would still equate to additional revenue for ARIN plus help get some org's feet wet into the cold water of the IPv6 swimming pool. Then when that org has jumped into the v6 swimming pool and their customers learned to swim; it would have to be ARIN's decision whether to allow them to keep the original `IPv6/kickstart` and acquire a larger block-- or force return and renumbering. Renumbering is pain in the neck, especially when you (the org) has to force it on its innocent downstream customers. If ARIN finds my phrase IPv6/Kickstart attractive, as an allocation name for v6 resources or a v6 campaign name they may call it theirs without royalties. To others, it just became copyrighted when I hit the send button for this public posting. Best regards, Drake Pallister ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" To: "Owen DeLong" Cc: "arin-discuss List" Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule > On Apr 12, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >>> Owen - >>> >>> It is very important to have a fee schedule which is "complete"; >>> i.e. covers the entire range of possible address holdings. It is >> >> Having a tier or tiers which is ?/32 would do that just fine. >> In the case of tiers, it would be important that these not be differentiated >> based on smaller IPv6 holdings in order to avoid creating an incentive >> for harmful policy. > > Owen - the community should be free to discuss and decide whether or > not any given policy proposal is "harmful policy"... > >>> also good for the Board to be clear regarding the corresponding >>> fee expectations for all ranges. The fee schedule should not be >>> constraining the community discussion in any manner, and it would >>> not be appropriate for the ARIN Board to use the fee schedule to >>> preempt discussion of policy, including the proposed change in >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 "Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs" >>> . >> ... >> This perception is the reason that the initial version of 2013-3 proposed >> issuing /48s to ISPs. It wasn't until statements were made indicating that >> the board would be very likely amenable to moving the XX-Small >> boundary to /40 that acceptance of moving the policy proposal from /48 >> to /40 began to gain acceptance. > > My apologies at that initial confusion; as was pointed out be several > folks, having the xx-small category at /48 neither made sense nor did > it match the otherwise predictable linear progression that we were trying > to achieve. The mistake was mine, and as previously noted, it is likely > to be corrected as a matter of record. This does not mean that the Board > "wants" or "doesn't want" IPv6 allocation policy to change, only that we > want the community to have a predictable fee schedule as a backdrop for > its policy considerations. > > We already have policy allowing ISPs to opt to receive a /36 and hence > have aligned that on Revised fee schedule to match the x-small category > (and are able to have lower fee for that x-small category because it is > an opt-in category which is unlikely to consist of all ISPs.) > > In truth, the community needs to consider the smallest IPv6 allocation > that is technically sound for ISPs. If there is no policy for /40 > allocations, then none will be made, and today's x-small category will > effectively remain the smallest fee category in use. > > One excellent aspect of this discussion is that it has raised a valid > question as to whether the fee structure that we have used since ARIN's > inception (that of size categories) is the best structure going forward, > and that is an important question that the Board has looked at in the > past but should likely revisit in light of the increased interest by > the community and excellent suggestions for alternative structures... > For example, would a fee structure which is unrelated to address holdings > be a better approach and prevent fee/policy interactions? Would a fee > structure which is tied more directly to registry costs (e.g. registry > objects and/or transaction costs) be more appropriate? I believe that > these are some aspects of a longer discussion to be held on this topic. > > 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 farmer at umn.edu Fri Apr 12 23:51:27 2013 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:51:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <5168D63F.3090200@umn.edu> I've been holding off entering this fray. But I haven't seen any one raise counter points to this proposal so I will; On 4/7/13 23:18 , Michael Sinatra wrote: > Hi, > > Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy > 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's > proposed fee schedule. Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows > for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category. However, the > current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the > "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in > the XX-small category. > > See the tables here for more info: > > https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html > > Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a > disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6. A policy proposal (2013-3) > has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as > small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP, > some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without > justification. > > However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of > number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have > been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive > of that discussion. Briefly summarized: > > o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit > into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it. > This, in turn leads to two consequences: > > o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes > increasingly parsimonious with address space. I think "will" is a little strong, I'd put it at "may" and that same may exists for any size IPv6 allocation. Some ISP that really needs a /28 may decided to stick with a /32 and give their customers smaller than we'd like reassignments. We can't dictate the size reassignments ISP make. Why do you think this is more likely to occur for xx-small or x-small ISPs than the larger guys? > o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less > likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, > and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its > space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if > that space is from a single aggregable /32. Why? I'm not sure I see the reasoning here, yes they will likely have some messiness in their internal routing going from /40 to /36 to /32, but this is an internal business choice. Why do you think it likely that they won't aggregate their announcements as they grow? Do you expect the same thing will happen as other ISPs grow from /32 to /28 or /28 to /24? If not why not, I don't see why this issue, if it exists, is unique to the small allocations. > I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows: > > "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 > will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on > their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be > calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or > IPv6 allocation." > > This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or > XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with > allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay > the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee. Your proposal quoted above, doesn't say anything about end users assignments, I don't understand why you are bringing them up. Do you expect to effect end user assignments? > It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined > with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of > the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a > sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to > provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need > to be revisited anyway. I think there is a long-term problem created by this proposal, I agree it is revenue-neutral currently, and it works pretty good with IPv4 still being the primary driver for ISPs. However, as IPv6 becomes the primary driver for ISPs overtime, there will need to be a different way to differentiate these xx-small and x-small ISPs from the just plane small ISPs when IPv4 is no longer functionally doing that for us. I'll admit that is probably 5 to 10 years from now, but I believe it will happen eventually. > I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize > the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to > get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, > please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if > there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing. As I said, I believe your proposal has a long-term problem. I'm not sure that disqualifies it. However, it will eventually become a problem that will likely require another change in the fee schedule. The bigger issue for me is, I'm not sure what the alternative is to fix that long-term problem when it inevitably comes to pass. I worried that we just end up right back with the something like ARIN-2013-3 and the corrected proposed fee schedule, but 5 or 10 years from now. In contrast the corrected proposed fee schedule with ARIN-2013-3 allows ISPs to differentiate themselves, rather than using IPv4 to do that. They can elect to start with a /32 because they think it is the right thing to do and believe it is the better long-run business and technical decision for them. Or, they can choose /36 or /40 if that is a better business and technical decision for them. Yes, this could have incentive problems. However, are we really sure that a /40 is always technically inappropriate, even for the smallest (xx-small) 0.1%* of the ISPs in the ARIN region? More important, who is better equipped to make that decision, the mob on ARIN-PPML and ARIN-Discuss or the individual ISPs that have to live with the business and technical consequences? Are we really going to say that a remote rural ISP with a customer base of 50 to 100 customers couldn't make valid business and technical choice of using a /40 of IPv6? Or what about a boutique Business IT support shop that includes ISP services for 20 to 50 of its customers that don't want be bothered with separate ISP bill. I believe there are several business models that it would be a valid technical choice to use a /40 option. * Slides 11-14 https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/curran_fee_schedule.pdf > Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not > impact myself nor my current or previous employers. > > Michael Sinatra > Energy Sciences Network > LBNL/DOE Office of Science I have no stake in this either. Finally, I'm not opposed to this proposal. But I'm not convinced that it is fundamentally creates any better set of trade-offs than the corrected proposed fee schedule with ARIN-2013-3. Especially when you consider this proposal dependency on IPv4 to differentiate among xx-small, x-small, and small ISPs. In the short-run this proposal has some small advantage, but in the long-run if IPv4 was viable, we wouldn't need IPv6. So, I think this only punts the problem down the road, but I will acknowledge sometime that is the right answer. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ From owen at delong.com Sat Apr 13 00:31:43 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 21:31:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <5168D63F.3090200@umn.edu> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <5168D63F.3090200@umn.edu> Message-ID: >> However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of >> number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have >> been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive >> of that discussion. Briefly summarized: >> >> o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit >> into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it. >> This, in turn leads to two consequences: >> >> o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes >> increasingly parsimonious with address space. > > I think "will" is a little strong, I'd put it at "may" and that same may exists for any size IPv6 allocation. Some ISP that really needs a /28 may decided to stick with a /32 and give their customers smaller than we'd like reassignments. We can't dictate the size reassignments ISP make. Why do you think this is more likely to occur for xx-small or x-small ISPs than the larger guys? > I would put it at "will almost certainly"... Because they are the ones that are most price sensitive. This may seem odd to you. You work for an organization that thinks nothing of an $18,000/year expenditure and likely spends more than that on network gear annually. This isn't atypical of a /28 and larger-sized ISP. An ISP that would consider dipping below a /32, OTOH, is likely a very cost-conscious ISP. While I work for such an organization today, I have also worked for a number of much smaller ISPs as well. Further, every time you double the fee, you get 16x as much address space. At the low end, the doubling fee can seem a lot more significant than the address space growth because you're probably staring at an ability to use 1/8th of the expanded address space (double your current holdings) and the other 7/8ths don't seem to add much value. At the higher end, continued growth is more likely a simple expectation. The further left you move on the bit-scale, the more likely that you are a long-established more stable business with the ability to absorb higher fees much more readily as your customer base grows. >> o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less >> likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, >> and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its >> space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if >> that space is from a single aggregable /32. > > Why? I'm not sure I see the reasoning here, yes they will likely have some messiness in their internal routing going from /40 to /36 to /32, but this is an internal business choice. Why do you think it likely that they won't aggregate their announcements as they grow? Do you expect the same thing will happen as other ISPs grow from /32 to /28 or /28 to /24? If not why not, I don't see why this issue, if it exists, is unique to the small allocations. Many smaller ISPs advertise discrete chunks of their network out of the closest exchanges to those POPs. Again, as you move further up the food chain, you're more likely to encounter an organization that has large backbone interconnecting their various sites. >> I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows: >> >> "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 >> will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on >> their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be >> calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or >> IPv6 allocation." >> >> This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or >> XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with >> allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay >> the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee. > > Your proposal quoted above, doesn't say anything about end users assignments, I don't understand why you are bringing them up. Do you expect to effect end user assignments? > As I read the above paragraph, it specifically states that they would continue as before. That they would not change. It appears he brought them up along with the ISP categories that would not be affected as part of the list of things not affected by his proposal. >> It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined >> with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of >> the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a >> sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to >> provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need >> to be revisited anyway. > > I think there is a long-term problem created by this proposal, I agree it is revenue-neutral currently, and it works pretty good with IPv4 still being the primary driver for ISPs. However, as IPv6 becomes the primary driver for ISPs overtime, there will need to be a different way to differentiate these xx-small and x-small ISPs from the just plane small ISPs when IPv4 is no longer functionally doing that for us. I'll admit that is probably 5 to 10 years from now, but I believe it will happen eventually. > ISPs that had both could be categorized based on their last IPv4 status until they grew to a /28 or beyond. ISPs that never had IPv4 could default to Small unless they provide documentation of a limited number of end-sites served. For X-Small, this could be ? 4,000 end-sites served. For XX-Small, more like ?200 end-sites served. (4,000 is just over the 3,072 minfree point for an IPv6 /36 worth of /48s and 200 is just over the 192 minfree point for an IPv6 /40 worth of /48s). In this way, the billing is based on end-sites served and priced according to /48s so as not to create a disincentive to rational addressing. >> I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize >> the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to >> get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, >> please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if >> there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing. > > As I said, I believe your proposal has a long-term problem. I'm not sure that disqualifies it. However, it will eventually become a problem that will likely require another change in the fee schedule. The bigger issue for me is, I'm not sure what the alternative is to fix that long-term problem when it inevitably comes to pass. I worried that we just end up right back with the something like ARIN-2013-3 and the corrected proposed fee schedule, but 5 or 10 years from now. I expect the fee schedule will change several times in the next 10 years anyway. I expect ARIN to be a pretty different organization in 10 years from what it is today. > In contrast the corrected proposed fee schedule with ARIN-2013-3 allows ISPs to differentiate themselves, rather than using IPv4 to do that. They can elect to start with a /32 because they think it is the right thing to do and believe it is the better long-run business and technical decision for them. Or, they can choose /36 or /40 if that is a better business and technical decision for them. Do you really think that situation doesn't also have several long-term problems? > Yes, this could have incentive problems. However, are we really sure that a /40 is always technically inappropriate, even for the smallest (xx-small) 0.1%* of the ISPs in the ARIN region? More important, who is better equipped to make that decision, the mob on ARIN-PPML and ARIN-Discuss or the individual ISPs that have to live with the business and technical consequences? It _DOES_ have incentive problems. Yes, I am quite sure that /40 is always technically inappropriate for an ISP. I'll address the second half of that paragraph in private email. > Are we really going to say that a remote rural ISP with a customer base of 50 to 100 customers couldn't make valid business and technical choice of using a /40 of IPv6? Or what about a boutique Business IT support shop that includes ISP services for 20 to 50 of its customers that don't want be bothered with separate ISP bill. I believe there are several business models that it would be a valid technical choice to use a /40 option. These are extreme corner cases. Sure, they could, but there's no benefit to them or the community from not giving them a /32 if they aren't forced to pay more than they would be able to get the /40 for. > Finally, I'm not opposed to this proposal. But I'm not convinced that it is fundamentally creates any better set of trade-offs than the corrected proposed fee schedule with ARIN-2013-3. Especially when you consider this proposal dependency on IPv4 to differentiate among xx-small, x-small, and small ISPs. In the short-run this proposal has some small advantage, but in the long-run if IPv4 was viable, we wouldn't need IPv6. So, I think this only punts the problem down the road, but I will acknowledge sometime that is the right answer. I believe the tradeoffs are considerably better. Further, I believe that there are ways to address the long-term problem this proposal creates. Do you see any way to address the long term problems created by the negative incentives inherent in 2013-3 and the "corrected" as you call it fee schedule? Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msalim at localweb.com Sat Apr 13 10:37:25 2013 From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:37:25 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Drake, In reference to the quote, I must confess that I am guilty of posting that, and would like to comment on your response: ***"Hand back your /32 and renumber to a new /36 or pay a higher fee if you want to keep your /32". Hence my comment.*** Your analogy was that I bought a loaded Jeep Cherokee but chose not to wait, and should have waited till something lower cost was available. The analogy fails because after I have purchased and taken my Jeep home, Jeep Cherokee Corporation does not come back to me and say: "About that Jeep you we sold you for $1000, we need you to pay up another $1000 or exchange it for a lower model because we changed our mind and came out with a lower model at the $1000 price and raised the price on the one we sold you". Yet that is pretty much what ARIN is telling me. To continue your analogy, even in the realm of automobiles, it is the early adopters that help fund the continued development and availability of later models. BTW we are not talking large $$ here - I am happy to pay $1000, $2000 or $2200 for the allocation I have received. ARIN does a great job and it is in all our mutual interests to help ARIN continue to meets is fiscal goals. But it is an enjoyable philosophical discussion on the principles involved, nonetheless :-) 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 Drake Pallister Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 10:52 PM To: John Curran; Owen DeLong Cc: arin-discuss List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule Hello Folks, May I offer some thoughts relative to this V6 xxx-small fee schedule discussion? I agree with a recent comment / clarification that I will paraphrase part. It may have been by John Curran, but was part of a posting of his and have seen it in many postings. ***"Hand back your /32 and renumber to a new /36 or pay a higher fee if you want to keep your /32". Hence my comment.*** BTW. Let me clarify that I'm speaking about of I.S.P./Provider non-end-user direct allocations (unless ARIN end-user direct assignments fall in here somehow) To that extent, in my own words; if a resources holder purchased a /32 because that was the closest desirable available size at the time; then the resource holder bought himself a /32 of v6. I diverse a moment: Analogy: I bought a 2012 Cherokee fully loaded with options I don't even need, because that was the only available package at the time, then 6 months later they post a blockbuster special price for the same vehicle with less options just as I originally wanted. Should Jeep have to buy mine back and sell me the current one that I really wanted? Nope. I bought mine under my own free will and could have waited to see what becomes available next. Back on subject: I don't fully understand why the amount of hub-bub about this because we're "not" talking about tens-of thousands of dollars annually. The only reasoning logical to me would be the difficulty in reassignments and utilization (assignments, reallocations -- getting usage onto the IP's) but that can be waived to a miniscule usage until the Internet is v6 Native enough. At 50 years old I begin to wonder if I'll ever see an entire Internet v4+v6 native environment and still be full active in this work. Perhaps it would help those org's if ARIN set up a kiddy-simple share/split-up list where an org could list that they have a /32 and want to split it with someone. If the split up of the net was successful, then each party would be annually paying for whatever percentage of the /32 each one ended up with. There might be guidelines limiting the minimum size to keep. /36 or /40 being the smallest to avoid 5XSmall stupid stuff. Then ARIN charges for a transfer fee, smaller because the bulk of the coordination would have been done by the org's via the split-up list, be it 2, 3, or more orgs. The orgs splitting and taking from offered split would each submit their paperwork to ARIN showing a matching split-up of all the orgs involved in that split-up. If they all match, then it's a done-deal. I believe such a v6 (semi-self service) split-up list would make make the orgs work out their splits among themslves and submit the paperwork to ARIN for a look-over and approval. This is also intended to take much labor off of ARIN as well. Re: New Prices/ Offerings However, ARIN formally sets up offerings for XX-Small or even XXX-Small v6 direct allocations, then an orgainzation could buy in on one of those. If an org doesn't need want a v6/32 and opt for a /36 or /40 (really pushing it), they're unlikely to need to come back for more v6 IP's very quickly. Suggestion, maybe wrong time/place: Additionally, to spark the IPv6 fires of small service providers who have no v6 wholesale or retail customers, not knowing how well it will take hold with their customer base, I would be pleased to see ARIN offer a very small, no questions asked, "Kickstart" direct allocation of (maybe a v6 /40 smallest allowed) whereas the only requirements are that they are already a member, resource holder, but most important-- completely paid up to date. This Kickstart would still equate to additional revenue for ARIN plus help get some org's feet wet into the cold water of the IPv6 swimming pool. Then when that org has jumped into the v6 swimming pool and their customers learned to swim; it would have to be ARIN's decision whether to allow them to keep the original `IPv6/kickstart` and acquire a larger block-- or force return and renumbering. Renumbering is pain in the neck, especially when you (the org) has to force it on its innocent downstream customers. If ARIN finds my phrase IPv6/Kickstart attractive, as an allocation name for v6 resources or a v6 campaign name they may call it theirs without royalties. To others, it just became copyrighted when I hit the send button for this public posting. Best regards, Drake Pallister ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" To: "Owen DeLong" Cc: "arin-discuss List" Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule > On Apr 12, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >>> Owen - >>> >>> It is very important to have a fee schedule which is "complete"; >>> i.e. covers the entire range of possible address holdings. It is >> >> Having a tier or tiers which is ?/32 would do that just fine. >> In the case of tiers, it would be important that these not be differentiated >> based on smaller IPv6 holdings in order to avoid creating an incentive >> for harmful policy. > > Owen - the community should be free to discuss and decide whether or > not any given policy proposal is "harmful policy"... > >>> also good for the Board to be clear regarding the corresponding >>> fee expectations for all ranges. The fee schedule should not be >>> constraining the community discussion in any manner, and it would >>> not be appropriate for the ARIN Board to use the fee schedule to >>> preempt discussion of policy, including the proposed change in >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 "Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs" >>> . >> ... >> This perception is the reason that the initial version of 2013-3 proposed >> issuing /48s to ISPs. It wasn't until statements were made indicating that >> the board would be very likely amenable to moving the XX-Small >> boundary to /40 that acceptance of moving the policy proposal from /48 >> to /40 began to gain acceptance. > > My apologies at that initial confusion; as was pointed out be several > folks, having the xx-small category at /48 neither made sense nor did > it match the otherwise predictable linear progression that we were trying > to achieve. The mistake was mine, and as previously noted, it is likely > to be corrected as a matter of record. This does not mean that the Board > "wants" or "doesn't want" IPv6 allocation policy to change, only that we > want the community to have a predictable fee schedule as a backdrop for > its policy considerations. > > We already have policy allowing ISPs to opt to receive a /36 and hence > have aligned that on Revised fee schedule to match the x-small category > (and are able to have lower fee for that x-small category because it is > an opt-in category which is unlikely to consist of all ISPs.) > > In truth, the community needs to consider the smallest IPv6 allocation > that is technically sound for ISPs. If there is no policy for /40 > allocations, then none will be made, and today's x-small category will > effectively remain the smallest fee category in use. > > One excellent aspect of this discussion is that it has raised a valid > question as to whether the fee structure that we have used since ARIN's > inception (that of size categories) is the best structure going forward, > and that is an important question that the Board has looked at in the > past but should likely revisit in light of the increased interest by > the community and excellent suggestions for alternative structures... > For example, would a fee structure which is unrelated to address holdings > be a better approach and prevent fee/policy interactions? Would a fee > structure which is tied more directly to registry costs (e.g. registry > objects and/or transaction costs) be more appropriate? I believe that > these are some aspects of a longer discussion to be held on this topic. > > 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. _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Apr 13 11:57:38 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:57:38 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB65D66@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 13, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote: > The analogy fails because after I have purchased and taken my Jeep home, Jeep Cherokee Corporation does not come back to me and say: "About that Jeep you we sold you for $1000, we need you to pay up another $1000 or exchange it for a lower model because we changed our mind and came out with a lower model at the $1000 price and raised the price on the one we sold you". Yet that is pretty much what ARIN is telling me. Umm... To be accurate, it would be more comparable if Jeep told you it would be without charge due to a 100% waiver, but that waiver would be retired over the next four years (100%, 75%, 50%, 25%) - (This is what the Board implemented in order to provide a predictable transition to the regular fee schedule after many years of no fees for IPv6.) For those with /40 to /32 IPv6 holdings (x-small category), the annual fee would be $2250/year under the current fee schedule without any waiver (note that the Board also extended the 2012 25% waiver [net $1688] till the Revised fee schedule takes effect, to avoid having folks have to pay $2250 under the regular fee schedule during the transition period. You are correct that under the Revised fee schedule, an organization with IPv6 holdings of /32 will see fees of $2000/year, but these are lower than the current fee schedule which is presently in place and was to take effect without any waiver in 2013. > BTW we are not talking large $$ here - I am happy to pay $1000, $2000 or $2200 for the allocation I have received. ARIN does a great job and it is in all our mutual interests to help ARIN continue to meets is fiscal goals. But it is an enjoyable philosophical discussion on the principles involved, nonetheless :-) Agreed, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From msalim at localweb.com Sun Apr 14 22:32:45 2013 From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:32:45 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB65D66@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Hello John, I am commenting on your statement > "Umm... To be accurate, it would be more comparable if Jeep told you it would be without charge due to a 100% waiver, but that waiver would be retired over the next four years (100%, 75%, 50%, 25%) - " Not to belabor the point, but in my particular case the waiver analogy would not be accurate. I originally applied for, and received, an IPv4 X-S allocation (/20). I also asked for an IPv6 allocation (I did not specify a size). I was given a /32 which I was fine with. I did not say "no I do not want a /36, I would prefer a /32". At the time ARIN was only handing out /32. I activated the /32 in my network and allocated it among my customers. There was no mention of my becoming a S instead of an X-S at that point. Then some months later along came the news: I am now a S because I have a /32 IPv6, never mind that I have only a /20 IPv4, and was given the option of either handing the /32 back and renumbering to a /36, or consider myself "promoted" to a S with the associated higher fees. If ARIN had stayed with a /32 as the smallest allocation that it deals out (even with a X-S or XX-S), all would have been fine. Since there was an established precedence of having given /32 to X-S, that should have been maintained, instead of suddenly telling X-S who already have a /32, "oops we did not mean to give you a /32, we changed our mind, hand it back or renumber into a /36". Again, I am not lamenting the additional fee, it is a very small increment and I am OK to pay it. But I am discussing the principle of it. BTW if I do pay the higher fee and accept that I am a S instead of a X-S, will I be automatically allocated another IPv4 /20 so I have a IPv4 /19 to go with my IPv6 /32 per the published fee schedule at https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#isps? If so, that would make it fair. 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: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 11:58 AM To: Mike A. Salim Cc: arin-discuss List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule On Apr 13, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote: > The analogy fails because after I have purchased and taken my Jeep home, Jeep Cherokee Corporation does not come back to me and say: "About that Jeep you we sold you for $1000, we need you to pay up another $1000 or exchange it for a lower model because we changed our mind and came out with a lower model at the $1000 price and raised the price on the one we sold you". Yet that is pretty much what ARIN is telling me. Umm... To be accurate, it would be more comparable if Jeep told you it would be without charge due to a 100% waiver, but that waiver would be retired over the next four years (100%, 75%, 50%, 25%) - (This is what the Board implemented in order to provide a predictable transition to the regular fee schedule after many years of no fees for IPv6.) For those with /40 to /32 IPv6 holdings (x-small category), the annual fee would be $2250/year under the current fee schedule without any waiver (note that the Board also extended the 2012 25% waiver [net $1688] till the Revised fee schedule takes effect, to avoid having folks have to pay $2250 under the regular fee schedule during the transition period. You are correct that under the Revised fee schedule, an organization with IPv6 holdings of /32 will see fees of $2000/year, but these are lower than the current fee schedule which is presently in place and was to take effect without any waiver in 2013. > BTW we are not talking large $$ here - I am happy to pay $1000, $2000 > or $2200 for the allocation I have received. ARIN does a great job > and it is in all our mutual interests to help ARIN continue to meets > is fiscal goals. But it is an enjoyable philosophical discussion on > the principles involved, nonetheless :-) Agreed, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Sun Apr 14 23:15:58 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:15:58 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB65D66@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net>, Message-ID: On Apr 14, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Mike A. Salim" wrote: > BTW if I do pay the higher fee and accept that I am a S instead of a X-S, will I be automatically allocated another IPv4 /20 so I have a IPv4 /19 to go with my IPv6 /32 per the published fee schedule at https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#isps? If so, that would make it fair. Mike - Not automatically, gut If you need it, you should apply for it as soon as possible, as we still have availability. The fee category is the smallest one which accommodates both your IPv4 and IPv6 resources. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 15 06:53:24 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:53:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB65D66@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB76BF3@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 14, 2013, at 11:15 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 14, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Mike A. Salim" wrote: > >> BTW if I do pay the higher fee and accept that I am a S instead of a X-S, will I be automatically allocated another IPv4 /20 so I have a IPv4 /19 to go with my IPv6 /32 per the published fee schedule at https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#isps? If so, that would make it fair. > > Mike - > > Not automatically, gut If you need it, you should apply for it as soon > as possible, as we still have availability. The fee category is the > smallest one which accommodates both your IPv4 and IPv6 resources. (Again, minus the smartphone autocorrection) - Not automatically, but if you need it, you should apply for it as soon as possible, as we still have availability. The fee category is the smallest one which accommodates both your IPv4 and IPv6 resources, and as long as you meet the requirements for an additional assignment, we can issue you an the additional /20 of IPv4 space. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From msalim at localweb.com Mon Apr 15 08:08:32 2013 From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:08:32 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB65D66@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB76BF3@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Thanks John! 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: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 6:53 AM To: Mike A. Salim Cc: arin-discuss List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule On Apr 14, 2013, at 11:15 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 14, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Mike A. Salim" wrote: > >> BTW if I do pay the higher fee and accept that I am a S instead of a X-S, will I be automatically allocated another IPv4 /20 so I have a IPv4 /19 to go with my IPv6 /32 per the published fee schedule at https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#isps? If so, that would make it fair. > > Mike - > > Not automatically, gut If you need it, you should apply for it as soon > as possible, as we still have availability. The fee category is the > smallest one which accommodates both your IPv4 and IPv6 resources. (Again, minus the smartphone autocorrection) - Not automatically, but if you need it, you should apply for it as soon as possible, as we still have availability. The fee category is the smallest one which accommodates both your IPv4 and IPv6 resources, and as long as you meet the requirements for an additional assignment, we can issue you an the additional /20 of IPv4 space. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From agreene at webjogger.net Mon Apr 15 09:51:30 2013 From: agreene at webjogger.net (Adam Greene) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:51:30 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB65D66@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB76BF3@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <01b501ce39e0$5532c050$ff9840f0$@webjogger.net> Hi, I have not been following this issue closely, so my comment may be obvious or may otherwise already have been considered. We are a small ISP (less than 700 subscribers), with (2) /22 IPv4 assignments. We're currently paying $1250/yr for them. I understand the proposed July 2013 fee schedule will reduce our fees $250/yr, which is great. But we would very much like to start ramping up IPv6. The main obstacle to our requesting an IPv6 assignment has been cost. If we could get an IPv6 assignment of the same relative size as our IPv4 assignment without paying more, we would do it in a heartbeat. If ARIN wants to make a /32 the smallest assignment that ISPs obtain, then I think it should allow a small ISP to obtain a /32 at a minimum without having to increase its fees. In our case, that would mean making an X-Small assignment include a /32 block. I recognize my point of view is limited as a small ISP. I just wanted to make sure it was heard at least. John Curran's comment from a few days ago, "We just follow the policy that you folks develop and support via this mailing list and the Public Policy meetings" inspired me to participate. Thanks, Adam -- Adam Greene Vice President Webjogger www.webjogger.net 845-757-4000 -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike A. Salim Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:09 AM To: John Curran Cc: arin-discuss List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule Thanks John! 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: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 6:53 AM To: Mike A. Salim Cc: arin-discuss List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule On Apr 14, 2013, at 11:15 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 14, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Mike A. Salim" wrote: > >> BTW if I do pay the higher fee and accept that I am a S instead of a X-S, will I be automatically allocated another IPv4 /20 so I have a IPv4 /19 to go with my IPv6 /32 per the published fee schedule at https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#isps? If so, that would make it fair. > > Mike - > > Not automatically, gut If you need it, you should apply for it as soon > as possible, as we still have availability. The fee category is the > smallest one which accommodates both your IPv4 and IPv6 resources. (Again, minus the smartphone autocorrection) - Not automatically, but if you need it, you should apply for it as soon as possible, as we still have availability. The fee category is the smallest one which accommodates both your IPv4 and IPv6 resources, and as long as you meet the requirements for an additional assignment, we can issue you an the additional /20 of IPv4 space. 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 Mon Apr 15 10:31:17 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:31:17 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <01b501ce39e0$5532c050$ff9840f0$@webjogger.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB65D66@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB76BF3@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <01b501ce39e0$5532c050$ff9840f0$@webjogger.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB7BD3D@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Adam Greene wrote: > Hi, > > I have not been following this issue closely, so my comment may be obvious or may otherwise already have been considered. We are a small ISP (less than 700 subscribers), with (2) /22 IPv4 assignments. We're currently paying $1250/yr for them. I understand the proposed July 2013 fee schedule will reduce our fees $250/yr, which is great. But we would very much like to start ramping up IPv6. The main obstacle to our requesting an IPv6 assignment has been cost. If we could get an IPv6 assignment of the same relative size as our IPv4 assignment without paying more, we would do it in a heartbeat. If ARIN wants to make a /32 the smallest assignment that ISPs obtain, then I think it should allow a small ISP to obtain a /32 at a minimum without having to increase its fees. In our case, that would mean making an X-Small assignment include a /32 block. Adam - Presently, the smallest allocation under IPv6 is /36, which would result in no increase in fees. Does this suffice for your needs, or do you anticipate that a /32 would be needed due to the amount of customers/infrastructure? > I recognize my point of view is limited as a small ISP. I just wanted to make sure it was heard at least. Your input is highly valued, and you should not hesitate to provide it at any time! > John Curran's comment from a few days ago, "We just follow the policy that you folks develop and support via this mailing list and the Public Policy meetings" inspired me to participate. Excellent - also note that we have a Public Policy Meeting coming up next week, and even if you can't attend in person, you can participate in the discussions remotely - Thanks again! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From tim at communicatefreely.net Mon Apr 15 10:43:43 2013 From: tim at communicatefreely.net (Tim St. Pierre) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:43:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Message-ID: <516C121F.3050901@communicatefreely.net> Hello, We are a new ISP, and we have had some interesting dilemma's getting started. I'm curious to know if this is something that has affected others, or if I'm just in a strange situation. We are building out an access network to reach business customers in a small town. We will probably never be very big, but we like are town and are hoping to eventually extend our reach to most business in town. When we started, we requested a /32 IPv6 from ARIN. We had to explain what we were doing, and our coverage area, etc. This seems reasonable and all, and eventually we got our /32. At this point, all we had was a /28 IPv4 SWIP'd from an upstream, so our fees jumped from $0 to $1800 for the year. Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4 allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit problematic. We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are essentially out of address space and can't give us any. They can't get any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier that has free pools, but on a different AS. We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't give us anything more than a /28 either. I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days. So now I'm stuck with a customer base that has native IPv6 for everyone, but only a /29 IPv4 to share between 12 offices and about 200 or so retail WiFi users. I have to do crazy incoming NAT nonsense to support my customers mail servers and VPN devices, and I'm crossing my fingers that the wireless users don't do something stupid and get us all blacklisted. Should there be an additional policy to deal with initial allocations where efficient utilization of X number of IPv6 /64s would serve as justification for a /22 IPv4, or perhaps some other scheme that makes it a little easier for new ISPs. I understand that IPv4 is constrained, but we aren't out of them yet, and a small ISP still needs an allocation to function. Another alternative would be a new entrant policy similar to the immediate need clause, but with the following changes: -Only 50% must be used within 30 days -ISP must demonstrate that IPv6 has been deployed to end users -The same documentation of customer contracts and purchased equipment would still apply. I look around and see the big incumbents with no IPv6 to speak of, yet they have IPv4 for every customer. Here I am as the little startup trying to make a go of it, but I'm at a serious disadvantage because I can't get any address resources. Am I just terribly unlucky, or is this becoming a problem for others as well? I think the main issue is that upstream providers aren't able to hand out /24s like they used to, so showing a /23 equivalent from an upstream is next to impossible now. Thanks! -Tim -- -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289 225 1220 x5101 tim at communicatefreely.net www.communicatefreely.net From rlc at usfamily.net Mon Apr 15 13:51:18 2013 From: rlc at usfamily.net (rlc at usfamily.net) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:51:18 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Message-ID: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have been proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the time that people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. Instead, the big guys mumble that ARIN has administrative economies of scale with them. So what? If ARIN REALLY wanted to encourage large-scale adoption of IPv6, they would have squeezed the big guys. Never happened, never will. Good luck! Quoting "Tim St. Pierre" : > Hello, > > We are a new ISP, and we have had some interesting dilemma's getting > started. I'm curious to know if this is something that has affected > others, or if I'm just in a strange situation. > > We are building out an access network to reach business customers in a > small town. We will probably never be very big, but we like are town > and are hoping to eventually extend our reach to most business in town. > When we started, we requested a /32 IPv6 from ARIN. We had to explain > what we were doing, and our coverage area, etc. This seems reasonable > and all, and eventually we got our /32. At this point, all we had was a > /28 IPv4 SWIP'd from an upstream, so our fees jumped from $0 to $1800 > for the year. > > Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4 > allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit > problematic. We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are > essentially out of address space and can't give us any. They can't get > any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier > that has free pools, but on a different AS. > > We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't > give us anything more than a /28 either. > > I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't > qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days. > > So now I'm stuck with a customer base that has native IPv6 for everyone, > but only a /29 IPv4 to share between 12 offices and about 200 or so > retail WiFi users. I have to do crazy incoming NAT nonsense to support > my customers mail servers and VPN devices, and I'm crossing my fingers > that the wireless users don't do something stupid and get us all > blacklisted. > > Should there be an additional policy to deal with initial allocations > where efficient utilization of X number of IPv6 /64s would serve as > justification for a /22 IPv4, or perhaps some other scheme that makes it > a little easier for new ISPs. I understand that IPv4 is constrained, > but we aren't out of them yet, and a small ISP still needs an allocation > to function. > > Another alternative would be a new entrant policy similar to the > immediate need clause, but with the following changes: > -Only 50% must be used within 30 days > -ISP must demonstrate that IPv6 has been deployed to end users > -The same documentation of customer contracts and purchased equipment > would still apply. > > I look around and see the big incumbents with no IPv6 to speak of, yet > they have IPv4 for every customer. Here I am as the little startup > trying to make a go of it, but I'm at a serious disadvantage because I > can't get any address resources. > > Am I just terribly unlucky, or is this becoming a problem for others as > well? I think the main issue is that upstream providers aren't able to > hand out /24s like they used to, so showing a /23 equivalent from an > upstream is next to impossible now. > > Thanks! > -Tim > > -- > -- > Tim St. Pierre > System Operator > Communicate Freely > 289 225 1220 x5101 > tim at communicatefreely.net > www.communicatefreely.net > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From scottleibrand at gmail.com Mon Apr 15 12:01:00 2013 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:01:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <516C121F.3050901@communicatefreely.net> References: <516C121F.3050901@communicatefreely.net> Message-ID: <4300218B-DF10-41C1-9057-D067F94B3ECE@gmail.com> Tim, Thanks for bringing this up. It sounds like a real issue, which could use some policy work. Cross-posting to PPML, where such policy discussions occur. Scott On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:43 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" wrote: > Hello, > > We are a new ISP, and we have had some interesting dilemma's getting > started. I'm curious to know if this is something that has affected > others, or if I'm just in a strange situation. > > We are building out an access network to reach business customers in a > small town. We will probably never be very big, but we like are town > and are hoping to eventually extend our reach to most business in town. > When we started, we requested a /32 IPv6 from ARIN. We had to explain > what we were doing, and our coverage area, etc. This seems reasonable > and all, and eventually we got our /32. At this point, all we had was a > /28 IPv4 SWIP'd from an upstream, so our fees jumped from $0 to $1800 > for the year. > > Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4 > allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit > problematic. We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are > essentially out of address space and can't give us any. They can't get > any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier > that has free pools, but on a different AS. > > We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't > give us anything more than a /28 either. > > I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't > qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days. > > So now I'm stuck with a customer base that has native IPv6 for everyone, > but only a /29 IPv4 to share between 12 offices and about 200 or so > retail WiFi users. I have to do crazy incoming NAT nonsense to support > my customers mail servers and VPN devices, and I'm crossing my fingers > that the wireless users don't do something stupid and get us all > blacklisted. > > Should there be an additional policy to deal with initial allocations > where efficient utilization of X number of IPv6 /64s would serve as > justification for a /22 IPv4, or perhaps some other scheme that makes it > a little easier for new ISPs. I understand that IPv4 is constrained, > but we aren't out of them yet, and a small ISP still needs an allocation > to function. > > Another alternative would be a new entrant policy similar to the > immediate need clause, but with the following changes: > -Only 50% must be used within 30 days > -ISP must demonstrate that IPv6 has been deployed to end users > -The same documentation of customer contracts and purchased equipment > would still apply. > > I look around and see the big incumbents with no IPv6 to speak of, yet > they have IPv4 for every customer. Here I am as the little startup > trying to make a go of it, but I'm at a serious disadvantage because I > can't get any address resources. > > Am I just terribly unlucky, or is this becoming a problem for others as > well? I think the main issue is that upstream providers aren't able to > hand out /24s like they used to, so showing a /23 equivalent from an > upstream is next to impossible now. > > Thanks! > -Tim > > -- > -- > Tim St. Pierre > System Operator > Communicate Freely > 289 225 1220 x5101 > tim at communicatefreely.net > www.communicatefreely.net > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Apr 15 14:21:03 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:21:03 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB7FA69@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 15, 2013, at 1:51 PM, rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized > that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have been > proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the time that > people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. > > Instead, the big guys mumble that ARIN has administrative economies of scale > with them. So what? If ARIN REALLY wanted to encourage large-scale adoption > of IPv6, they would have squeezed the big guys. Never happened, never will. Note that the Revised Fee schedule actually adds a new category of XX-Large which raises fees for the largest ISPs significantly; this would not be an expected outcome if "large players run the show at ARIN". Also, ARIN's membership is mostly composed of small and medium ISPs, thus putting the election of the ARIN Board of Trustees far more control of the small ISP community than largest ISPs - Size 2011 Category Count X-Small 948 Small 2,240 Medium 630 Large 106 X?Large 73 It is true that some ISPs participate more heavily in ARIN policy and governance discussions than do others, but that is a choice up to each member of the community. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 15 14:42:15 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:42:15 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> Message-ID: On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized > that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have been > proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the time that > people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. > I don't believe that for a second. I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was formed and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it was formed. In the early days, the process was clearly dominated by large players, but I don't believe that for a second today (or in the last ~5 years and possibly longer). I've worked for ISPs of all sizes ranging from running my own neighbornet-style ISP up to and including several global reach ISPs of various flavors. Each and every one of those constituencies is as well represented in ARIN's process as its members choose to be. ANYONE with an email address can participate in the policy process and every member of ARIN gets one vote in all ARIN elections. > Instead, the big guys mumble that ARIN has administrative economies of scale > with them. So what? If ARIN REALLY wanted to encourage large-scale adoption > of IPv6, they would have squeezed the big guys. Never happened, never will. I hate to break it to you, but as much as I favor reduced fees for smaller providers and generally like to root for the little guy, there are certain economic realities here which you seem to want to ignore. 1. Little guys are often less well versed and less experienced in ARIN processes. This means staff tends to spend more time going back and forth on their requests even though they are for smaller amounts of address space. 2. Larger providers tend to have better internal records and have their data better prepared when submitting additional requests to ARIN. While this isn't universal, overall, it results in easier processing of requests for larger providers most of the time. This DOES mean that per address, the bigger ISPs cost ARIN less. That's not the big guys mumbling, that's the actual math of the situation. ARIN staff does an excellent job of applying the policies set by the community in a fair and even-handed way. If large players so dominated the process, we wouldn't have direct-assignment /22s, IPv6 PI, or lately direct assignment /24s. In a process dominated by large providers, none of those proposals would have achieved consensus. Owen From rlc at usfamily.net Mon Apr 15 15:15:30 2013 From: rlc at usfamily.net (rlc at usfamily.net) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:15:30 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Message-ID: <20130415141532.8kwuc0b0m8ksks8g@webmail.usfamily.net> Have any of you ever calculated the amount of money ARIN charges per ip (IPv4) for the little guy vs the big guy? I am willing to spot you that bigger ISP's have better records and are more efficient in dealing with ARIN. So what? ARIN could generate all the money they need to operate (and then some) with pricing proportional to total ip space. And, in the process, they would have actually encouraged the larger ISP's to adopt IPv6 much earlier, which, in turn, would have pulled everyone else along. Quite in fact, they should have been handing out IPv6 space for free to early adopters who were already paying for IPv4 and gradually ratcheting up the per-ip cost of IPv4, if their goal was to expedite IPv6 adoption, which it clearly isn't. More to the point, there seems to be a peculiar distaste for market-based solutions. Quoting Owen DeLong : > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized >> that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would >> have been >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since >> the time that >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >> > > I don't believe that for a second. > > I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was formed > and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after > it was formed. > > In the early days, the process was clearly dominated by large > players, but I don't > believe that for a second today (or in the last ~5 years and possibly > longer). > > I've worked for ISPs of all sizes ranging from running my own > neighbornet-style > ISP up to and including several global reach ISPs of various flavors. > Each and > every one of those constituencies is as well represented in ARIN's process as > its members choose to be. ANYONE with an email address can participate > in the policy process and every member of ARIN gets one vote in all ARIN > elections. > >> Instead, the big guys mumble that ARIN has administrative economies of scale >> with them. So what? If ARIN REALLY wanted to encourage large-scale >> adoption >> of IPv6, they would have squeezed the big guys. Never happened, never will. > > I hate to break it to you, but as much as I favor reduced fees for > smaller providers > and generally like to root for the little guy, there are certain > economic realities > here which you seem to want to ignore. > > 1. Little guys are often less well versed and less experienced in > ARIN processes. > This means staff tends to spend more time going back and forth on their > requests even though they are for smaller amounts of address space. > > 2. Larger providers tend to have better internal records and have their data > better prepared when submitting additional requests to ARIN. While this > isn't universal, overall, it results in easier processing of requests for > larger providers most of the time. > > This DOES mean that per address, the bigger ISPs cost ARIN less. That's not > the big guys mumbling, that's the actual math of the situation. > > ARIN staff does an excellent job of applying the policies set by the > community > in a fair and even-handed way. If large players so dominated the process, > we wouldn't have direct-assignment /22s, IPv6 PI, or lately direct > assignment /24s. > In a process dominated by large providers, none of those proposals would have > achieved consensus. > > Owen > > From smalhotra at chinetworks.com Mon Apr 15 15:37:39 2013 From: smalhotra at chinetworks.com (Sumit Malhotra) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:37:39 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >I hate to break it to you, but as much as I favor reduced fees for >smaller providers >and generally like to root for the little guy, there are certain economic >realities >here which you seem to want to ignore. > >1. Little guys are often less well versed and less experienced in ARIN >processes. > This means staff tends to spend more time going back and forth on their > requests even though they are for smaller amounts of address space. > >2. Larger providers tend to have better internal records and have their >data > better prepared when submitting additional requests to ARIN. While this > isn't universal, overall, it results in easier processing of requests for > larger providers most of the time. No offence - but your justification seem like - "poor guys should be taxed more because they are burden on economy". Although, I agree that ARIN provide great support and smaller ISP would need that more than bigger ISP, but I still do not agree on the analogy of this proportional evaluation. Sumit > From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 15 15:49:15 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:49:15 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <20130415141532.8kwuc0b0m8ksks8g@webmail.usfamily.net> References: <20130415141532.8kwuc0b0m8ksks8g@webmail.usfamily.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB80CAC@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:15 PM, rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > Quite in fact, they should have been handing out IPv6 space for free to early > adopters who were already paying for IPv4 and gradually ratcheting up the > per-ip cost of IPv4, if their goal was to expedite IPv6 adoption, which it > clearly isn't. In fact, you describe exactly what we we've been doing ARIN had an IPv6 fee waiver for many years and ramped it up to similar fees to IPv4 over time. > More to the point, there seems to be a peculiar distaste for market-based > solutions. Could you elaborate some on the above point? I believe ARIN was the first RIR to have a formal transfer policy supporting market-based mechanisms... Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From david at cloudflare.com Mon Apr 15 15:45:08 2013 From: david at cloudflare.com (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:45:08 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <20130415141532.8kwuc0b0m8ksks8g@webmail.usfamily.net> References: <20130415141532.8kwuc0b0m8ksks8g@webmail.usfamily.net> Message-ID: <1202A8A7-5635-416E-9F9E-0C0EB7F86231@cloudflare.com> On Apr 15, 2013, at 12:15 PM, rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > Quite in fact, they should have been handing out IPv6 space for free to early adopters They were. > who were already paying for IPv4 and gradually ratcheting up the > per-ip cost of IPv4, if their goal was to expedite IPv6 adoption, which it > clearly isn't. Long ago, I proposed a policy that would have required some demonstration of IPv6 deployment plans in order to get additional IPv4 address space. The community was uninterested at the time, telling me (among other things) that it wasn't ARIN's job to promote a particular technology. Perhaps times have changed. > More to the point, there seems to be a peculiar distaste for market-based solutions. How does the saying go? "To each according to need..."? :) More seriously, if you think the small guys are getting screwed under existing ARIN policies, I'm not sure how a market approach would improve things given the buying power of the larger guys (speaking as someone who believes a market-based approach is inevitable). Regards, -drc From lambert at psc.edu Mon Apr 15 15:29:01 2013 From: lambert at psc.edu (Michael H Lambert) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:29:01 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <20130415141532.8kwuc0b0m8ksks8g@webmail.usfamily.net> References: <20130415141532.8kwuc0b0m8ksks8g@webmail.usfamily.net> Message-ID: On 15 Apr 2013, at 15:15, rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > Quite in fact, they should have been handing out IPv6 space for free to early > adopters who were already paying for IPv4 and gradually ratcheting up the > per-ip cost of IPv4, if their goal was to expedite IPv6 adoption, which it > clearly isn't. With fee waivers and reductions I would say they pretty much did, at least with respect to IPv6 space. We're years past early adoption. Michael From rlc at usfamily.net Mon Apr 15 16:15:19 2013 From: rlc at usfamily.net (rlc at usfamily.net) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:15:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Message-ID: <20130415151521.nnvwp0stfoks4gsk@webmail.usfamily.net> Divide ARIN's revenue needs by the number of IPv4 ip addresses they are currently administrating. Then compare that to the current fee schedule and tell me again how ARIN loves market-based solutions, at least as it pertains to encouraging IPv6 adoption. I am certainly not the only one over the years who has repeatedly suggested per-ip pricing partly for simple fairness reasons (big ISP's have always been able to "afford" to dole out large subnets where small ISP's have always been at a market disadvantage in that regard) and to encourage IPv6 adoption. The per-ip pricing seems to be taboo. Maybe I am missing something, but I kind of think we are STILL in the early adoption phase of IPv6 (hence, why aren't they still free)? How do I know? We have never had a single customer ask about IPv6. Not one. Not ever. Granted, we are not a large ISP, but right now, there is no demand in my world. Quoting John Curran : > On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:15 PM, rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> Quite in fact, they should have been handing out IPv6 space for free >> to early >> adopters who were already paying for IPv4 and gradually ratcheting up the >> per-ip cost of IPv4, if their goal was to expedite IPv6 adoption, which it >> clearly isn't. > > In fact, you describe exactly what we we've been doing ARIN had an IPv6 > fee waiver for many years and ramped it up to similar fees to IPv4 over > time. > >> More to the point, there seems to be a peculiar distaste for market-based >> solutions. > > Could you elaborate some on the above point? I believe ARIN was the first > RIR to have a formal transfer policy supporting market-based mechanisms... > > Thanks, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > From Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net Mon Apr 15 15:07:08 2013 From: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:07:08 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> Message-ID: <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized >> that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have been >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the time that >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >> > I don't believe that for a second. > > I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was formed > and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it was formed. > -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 From tim at communicatefreely.net Mon Apr 15 16:34:07 2013 From: tim at communicatefreely.net (Tim St. Pierre) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:34:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <516C121F.3050901@communicatefreely.net> <4300218B-DF10-41C1-9057-D067F94B3ECE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <516C643F.6000808@communicatefreely.net> Hi Heather, I asked the other upstream about that. Their answer was that they had used up all their allocations, but they hadn't gotten around to SWIP'ing everything so they could ask for another block. I'm not sure that is a good reason, but that's what I was told. I think with most providers now, they wait to give out every last bit of address space before they get more, and it's less common to have whole /24s not used. That could in part be the need to plan for 3 months predicted need. If you aren't growing in leaps and bounds, it may be hard to show how you are going to use a /22 or a /21 in three months -Tim On 13-04-15 04:18 PM, Heather Schiller wrote: > The second upstream that says they can't give more than a /28 either > -- did they give an explanation? It sounds like you qualify for > space.. does the second provider also not have space to allocate? The > free pool isn't out yet.. the problems at the first provider that was > just bought out aside -- your other provider should still be able to > get address space from ARIN and allocate to you. The > rules/requirements haven't really changed -- just the window of time > they can get space for has changed. > > That aside, I'm in favor of the idea of allocating/justifying PI v4 > space to folks with a v6 deployment. I'd like to hear more about how > common a problem this is. > > --Heather > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Scott Leibrand > > wrote: > > Tim, > > Thanks for bringing this up. It sounds like a real issue, which > could use some policy work. Cross-posting to PPML, where such > policy discussions occur. > > Scott > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:43 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" > > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > We are a new ISP, and we have had some interesting dilemma's getting > > started. I'm curious to know if this is something that has affected > > others, or if I'm just in a strange situation. > > > > We are building out an access network to reach business > customers in a > > small town. We will probably never be very big, but we like are > town > > and are hoping to eventually extend our reach to most business > in town. > > When we started, we requested a /32 IPv6 from ARIN. We had to > explain > > what we were doing, and our coverage area, etc. This seems > reasonable > > and all, and eventually we got our /32. At this point, all we > had was a > > /28 IPv4 SWIP'd from an upstream, so our fees jumped from $0 to > $1800 > > for the year. > > > > Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4 > > allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit > > problematic. We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but > they are > > essentially out of address space and can't give us any. They > can't get > > any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger > carrier > > that has free pools, but on a different AS. > > > > We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't > > give us anything more than a /28 either. > > > > I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't > > qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days. > > > > So now I'm stuck with a customer base that has native IPv6 for > everyone, > > but only a /29 IPv4 to share between 12 offices and about 200 or so > > retail WiFi users. I have to do crazy incoming NAT nonsense to > support > > my customers mail servers and VPN devices, and I'm crossing my > fingers > > that the wireless users don't do something stupid and get us all > > blacklisted. > > > > Should there be an additional policy to deal with initial > allocations > > where efficient utilization of X number of IPv6 /64s would serve as > > justification for a /22 IPv4, or perhaps some other scheme that > makes it > > a little easier for new ISPs. I understand that IPv4 is > constrained, > > but we aren't out of them yet, and a small ISP still needs an > allocation > > to function. > > > > Another alternative would be a new entrant policy similar to the > > immediate need clause, but with the following changes: > > -Only 50% must be used within 30 days > > -ISP must demonstrate that IPv6 has been deployed to end users > > -The same documentation of customer contracts and purchased > equipment > > would still apply. > > > > I look around and see the big incumbents with no IPv6 to speak > of, yet > > they have IPv4 for every customer. Here I am as the little startup > > trying to make a go of it, but I'm at a serious disadvantage > because I > > can't get any address resources. > > > > Am I just terribly unlucky, or is this becoming a problem for > others as > > well? I think the main issue is that upstream providers aren't > able to > > hand out /24s like they used to, so showing a /23 equivalent from an > > upstream is next to impossible now. > > > > Thanks! > > -Tim > > > > -- > > -- > > Tim St. Pierre > > System Operator > > Communicate Freely > > 289 225 1220 x5101 > > tim at communicatefreely.net > > www.communicatefreely.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > -- -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289 225 1220 x5101 tim at communicatefreely.net www.communicatefreely.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjankovich at vaultnetworks.com Mon Apr 15 16:36:28 2013 From: bjankovich at vaultnetworks.com (Brian Jankovich) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:36:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> Message-ID: <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com> I agree and doubt ARIN is really holding them to the 3mo justification of these IP blocks they are procuring. Brian Jankovich President | vaultnetworks 305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com skype: brianvaultnet www.vaultnetworks.com -----Original Message----- From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized >> that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have been >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the time that >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >> > I don't believe that for a second. > > I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was formed > and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it was formed. > -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 _______________________________________________ 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 spiffnolee at yahoo.com Mon Apr 15 17:04:36 2013 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:04:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com> Message-ID: <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> The scrutiny on large ISPs is at least as rigorous as on small ISPs.? Large ISPs have a full time person managing IP address records and ARIN requests, and nothing else.? That is as it should be. Lee >________________________________ > From: Brian Jankovich >To: 'Jawaid Bazyar' ; arin-discuss at arin.net >Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:36 PM >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > >I agree and doubt ARIN is really holding them to the 3mo justification of >these IP blocks they are procuring. > >Brian Jankovich >President | vaultnetworks > >305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com >skype: brianvaultnet >www.vaultnetworks.com > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net] >Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > >Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused >IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. > > > >On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: >> >>> You ARE new to this.? If you had been around longer, you would have >realized >>> that large players run the show at ARIN.? Otherwise, the fees would have >been >>> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the >time that >>> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >>> >> I don't believe that for a second. >> >> I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was >formed >> and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it >was formed. >> > >-- > >Jawaid Bazyar > >President > >ph 303.815.1814 > >fax 303.815.1001 > >Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >??? >Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 > >_______________________________________________ >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: From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Mon Apr 15 17:01:51 2013 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> Message-ID: <1366059711.99023.YahooMailNeo@web121605.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> >________________________________ > From: Jawaid Bazyar >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > >Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused >IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. > > Please provide supporting documentation. While you do, I'll point to http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ which lists the largest IPv6 networks in the world.? AT&T is right at the top, and Comcast, is #6.? Time Warner Cable lags at #13.? They are ranked by how many users hit major IPv6 websites (Google, Yahoo, etc.), but the percentage of IPv6/IPv6 is given.? The percentages are low: all report that their actual deployments are 2-3X higher than what is shown; suspect Happy Eyeballs. The correlation would seem to be that those with the largest IPv4 address assignments have the largest IPv6 deployments.? If you look for who is leading industry IPv6 efforts, some of the same names keep coming up. Google reports that 1.30% of the world reaches them over IPv6 http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics.html Cisco shows 2.43% of users running IPv6? http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/index.php Good benchmarks to keep up with. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon Apr 15 15:14:11 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:14:11 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB7FA69@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: John, Thanks so much for finally breaking this down. I've asked for this a few times. Here is how the data you pasted breaks out in fees collected in aggregate by those groups based on your numbers. X-Small 948 $1,185,000 Small 2,240 $5,600,000 Medium 630 $2,835,000 Large 106 $954,000 X?Large 73 $1,314,000 My next question, John, is would you kindly superimpose the resources consumed in each category? What I want to know specifically is what how many IP's are currently allocated to each "class". For example, the small category can only possibly be allocated 18,345,600 IPv4's at the very most. Here's what I find particularly interesting about these numbers: The entire group of "Small" are using in total less IP's than many SINGLE customers in X-Large. However, they are collectively paying 5x more. In other words. 2,240 customers are collectively paying $5.6million dollars for what 1 customer is paying $18k for! What the heck? With regards to Owen's comments. Your entire email lacks foundation as there is not a single data source to support it. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/15/13 11:21 AM, "John Curran" wrote: >On Apr 15, 2013, at 1:51 PM, rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have >>realized >> that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would >>have been >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the >>time that >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >> >> Instead, the big guys mumble that ARIN has administrative economies of >>scale >> with them. So what? If ARIN REALLY wanted to encourage large-scale >>adoption >> of IPv6, they would have squeezed the big guys. Never happened, never >>will. > > >Note that the Revised Fee schedule actually adds a new category of >XX-Large >which raises fees for the largest ISPs significantly; this would not be an >expected outcome if "large players run the show at ARIN". > >Also, ARIN's membership is mostly composed of small and medium ISPs, thus >putting the election of the ARIN Board of Trustees far more control of >the >small ISP community than largest ISPs - > > > Size 2011 > Category Count > > X-Small 948 > Small 2,240 > Medium 630 > Large 106 > X?Large 73 > >It is true that some ISPs participate more heavily in ARIN policy and >governance discussions than do others, but that is a choice up to each >member of the community. > >FYI, >/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 jesse at la-broadband.com Mon Apr 15 16:36:34 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:36:34 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <20130415151521.nnvwp0stfoks4gsk@webmail.usfamily.net> Message-ID: I agree I've been arguing for a flat rate for about a year now. Your point about large ISP's being able to comparatively drop huge subnets to customers is well taken. You mentioned one reason for this, the other reason is because there is waste/fraud literally into the allocation process. The more you dole out the more you can ask for the more you ask for the more you offload your fees onto everyone below you. This goes on and on until you have a few dozen folks paying $1.3mil to use more than 80% the space while everyone else pays $9.4mil for the leftovers of what the larger guys literally piss it all away to the extent that we're now out of IP's. I still don't buy that it takes 16mil IP's to make cialis! I have yet to see anyone make a solid argument against it and find it particularly misleading that people keep referencing the current fee model as an allocation based one. It isn't. Lets stop pretending. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/15/13 1:15 PM, "rlc at usfamily.net" wrote: >Divide ARIN's revenue needs by the number of IPv4 ip addresses they are >currently administrating. Then compare that to the current fee schedule >and >tell me again how ARIN loves market-based solutions, at least as it >pertains to >encouraging IPv6 adoption. I am certainly not the only one over the >years who >has repeatedly suggested per-ip pricing partly for simple fairness >reasons (big >ISP's have always been able to "afford" to dole out large subnets where >small >ISP's have always been at a market disadvantage in that regard) and to >encourage IPv6 adoption. > >The per-ip pricing seems to be taboo. > >Maybe I am missing something, but I kind of think we are STILL in the >early >adoption phase of IPv6 (hence, why aren't they still free)? How do I >know? We >have never had a single customer ask about IPv6. Not one. Not ever. >Granted, >we are not a large ISP, but right now, there is no demand in my world. > > > > >Quoting John Curran : > >> On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:15 PM, rlc at usfamily.net wrote: >> >>> Quite in fact, they should have been handing out IPv6 space for free >>> to early >>> adopters who were already paying for IPv4 and gradually ratcheting up >>>the >>> per-ip cost of IPv4, if their goal was to expedite IPv6 adoption, >>>which it >>> clearly isn't. >> >> In fact, you describe exactly what we we've been doing ARIN had an IPv6 >> fee waiver for many years and ramped it up to similar fees to IPv4 over >> time. >> >>> More to the point, there seems to be a peculiar distaste for >>>market-based >>> solutions. >> >> Could you elaborate some on the above point? I believe ARIN was the >>first >> RIR to have a formal transfer policy supporting market-based >>mechanisms... >> >> 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 jesse at la-broadband.com Mon Apr 15 18:15:07 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:15:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com> Lee, You've just inadvertently argued (I'd say accurately) against the repeated assertions by those in this group that the large ISPs consume fewer man hours than small ISPs. Unlike Owen who's largest 'ISP' he's worked at is netcom in the early 90's I have worked at worldcom, uunet, and charter communications I happen to know (as you've rightfully pointed out) that x-large ISPs consume enormous amounts of ARIN man hours compared to everyone else. A flat fee addresses all these concerns. Everyone pays for what they actually use It discourages many of the ridiculous allocations we all see on a daily basis. Both by ARIN to ISPs and ISPs to customers by the x-large group. Lee if you think apple needs a /8 to sell iPhones, ford needs a /8 to sell cars, HP needs a /8 to sell printer ink, and Eli Lilly needs a /8 to sell erections you and the rest of us may have very different ideas of what constitutes waste. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 2:39 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: The scrutiny on large ISPs is at least as rigorous as on small ISPs. Large ISPs have a full time person managing IP address records and ARIN requests, and nothing else. That is as it should be. Lee ________________________________ From: Brian Jankovich > To: 'Jawaid Bazyar' >; arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? I agree and doubt ARIN is really holding them to the 3mo justification of these IP blocks they are procuring. Brian Jankovich President | vaultnetworks 305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com skype: brianvaultnet www.vaultnetworks.com -----Original Message----- From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized >> that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have been >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the time that >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >> > I don't believe that for a second. > > I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was formed > and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it was formed. > -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > > Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 15 18:23:05 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:23:05 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > John, > > Thanks so much for finally breaking this down. I've asked for this a few > times. Jesse - We've provided this information already; you did you review the referenced fee presentation? > Here is how the data you pasted breaks out in fees collected in aggregate > by those groups based on your numbers. > > X-Small 948 $1,185,000 > Small 2,240 $5,600,000 > Medium 630 $2,835,000 > Large 106 $954,000 > X?Large 73 $1,314,000 Per page 13 of the above presentation, here are the 2011 actual costs as broken down by the existing fee categories: X?Small $1,245,000 11.51% Small $4,506,000 41.65% Medium $2,835,000 26.21% Large $ 909,000 8.40% X?Large $1,323,000 12.23% > My next question, John, is would you kindly superimpose the resources > consumed in each category? What I want to know specifically is what how > many IP's are currently allocated to each "class". For example, the small > category can only possibly be allocated 18,345,600 IPv4's at the very most. We have not done the above calculation, but it can be derived from the whois data if you desire to do so. > Here's what I find particularly interesting about these numbers: > The entire group of "Small" are using in total less IP's than many SINGLE > customers in X-Large. However, they are collectively paying 5x more. In > other words. 2,240 customers are collectively paying $5.6million dollars > for what 1 customer is paying $18k for! What the heck? That is not surprising at all, and I will note that under IPv6, this effect is even more pronounced (a single ISP with a /20 of IPv6 space will likely exceed the total IPv6 holdings of thousands of ISP's with smaller address holdings.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon Apr 15 18:41:37 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:41:37 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> John, Thank you. Here's my suggestion for fees. Comments are always welcome. Take the following pieces of data: Total assigned /24 for IPv4 Total assigned /32 for IPv6 ARIN's yearly costs Find the following: Take ARINs yearly cost an divide it by the first two numbers. I think that should dictate fees per /24 or /32 regardless of whether or not that's allocated in a /20 (IPv6) or a /12 (IPv4). If we were to do that what would that cost per /32 or /24? Also, regarding ARINs costs. I'm curious to know what the other options and their price was vs this retreat ARIN is doing to Trinidad... Is that really the best, most economical use of our fees? How many IPs are in use there? I was pretty appalled when I saw that show up in my inbox. Surely ARIN can find better uses for our funds than such extravagance... Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:23 PM, "John Curran" wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > >> John, >> >> Thanks so much for finally breaking this down. I've asked for this a few >> times. > > Jesse - > > We've provided this information already; you did you review the referenced fee presentation? > > >> Here is how the data you pasted breaks out in fees collected in aggregate >> by those groups based on your numbers. >> >> X-Small 948 $1,185,000 >> Small 2,240 $5,600,000 >> Medium 630 $2,835,000 >> Large 106 $954,000 >> X?Large 73 $1,314,000 > > Per page 13 of the above presentation, here are the 2011 actual > costs as broken down by the existing fee categories: > > X?Small $1,245,000 11.51% > Small $4,506,000 41.65% > Medium $2,835,000 26.21% > Large $ 909,000 8.40% > X?Large $1,323,000 12.23% > >> My next question, John, is would you kindly superimpose the resources >> consumed in each category? What I want to know specifically is what how >> many IP's are currently allocated to each "class". For example, the small >> category can only possibly be allocated 18,345,600 IPv4's at the very most. > > We have not done the above calculation, but it can be derived from the > whois data if you desire to do so. > >> Here's what I find particularly interesting about these numbers: >> The entire group of "Small" are using in total less IP's than many SINGLE >> customers in X-Large. However, they are collectively paying 5x more. In >> other words. 2,240 customers are collectively paying $5.6million dollars >> for what 1 customer is paying $18k for! What the heck? > > That is not surprising at all, and I will note that under IPv6, this effect is > even more pronounced (a single ISP with a /20 of IPv6 space will likely exceed > the total IPv6 holdings of thousands of ISP's with smaller address holdings.) > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon Apr 15 18:48:04 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:48:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com>, Message-ID: Matthew, Your personal remarks are unhelpful and childish. Further I have seen about 6 people in the last few hours say the exact same thing as I (regarding making a flat fee) and about 2 people disagreeing. With regards to your smidgen of useful content I am aware of exactly what Lee said regarding having full time people at the ISPs managing those allocations. Having been that person I am also aware of the amount of time I've had to spend going back and forth with ARIN in that role and it was exponentially greater compared to the amount of time I've had to consume in the "small" category. In other words, x-large takes more ARIN time and more provider time. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:39 PM, "Matthew Wilder" > wrote: Jesse ? As much as I hate to feed the troll, I can?t help but point out your incredible non sequitur here. Lee said the ISP employs someone full time, NOT that ARIN employs someone full time for each Large ISP. I am one such FTE dedicated to IP Address Management for an X-Large ISP, soon to be XX-Large. And yet, believe it or not, ARIN only deals with me once every 3 months at most apart from meetings and mailing lists. That?s the same as they might deal with medium or small ISPs. We run Referral Whois for our IPv4 resources, so even the registry function is not being taxed, although with IPv6 we are using RESTful-RWS to report our reassignments ? all without the operational involvement of any ARIN staff. So as much as admirable as it is to take Lee?s words and announce that Lee is confirming your assertion that ARIN is burdened by on-going operational activity related only to X-Large ISPs, it is actually not admirable at all. At best it?s a terrible non sequitur, and at worst it?s putting words in someone?s mouth. Either way it?s lazy and annoying. mw From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: April 15, 2013 3:15 PM To: Lee Howard Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Lee, You've just inadvertently argued (I'd say accurately) against the repeated assertions by those in this group that the large ISPs consume fewer man hours than small ISPs. Unlike Owen who's largest 'ISP' he's worked at is netcom in the early 90's I have worked at worldcom, uunet, and charter communications I happen to know (as you've rightfully pointed out) that x-large ISPs consume enormous amounts of ARIN man hours compared to everyone else. A flat fee addresses all these concerns. Everyone pays for what they actually use It discourages many of the ridiculous allocations we all see on a daily basis. Both by ARIN to ISPs and ISPs to customers by the x-large group. Lee if you think apple needs a /8 to sell iPhones, ford needs a /8 to sell cars, HP needs a /8 to sell printer ink, and Eli Lilly needs a /8 to sell erections you and the rest of us may have very different ideas of what constitutes waste. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 2:39 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: The scrutiny on large ISPs is at least as rigorous as on small ISPs. Large ISPs have a full time person managing IP address records and ARIN requests, and nothing else. That is as it should be. Lee ________________________________ From: Brian Jankovich > To: 'Jawaid Bazyar' >; arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? I agree and doubt ARIN is really holding them to the 3mo justification of these IP blocks they are procuring. Brian Jankovich President | vaultnetworks 305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com skype: brianvaultnet www.vaultnetworks.com -----Original Message----- From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized >> that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have been >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the time that >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >> > I don't believe that for a second. > > I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was formed > and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it was formed. > -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > > Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Matthew.Wilder at telus.com Mon Apr 15 18:40:44 2013 From: Matthew.Wilder at telus.com (Matthew Wilder) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:40:44 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: Jesse - As much as I hate to feed the troll, I can't help but point out your incredible non sequitur here. Lee said the ISP employs someone full time, NOT that ARIN employs someone full time for each Large ISP. I am one such FTE dedicated to IP Address Management for an X-Large ISP, soon to be XX-Large. And yet, believe it or not, ARIN only deals with me once every 3 months at most apart from meetings and mailing lists. That's the same as they might deal with medium or small ISPs. We run Referral Whois for our IPv4 resources, so even the registry function is not being taxed, although with IPv6 we are using RESTful-RWS to report our reassignments - all without the operational involvement of any ARIN staff. So as much as admirable as it is to take Lee's words and announce that Lee is confirming your assertion that ARIN is burdened by on-going operational activity related only to X-Large ISPs, it is actually not admirable at all. At best it's a terrible non sequitur, and at worst it's putting words in someone's mouth. Either way it's lazy and annoying. mw From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: April 15, 2013 3:15 PM To: Lee Howard Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Lee, You've just inadvertently argued (I'd say accurately) against the repeated assertions by those in this group that the large ISPs consume fewer man hours than small ISPs. Unlike Owen who's largest 'ISP' he's worked at is netcom in the early 90's I have worked at worldcom, uunet, and charter communications I happen to know (as you've rightfully pointed out) that x-large ISPs consume enormous amounts of ARIN man hours compared to everyone else. A flat fee addresses all these concerns. Everyone pays for what they actually use It discourages many of the ridiculous allocations we all see on a daily basis. Both by ARIN to ISPs and ISPs to customers by the x-large group. Lee if you think apple needs a /8 to sell iPhones, ford needs a /8 to sell cars, HP needs a /8 to sell printer ink, and Eli Lilly needs a /8 to sell erections you and the rest of us may have very different ideas of what constitutes waste. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 2:39 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: The scrutiny on large ISPs is at least as rigorous as on small ISPs. Large ISPs have a full time person managing IP address records and ARIN requests, and nothing else. That is as it should be. Lee ________________________________ From: Brian Jankovich > To: 'Jawaid Bazyar' >; arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? I agree and doubt ARIN is really holding them to the 3mo justification of these IP blocks they are procuring. Brian Jankovich President | vaultnetworks 305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com skype: brianvaultnet www.vaultnetworks.com -----Original Message----- From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized >> that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have been >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the time that >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >> > I don't believe that for a second. > > I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was formed > and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it was formed. > -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > > Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Matthew.Wilder at telus.com Mon Apr 15 19:14:40 2013 From: Matthew.Wilder at telus.com (Matthew Wilder) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:14:40 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com>, Message-ID: Jesse, I am sorry that the message was lost. Here it is again: ARIN does not spend appreciably more time interacting with me - and I would argue X-Large ISPs in general - than any ISP who regularly requests allocations every 3 months under current policies. Certainly the amount of effort is very, very far from being proportional to the resource being requested which is what you are arguing if I understand you correctly. To put this in more tangible terms; if it takes a small ISP 2 hours of ARIN's effort to get a /22 allocated, you would suggest it takes 256 man hours of ARIN's resources to allocate a /16? I am aware a lot of people think it makes sense to charge per resource, but ARIN's expenses are not linear in proportion to the resources, and I think you would have an impossible time trying to prove me wrong on this. The other 2 people who are arguing my point are an ARIN AC member and a past ARIN board member. I know them both and they have a wealth of experience operating in the ARIN community and their comments are worth listening to. mw From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] Sent: April 15, 2013 3:48 PM To: Matthew Wilder Cc: Lee Howard; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Matthew, Your personal remarks are unhelpful and childish. Further I have seen about 6 people in the last few hours say the exact same thing as I (regarding making a flat fee) and about 2 people disagreeing. With regards to your smidgen of useful content I am aware of exactly what Lee said regarding having full time people at the ISPs managing those allocations. Having been that person I am also aware of the amount of time I've had to spend going back and forth with ARIN in that role and it was exponentially greater compared to the amount of time I've had to consume in the "small" category. In other words, x-large takes more ARIN time and more provider time. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:39 PM, "Matthew Wilder" > wrote: Jesse - As much as I hate to feed the troll, I can't help but point out your incredible non sequitur here. Lee said the ISP employs someone full time, NOT that ARIN employs someone full time for each Large ISP. I am one such FTE dedicated to IP Address Management for an X-Large ISP, soon to be XX-Large. And yet, believe it or not, ARIN only deals with me once every 3 months at most apart from meetings and mailing lists. That's the same as they might deal with medium or small ISPs. We run Referral Whois for our IPv4 resources, so even the registry function is not being taxed, although with IPv6 we are using RESTful-RWS to report our reassignments - all without the operational involvement of any ARIN staff. So as much as admirable as it is to take Lee's words and announce that Lee is confirming your assertion that ARIN is burdened by on-going operational activity related only to X-Large ISPs, it is actually not admirable at all. At best it's a terrible non sequitur, and at worst it's putting words in someone's mouth. Either way it's lazy and annoying. mw From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: April 15, 2013 3:15 PM To: Lee Howard Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Lee, You've just inadvertently argued (I'd say accurately) against the repeated assertions by those in this group that the large ISPs consume fewer man hours than small ISPs. Unlike Owen who's largest 'ISP' he's worked at is netcom in the early 90's I have worked at worldcom, uunet, and charter communications I happen to know (as you've rightfully pointed out) that x-large ISPs consume enormous amounts of ARIN man hours compared to everyone else. A flat fee addresses all these concerns. Everyone pays for what they actually use It discourages many of the ridiculous allocations we all see on a daily basis. Both by ARIN to ISPs and ISPs to customers by the x-large group. Lee if you think apple needs a /8 to sell iPhones, ford needs a /8 to sell cars, HP needs a /8 to sell printer ink, and Eli Lilly needs a /8 to sell erections you and the rest of us may have very different ideas of what constitutes waste. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 2:39 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: The scrutiny on large ISPs is at least as rigorous as on small ISPs. Large ISPs have a full time person managing IP address records and ARIN requests, and nothing else. That is as it should be. Lee ________________________________ From: Brian Jankovich > To: 'Jawaid Bazyar' >; arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? I agree and doubt ARIN is really holding them to the 3mo justification of these IP blocks they are procuring. Brian Jankovich President | vaultnetworks 305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com skype: brianvaultnet www.vaultnetworks.com -----Original Message----- From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized >> that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have been >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the time that >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >> > I don't believe that for a second. > > I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was formed > and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it was formed. > -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > > Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 15 19:42:57 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:42:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > John, > > Thank you. Here's my suggestion for fees. Comments are always welcome. > > Take the following pieces of data: > Total assigned /24 for IPv4 > Total assigned /32 for IPv6 How do you wish to count ISP allocations and end-users assignments, i.e. separately or together? Also, why /32 for IPv6 and not /48? (presuming 1 /48 per end-user with IPv6, similar to 1 /32 IPv4 for end-user due to NAT use...) Working quickly (from the historical stats online) - Total ISP allocations from 1999 to 2012 is 1,920,900 (in /24 equivalents) > ARIN's yearly costs Nearly the same as revenues, and per page 14 of the fee slide deck, approximately $15.4 million. > Find the following: > Take ARINs yearly cost an divide it by the first two numbers. I think that should dictate fees per /24 or /32 regardless of whether or not that's allocated in a /20 (IPv6) or a /12 (IPv4). > > If we were to do that what would that cost per /32 or /24? If it were purely divided by ISP IPv4 allocations, then it would be approximately $8/year per /24 equivalent. > Also, regarding ARINs costs. I'm curious to know what the other options and their price was vs this retreat ARIN is doing to Trinidad... Is that really the best, most economical use of our fees? How many IPs are in use there? I was pretty appalled when I saw that show up in my inbox. Surely ARIN can find better uses for our funds than such extravagance... Jesse, ARIN serves more than 25 economies and the majority of these are in the Caribbean. We even have number resource policies which are specific to ISPs in the Caribbean region - While most of our meetings are in the United States and Canada, we also try to meet periodically in the Caribbean, as there is no substitute for direct interaction with those who we serve. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From springer at inlandnet.com Mon Apr 15 19:43:31 2013 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: Hi Jesse On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > > Also, regarding ARINs costs. I'm curious to know what the other options and their price was vs this retreat ARIN is doing to Trinidad... Is that really the best, most economical use of our fees? How many IPs are in use there? I was pretty appalled when I saw that show up in my inbox. Surely ARIN can find better uses for our funds than such extravagance... Residents of the Caribbean are ARIN members and members of the community. Also, Canada! IMO, it is equitable to site meetings in other ARIN nations occasionally, that attendees from them may have more modest travel costs. Not to mention that entering the good ole USA as a furriner is rather less fun than it used to be. YMMV John Springer From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon Apr 15 19:26:10 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:26:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com>, , Message-ID: Matthew, Unlike you, I didn't say anyone's comments weren't worth listening to. You're still young yet and I suspect once you start your own business vs what you've been doing the last 4 years (customer service 3yrs & IP management 1yr) you will have a different perspective. With that said there are 3 factors you can base pricing on: 1. Totally arbitrary number (current model) 2. Equally based on blocks assigned 3. Based on ARIN time consumed. The third one is the one you're suggesting. This model is the second least perfect because it is arbitrary as well. All you can do is average everyone out which means I may be paying for some dude generating tons of tickets while I only created a few tickets in the last few years. This is an unequal yoke. The only way to guarantee everyone is equally yoked is to base it strictly on blocks assigned and get rid of all the categories altogether. I think all of us agree one of the reasons we are out of IPs is because of waste. Making it strictly an allocation based model with no tiers should help combat waste. If I'm assigning /22's to a bunch of T1's and have to request a bunch of POs to get more IPs on a linear cost model I will have to justify that to accounting. At some point your CFO will say what the heck are you doing, this doesn't scale. I can't continue to spend x amount to acquire each customer. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 4:14 PM, "Matthew Wilder" > wrote: Jesse, I am sorry that the message was lost. Here it is again: ARIN does not spend appreciably more time interacting with me ? and I would argue X-Large ISPs in general ? than any ISP who regularly requests allocations every 3 months under current policies. Certainly the amount of effort is very, very far from being proportional to the resource being requested which is what you are arguing if I understand you correctly. To put this in more tangible terms; if it takes a small ISP 2 hours of ARIN?s effort to get a /22 allocated, you would suggest it takes 256 man hours of ARIN?s resources to allocate a /16? I am aware a lot of people think it makes sense to charge per resource, but ARIN?s expenses are not linear in proportion to the resources, and I think you would have an impossible time trying to prove me wrong on this. The other 2 people who are arguing my point are an ARIN AC member and a past ARIN board member. I know them both and they have a wealth of experience operating in the ARIN community and their comments are worth listening to. mw From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] Sent: April 15, 2013 3:48 PM To: Matthew Wilder Cc: Lee Howard; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Matthew, Your personal remarks are unhelpful and childish. Further I have seen about 6 people in the last few hours say the exact same thing as I (regarding making a flat fee) and about 2 people disagreeing. With regards to your smidgen of useful content I am aware of exactly what Lee said regarding having full time people at the ISPs managing those allocations. Having been that person I am also aware of the amount of time I've had to spend going back and forth with ARIN in that role and it was exponentially greater compared to the amount of time I've had to consume in the "small" category. In other words, x-large takes more ARIN time and more provider time. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:39 PM, "Matthew Wilder" > wrote: Jesse ? As much as I hate to feed the troll, I can?t help but point out your incredible non sequitur here. Lee said the ISP employs someone full time, NOT that ARIN employs someone full time for each Large ISP. I am one such FTE dedicated to IP Address Management for an X-Large ISP, soon to be XX-Large. And yet, believe it or not, ARIN only deals with me once every 3 months at most apart from meetings and mailing lists. That?s the same as they might deal with medium or small ISPs. We run Referral Whois for our IPv4 resources, so even the registry function is not being taxed, although with IPv6 we are using RESTful-RWS to report our reassignments ? all without the operational involvement of any ARIN staff. So as much as admirable as it is to take Lee?s words and announce that Lee is confirming your assertion that ARIN is burdened by on-going operational activity related only to X-Large ISPs, it is actually not admirable at all. At best it?s a terrible non sequitur, and at worst it?s putting words in someone?s mouth. Either way it?s lazy and annoying. mw From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: April 15, 2013 3:15 PM To: Lee Howard Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Lee, You've just inadvertently argued (I'd say accurately) against the repeated assertions by those in this group that the large ISPs consume fewer man hours than small ISPs. Unlike Owen who's largest 'ISP' he's worked at is netcom in the early 90's I have worked at worldcom, uunet, and charter communications I happen to know (as you've rightfully pointed out) that x-large ISPs consume enormous amounts of ARIN man hours compared to everyone else. A flat fee addresses all these concerns. Everyone pays for what they actually use It discourages many of the ridiculous allocations we all see on a daily basis. Both by ARIN to ISPs and ISPs to customers by the x-large group. Lee if you think apple needs a /8 to sell iPhones, ford needs a /8 to sell cars, HP needs a /8 to sell printer ink, and Eli Lilly needs a /8 to sell erections you and the rest of us may have very different ideas of what constitutes waste. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 2:39 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: The scrutiny on large ISPs is at least as rigorous as on small ISPs. Large ISPs have a full time person managing IP address records and ARIN requests, and nothing else. That is as it should be. Lee ________________________________ From: Brian Jankovich > To: 'Jawaid Bazyar' >; arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? I agree and doubt ARIN is really holding them to the 3mo justification of these IP blocks they are procuring. Brian Jankovich President | vaultnetworks 305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com skype: brianvaultnet www.vaultnetworks.com -----Original Message----- From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized >> that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have been >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the time that >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >> > I don't believe that for a second. > > I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was formed > and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it was formed. > -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > > Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drake.pallister at duraserver.com Mon Apr 15 20:19:32 2013 From: drake.pallister at duraserver.com (Drake Pallister) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:19:32 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Why as justification for IPv4? References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <6F34D67ED101432B8CAB20EBFA2EC7FE@dp9100> Hello folks, I don't get this twist on V6 holdings as justification for getting V4 allocations. We were in a world of V4 which had to transition to something new because V4 (that would never run out, as thought 15 years ago) so we came up with V6. If there are some creative intelligent people who built an infrastructure of all V6, I am amazed. They are Genius with a capital G because I am in awe of your doings. But please tell me why that should be used as a criteria for dispersion of V4 IP numbers. As more and more Genius providers connect more and more V6 customer base, then the need for V4 should decrease drastically. I don't see the logic. Is it a reward for making use of V6? Are we new suddenly rolling in newly unused V4 now because V6 is in such widespread use? Time for an analogy? If I go into a tavern and can successfully consume.... Well, Nope that analogy goes nowhere. The summary of my thought pattern is straight forward. If you need or want V6, you requisition for V6. If you need or want V4, you requisition for V4. In the end, I was to believe a strive for a transition over to V6 with backward compatibility for the tiny quantity of V4 still in use. Drake ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" To: "Jesse D. Geddis" Cc: Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > >> John, >> >> Thank you. Here's my suggestion for fees. Comments are always welcome. >> >> Take the following pieces of data: >> Total assigned /24 for IPv4 >> Total assigned /32 for IPv6 > > How do you wish to count ISP allocations and end-users assignments, > i.e. separately or together? > > Also, why /32 for IPv6 and not /48? (presuming 1 /48 per end-user > with IPv6, similar to 1 /32 IPv4 for end-user due to NAT use...) > > Working quickly (from the historical stats online) - > > > Total ISP allocations from 1999 to 2012 is 1,920,900 (in /24 equivalents) > >> ARIN's yearly costs > > Nearly the same as revenues, and per page 14 of the fee slide deck, > approximately $15.4 million. > >> Find the following: >> Take ARINs yearly cost an divide it by the first two numbers. I think that should dictate fees per /24 or /32 regardless of >> whether or not that's allocated in a /20 (IPv6) or a /12 (IPv4). >> >> If we were to do that what would that cost per /32 or /24? > > If it were purely divided by ISP IPv4 allocations, then > it would be approximately $8/year per /24 equivalent. > >> Also, regarding ARINs costs. I'm curious to know what the other options and their price was vs this retreat ARIN is doing to >> Trinidad... Is that really the best, most economical use of our fees? How many IPs are in use there? I was pretty appalled when I >> saw that show up in my inbox. Surely ARIN can find better uses for our funds than such extravagance... > > > Jesse, ARIN serves more than 25 economies and the majority > of these are in the Caribbean. We even have number resource > policies which are specific to ISPs in the Caribbean region - > While most of > our meetings are in the United States and Canada, we also > try to meet periodically in the Caribbean, as there is no > substitute for direct interaction with those who we serve. > > FYI, > /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 drake.pallister at duraserver.com Mon Apr 15 20:19:54 2013 From: drake.pallister at duraserver.com (Drake Pallister) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:19:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Why as justification for IPv4? References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Hello folks, I don't get this twist on V6 holdings as justification for getting V4 allocations. We were in a world of V4 which had to transition to something new because V4 (that would never run out, as thought 15 years ago) so we came up with V6. If there are some creative intelligent people who built an infrastructure of all V6, I am amazed. They are Genius with a capital G because I am in awe of your doings. But please tell me why that should be used as a criteria for dispersion of V4 IP numbers. As more and more Genius providers connect more and more V6 customer base, then the need for V4 should decrease drastically. I don't see the logic. Is it a reward for making use of V6? Are we new suddenly rolling in newly unused V4 now because V6 is in such widespread use? Time for an analogy? If I go into a tavern and can successfully consume.... Well, Nope that analogy goes nowhere. The summary of my thought pattern is straight forward. If you need or want V6, you requisition for V6. If you need or want V4, you requisition for V4. In the end, I was to believe a strive for a transition over to V6 with backward compatibility for the tiny quantity of V4 still in use. Drake ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" To: "Jesse D. Geddis" Cc: Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > >> John, >> >> Thank you. Here's my suggestion for fees. Comments are always welcome. >> >> Take the following pieces of data: >> Total assigned /24 for IPv4 >> Total assigned /32 for IPv6 > > How do you wish to count ISP allocations and end-users assignments, > i.e. separately or together? > > Also, why /32 for IPv6 and not /48? (presuming 1 /48 per end-user > with IPv6, similar to 1 /32 IPv4 for end-user due to NAT use...) > > Working quickly (from the historical stats online) - > > > Total ISP allocations from 1999 to 2012 is 1,920,900 (in /24 equivalents) > >> ARIN's yearly costs > > Nearly the same as revenues, and per page 14 of the fee slide deck, > approximately $15.4 million. > >> Find the following: >> Take ARINs yearly cost an divide it by the first two numbers. I think that should dictate fees per /24 or /32 regardless of >> whether or not that's allocated in a /20 (IPv6) or a /12 (IPv4). >> >> If we were to do that what would that cost per /32 or /24? > > If it were purely divided by ISP IPv4 allocations, then > it would be approximately $8/year per /24 equivalent. > >> Also, regarding ARINs costs. I'm curious to know what the other options and their price was vs this retreat ARIN is doing to >> Trinidad... Is that really the best, most economical use of our fees? How many IPs are in use there? I was pretty appalled when I >> saw that show up in my inbox. Surely ARIN can find better uses for our funds than such extravagance... > > > Jesse, ARIN serves more than 25 economies and the majority > of these are in the Caribbean. We even have number resource > policies which are specific to ISPs in the Caribbean region - > While most of > our meetings are in the United States and Canada, we also > try to meet periodically in the Caribbean, as there is no > substitute for direct interaction with those who we serve. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon Apr 15 20:25:54 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:25:54 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <202E6EBC-45CD-4F7E-B5F8-871B562C3DEA@cloudflare.com> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com>, , <202E6EBC-45CD-4F7E-B5F8-871B562C3DEA@cloudflare.com> Message-ID: David, I may have been unclear due to the complexity of the discussion as well as there being multiple concurrent discussions. I make no assumption. In fact I'm saying the opposite. In summary what I'm saying is I don't think making an 'ARIN man hours model' is fair because the resulting fee schedule will likely be arbitrary. So my question is what would the fee be if we eliminated all tiers and took a minimum block size to calculate a flat fee based on. The follow up question would be: armed with that information what impact do we all think that would have on adoption and waste. Even further. What if we kept the initial /32 free for everyone (who requests it) with an IPv4 assignment to encourage rollouts for the time being? I'm using myself as an example here, I rolled out ipv6 natively in my company specifically because I was incentivised by ARINs ipv6 fee waiver. I think it's good policy. Someone pointed out earlier that we have at best a 2.4% adoption rate. I think that number is high but regardless. We need to do better. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:17 PM, "David Conrad" wrote: > Jesse, > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" wrote: >> In other words, x-large takes more ARIN time and more provider time. > > You appear to be making two assumptions: > > 1) there is a linear relationship between the time it takes to provide allocation service and the size of allocation > 2) the direct costs of providing allocation services are what make up a majority of the fees charged to members > > Both of these assumptions are suspect. > > My (ancient) experience relevant to (1) is that a far more direct relationship is found in the inverse of frequency of contact as folks who contact the RIR frequently have a greater familiarity with processes and have likely automated much of the justification generation. As a result, they generally require less time than folks who show up very infrequently, regardless of the size of request. > > As for (2), I'm guessing that the person-hour cost of doing the justification analysis for an allocation (the only part of the allocation process that is significantly impacted by the size of request) is pretty inconsequential compared to all the other costs that make up the ARIN's yearly expenses. > > Regards, > -drc > From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon Apr 15 20:34:55 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:34:55 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com>, Message-ID: <4D32DF0C-3C2B-4B0D-A9C9-BBE04A899EB1@la-broadband.com> John, I know ARIN serves that region :) that was more of an aside. But the second part of my comment along that line was what is Trinidad's total allocation and does it justify the expense of flying John and however many others on his staff out there :) vs awarding those two all expense paid tickets for two Trinidadian's to come to the US or Canada or just make it totally neutral and somewhere close to ARINs office :) I didn't really want that to be the focus of my comments though. I just thought it was interesting to include since we are talking about fees here. I think it was a reasonable assumption to say hey would ARINs fees be lower if we weren't doing that kind of "outreach" and what is the expected return on that visit being in that specific location. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:27 PM, "John Springer" wrote: > Hi Jesse > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > >> >> Also, regarding ARINs costs. I'm curious to know what the other options > and their price was vs this retreat ARIN is doing to Trinidad... Is that > really the best, most economical use of our fees? How many IPs are in use > there? I was pretty appalled when I saw that show up in my inbox. Surely > ARIN can find better uses for our funds than such extravagance... > > Residents of the Caribbean are ARIN members and members of the community. Also, Canada! IMO, it is equitable to site meetings in other ARIN nations occasionally, that attendees from them may have more modest travel costs. Not to mention that entering the good ole USA as a furriner is rather less fun than it used to be. > > YMMV > > John Springer From david at cloudflare.com Mon Apr 15 20:17:44 2013 From: david at cloudflare.com (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:17:44 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com>, Message-ID: <202E6EBC-45CD-4F7E-B5F8-871B562C3DEA@cloudflare.com> Jesse, On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" wrote: > In other words, x-large takes more ARIN time and more provider time. You appear to be making two assumptions: 1) there is a linear relationship between the time it takes to provide allocation service and the size of allocation 2) the direct costs of providing allocation services are what make up a majority of the fees charged to members Both of these assumptions are suspect. My (ancient) experience relevant to (1) is that a far more direct relationship is found in the inverse of frequency of contact as folks who contact the RIR frequently have a greater familiarity with processes and have likely automated much of the justification generation. As a result, they generally require less time than folks who show up very infrequently, regardless of the size of request. As for (2), I'm guessing that the person-hour cost of doing the justification analysis for an allocation (the only part of the allocation process that is significantly impacted by the size of request) is pretty inconsequential compared to all the other costs that make up the ARIN's yearly expenses. Regards, -drc From tim at communicatefreely.net Mon Apr 15 21:48:20 2013 From: tim at communicatefreely.net (Tim St. Pierre) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:48:20 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Why as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <6F34D67ED101432B8CAB20EBFA2EC7FE@dp9100> References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <6F34D67ED101432B8CAB20EBFA2EC7FE@dp9100> Message-ID: <516CADE4.6050602@communicatefreely.net> Hi Drake, I think I can explain this a little - and I appreciate the sideways compliment. As much as I would rather run a v6 only network, I can't yet because everyone else is still stuck in IPv4 land. It was pretty easy for me to get an IPv6 allocation to use to build my network, but I still can't get an IPv4 allocation. I believe the spirit of the nrpm policy is "prove to use you have a real customer base before we give you a meaningful address allocation". I can't meet the /23 requirement because I can't get a /23, so I'm suggesting that I be able to prove my customer base by making IPv6 assignments. I need IPv4 space to support my dual-stack customers that are all behind NAT, but should really have a proper IPv4 assignment. I'm arguing that by demonstrating an IPv6 deployment, it shows me as worthy to be allocated scarce IPv4 resources to the same network. If I could just fill out some forms and get a /22 from the get-go, then this wouldn't be an issue at all. Hope that makes sense. -Tim On 13-04-15 08:19 PM, Drake Pallister wrote: > Hello folks, > > I don't get this twist on V6 holdings as justification for getting V4 > allocations. > > We were in a world of V4 which had to transition to something new > because V4 (that would never run out, as thought 15 years ago) so we > came up with V6. > > If there are some creative intelligent people who built an > infrastructure of all V6, I am amazed. They are Genius with a capital > G because I am in awe of your doings. > > But please tell me why that should be used as a criteria for > dispersion of V4 IP numbers. > > As more and more Genius providers connect more and more V6 customer > base, then the need for V4 should decrease drastically. > > I don't see the logic. Is it a reward for making use of V6? Are we > new suddenly rolling in newly unused V4 now because V6 is in such > widespread use? > > Time for an analogy? If I go into a tavern and can successfully > consume.... Well, Nope that analogy goes nowhere. > > The summary of my thought pattern is straight forward. If you need or > want V6, you requisition for V6. If you need or want V4, you > requisition for V4. > > In the end, I was to believe a strive for a transition over to V6 with > backward compatibility for the tiny quantity of V4 still in use. > > Drake > -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289 225 1220 > x5101 tim at communicatefreely.net www.communicatefreely.net From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Mon Apr 15 21:52:21 2013 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <1366077141.18365.YahooMailNeo@web121604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> >________________________________ > From: Jesse D. Geddis >To: Lee Howard >Cc: Brian Jankovich ; Jawaid Bazyar ; "arin-discuss at arin.net" >Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 6:15 PM >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > > >Lee, > > >You've just inadvertently argued (I'd say accurately) against the repeated assertions by those in this group that the large ISPs consume fewer man hours than small ISPs. Unlike Owen who's largest 'ISP' he's worked at is netcom in the early 90's I have worked at worldcom, uunet, and charter communications I happen to know (as you've rightfully pointed out) that x-large ISPs consume enormous amounts of ARIN man hours compared to everyone else. > > No, I said they consume more of the ISP's staff hours.? When the IP analyst team at UUNET reported to me, we were very strict about address assignments; nobody got addresses without justification.? And yet, the ARIN staff always managed to turn around some pointed questions in less than a day.? I've never known how they did that. > >A flat fee addresses all these concerns. Everyone pays for what they actually use >It discourages many of the ridiculous allocations we all see on a daily basis. Both by ARIN to ISPs and ISPs to customers by the x-large group. > > >Lee if you think apple needs a /8 to sell iPhones, ford needs a /8 to sell cars, HP needs a /8 to sell printer ink, and Eli Lilly needs a /8 to sell erections you and the rest of us may have very different ideas of what constitutes waste. > > What do Apple, Ford, and HP's /8s have to do with ARIN fees? Lee >Jesse Geddis >LA Broadband LLC > >On Apr 15, 2013, at 2:39 PM, "Lee Howard" wrote: > > >The scrutiny on large ISPs is at least as rigorous as on small ISPs.? Large ISPs have a full time person managing IP address records and ARIN requests, and nothing else.? That is as it should be. >> >>Lee >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>________________________________ >>> From: Brian Jankovich >>>To: 'Jawaid Bazyar' ; arin-discuss at arin.net >>>Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:36 PM >>>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >>> >>> >>>I agree and doubt ARIN is really holding them to the 3mo justification of >>>these IP blocks they are procuring. >>> >>>Brian Jankovich >>>President | vaultnetworks >>> >>>305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com >>>skype: brianvaultnet >>>www.vaultnetworks.com >>> >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net] >>>Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM >>>To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >>> >>>Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused >>>IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. >>> >>> >>> >>>On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> You ARE new to this.? If you had been around longer, you would have >>>realized >>>>> that large players run the show at ARIN.? Otherwise, the fees would have >>>been >>>>> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the >>>time that >>>>> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >>>>> >>>> I don't believe that for a second. >>>> >>>> I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was >>>formed >>>> and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it >>>was formed. >>>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Jawaid Bazyar >>> >>>President >>> >>>ph 303.815.1814 >>> >>>fax 303.815.1001 >>> >>>Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >>>??? >>>Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 15 21:57:32 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:57:32 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <1366059711.99023.YahooMailNeo@web121605.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <1366059711.99023.YahooMailNeo@web121605.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 100% of our (HE) customers have access to IPv6 resources and connectivity everywhere in our network. YMMV. Owen On Apr 15, 2013, at 14:01 , Lee Howard wrote: > > > From: Jawaid Bazyar > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused > IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. > > > Please provide supporting documentation. > > While you do, I'll point to http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ which lists the largest IPv6 networks in the world. AT&T is right at the top, and Comcast, is #6. Time Warner Cable lags at #13. They are ranked by how many users hit major IPv6 websites (Google, Yahoo, etc.), but the percentage of IPv6/IPv6 is given. The percentages are low: all report that their actual deployments are 2-3X higher than what is shown; suspect Happy Eyeballs. > > The correlation would seem to be that those with the largest IPv4 address assignments have the largest IPv6 deployments. If you look for who is leading industry IPv6 efforts, some of the same names keep coming up. > > Google reports that 1.30% of the world reaches them over IPv6 http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics.html > Cisco shows 2.43% of users running IPv6 http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/index.php > Good benchmarks to keep up with. > > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 15 22:09:24 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:09:24 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: On Apr 15, 2013, at 15:15 , Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > Lee, > > You've just inadvertently argued (I'd say accurately) against the repeated assertions by those in this group that the large ISPs consume fewer man hours than small ISPs. Unlike Owen who's largest 'ISP' he's worked at is netcom in the early 90's I have worked at worldcom, uunet, and charter communications I happen to know (as you've rightfully pointed out) that x-large ISPs consume enormous amounts of ARIN man hours compared to everyone else. > I'll limit my public comment on this to the simple statement that both Exodus and MCI were larger when I worked for those organizations than Netcom was at the time I worked for Netcom. Owen From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon Apr 15 22:14:04 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:14:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com>, <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> Below: Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:42 PM, "John Curran" wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > >> John, >> >> Thank you. Here's my suggestion for fees. Comments are always welcome. >> >> Take the following pieces of data: >> Total assigned /24 for IPv4 >> Total assigned /32 for IPv6 > > How do you wish to count ISP allocations and end-users assignments, > i.e. separately or together? > > Also, why /32 for IPv6 and not /48? (presuming 1 /48 per end-user > with IPv6, similar to 1 /32 IPv4 for end-user due to NAT use...) John, the only reason I suggested /32 vs /48 is because it seemed to me that the /36 and /48 allocations weren't particularly popular with the members on this list. Their future is unclear to me and I had to pick something :) > > Working quickly (from the historical stats online) - > > > Total ISP allocations from 1999 to 2012 is 1,920,900 (in /24 equivalents) > >> ARIN's yearly costs > > Nearly the same as revenues, and per page 14 of the fee slide deck, > approximately $15.4 million. I got that, the number I didn't know is the allocations per specific block size. Thank you > >> Find the following: >> Take ARINs yearly cost an divide it by the first two numbers. I think that should dictate fees per /24 or /32 regardless of whether or not that's allocated in a /20 (IPv6) or a /12 (IPv4). >> >> If we were to do that what would that cost per /32 or /24? > > If it were purely divided by ISP IPv4 allocations, then > it would be approximately $8/year per /24 equivalent. Now that is truly fascinating. John, I hate to ask for one more thing but if you were to pick someone at random in the x-large, what would that do to their fees? What impact do you and others think that would have on their current end user IP allocation policy? What harm do you think would come from making people pay per x sized block instead of the current tiered model which I think disproportionately favours them? Just questions, I think are worth answering. I don't see the need for a few people's intense disregard for looking at other completely different models which John himself suggested we consider. My goal here, and some of this may be lost in how aggressively I've had to reiterate due to a few folks personal remarks is that we get IPv6 out there and implemented as fast as possible. A couple other things that I'm interested in is removing ARIN as an inadvertent but formidable barrier to entry for businesses. > >> Also, regarding ARINs costs. I'm curious to know what the other options and their price was vs this retreat ARIN is doing to Trinidad... Is that really the best, most economical use of our fees? How many IPs are in use there? I was pretty appalled when I saw that show up in my inbox. Surely ARIN can find better uses for our funds than such extravagance... > > > Jesse, ARIN serves more than 25 economies and the majority > of these are in the Caribbean. We even have number resource > policies which are specific to ISPs in the Caribbean region - > While most of > our meetings are in the United States and Canada, we also > try to meet periodically in the Caribbean, as there is no > substitute for direct interaction with those who we serve. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon Apr 15 22:06:03 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:06:03 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <1366077141.18365.YahooMailNeo@web121604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com>, <1366077141.18365.YahooMailNeo@web121604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <94182764-04CD-40C0-9F55-723BC052C8D4@la-broadband.com> Lee, What do apple, MIT, and HP an others have to do with ARIN fees? Perhaps you missed my point. MIT is paying $18,000 per year (it could be lower because they're legacy) to sit on as many IPs as the entire small tier is using and paying $5mil or thereabouts for. If MIT or apple or whoever were paying a proportionate amount there's a decent chance they would reconsider the cost/benefit of doing so and not hoard millions of IPs... Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:52 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: ________________________________ From: Jesse D. Geddis > To: Lee Howard > Cc: Brian Jankovich >; Jawaid Bazyar >; "arin-discuss at arin.net" > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Lee, You've just inadvertently argued (I'd say accurately) against the repeated assertions by those in this group that the large ISPs consume fewer man hours than small ISPs. Unlike Owen who's largest 'ISP' he's worked at is netcom in the early 90's I have worked at worldcom, uunet, and charter communications I happen to know (as you've rightfully pointed out) that x-large ISPs consume enormous amounts of ARIN man hours compared to everyone else. No, I said they consume more of the ISP's staff hours. When the IP analyst team at UUNET reported to me, we were very strict about address assignments; nobody got addresses without justification. And yet, the ARIN staff always managed to turn around some pointed questions in less than a day. I've never known how they did that. A flat fee addresses all these concerns. Everyone pays for what they actually use It discourages many of the ridiculous allocations we all see on a daily basis. Both by ARIN to ISPs and ISPs to customers by the x-large group. Lee if you think apple needs a /8 to sell iPhones, ford needs a /8 to sell cars, HP needs a /8 to sell printer ink, and Eli Lilly needs a /8 to sell erections you and the rest of us may have very different ideas of what constitutes waste. What do Apple, Ford, and HP's /8s have to do with ARIN fees? Lee Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 2:39 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: The scrutiny on large ISPs is at least as rigorous as on small ISPs. Large ISPs have a full time person managing IP address records and ARIN requests, and nothing else. That is as it should be. Lee ________________________________ From: Brian Jankovich > To: 'Jawaid Bazyar' >; arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? I agree and doubt ARIN is really holding them to the 3mo justification of these IP blocks they are procuring. Brian Jankovich President | vaultnetworks 305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com skype: brianvaultnet www.vaultnetworks.com -----Original Message----- From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized >> that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have been >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the time that >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >> > I don't believe that for a second. > > I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was formed > and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it was formed. > -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > > Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon Apr 15 22:00:16 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:00:16 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Why as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <516CADE4.6050602@communicatefreely.net> References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <6F34D67ED101432B8CAB20EBFA2EC7FE@dp9100>, <516CADE4.6050602@communicatefreely.net> Message-ID: <87164BE7-EE7A-4DBA-BACF-42F2F70BF13F@la-broadband.com> Tim, I think your point is worth emphasising. I had to go through this same thing. It creates a significant barrier for entry to start a business that I don't think needs to be there. I think this fact is completely lost on folks like Matthew who work for an ISP vs. starting one up yourselves. ARIN should be policy or few neutral to both but heavily favours the large ISP and heavily impedes both via policy an fees the person starting a business For me, ARINs policies were my biggest hindrance in starting my own company. Getting customers with no IPs then having to get an allocation for my customers from an upstream provider, using that to justify an ARIN allocation, then renumbering off the temporary address space onto my own doesn't make good business sense. In fact it's the same argument that folks like Matthew use for being laggards in rolling out ipv6 wholesale on their own networks. It's too much work. This is absurd. On the one hand it's your excuse for not rolling out IPv6 but then on the other it's your argument for telling me everyone else should pay more and deal with a process slanted against them. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:50 PM, "Tim St. Pierre" wrote: > Hi Drake, > > I think I can explain this a little - and I appreciate the sideways > compliment. > > As much as I would rather run a v6 only network, I can't yet because > everyone else is still stuck in IPv4 land. It was pretty easy for me to > get an IPv6 allocation to use to build my network, but I still can't get > an IPv4 allocation. > > I believe the spirit of the nrpm policy is "prove to use you have a real > customer base before we give you a meaningful address allocation". I > can't meet the /23 requirement because I can't get a /23, so I'm > suggesting that I be able to prove my customer base by making IPv6 > assignments. > > I need IPv4 space to support my dual-stack customers that are all behind > NAT, but should really have a proper IPv4 assignment. I'm arguing that > by demonstrating an IPv6 deployment, it shows me as worthy to be > allocated scarce IPv4 resources to the same network. > > If I could just fill out some forms and get a /22 from the get-go, then > this wouldn't be an issue at all. > > Hope that makes sense. > > -Tim > > On 13-04-15 08:19 PM, Drake Pallister wrote: >> Hello folks, >> >> I don't get this twist on V6 holdings as justification for getting V4 >> allocations. >> >> We were in a world of V4 which had to transition to something new >> because V4 (that would never run out, as thought 15 years ago) so we >> came up with V6. >> >> If there are some creative intelligent people who built an >> infrastructure of all V6, I am amazed. They are Genius with a capital >> G because I am in awe of your doings. >> >> But please tell me why that should be used as a criteria for >> dispersion of V4 IP numbers. >> >> As more and more Genius providers connect more and more V6 customer >> base, then the need for V4 should decrease drastically. >> >> I don't see the logic. Is it a reward for making use of V6? Are we >> new suddenly rolling in newly unused V4 now because V6 is in such >> widespread use? >> >> Time for an analogy? If I go into a tavern and can successfully >> consume.... Well, Nope that analogy goes nowhere. >> >> The summary of my thought pattern is straight forward. If you need or >> want V6, you requisition for V6. If you need or want V4, you >> requisition for V4. >> >> In the end, I was to believe a strive for a transition over to V6 with >> backward compatibility for the tiny quantity of V4 still in use. >> >> Drake >> -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289 225 1220 >> x5101 tim at communicatefreely.net www.communicatefreely.net > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Apr 15 22:15:16 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:15:16 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: What fraction of the cost should IPv4 represent vs. IPv6? Are you suggesting just treat /24 and /32 as equivalent for cost computation? Not that I dislike the incentives this creates (hand back all your IPv4 as fast as possible), but it would create an interesting situation for IPv6 pricing as this occurred... The faster IPv4 was deprecated as a result, the faster IPv6 fees would increase. Both the rate and interim amounts of increase would be completely unpredictable as they are a function of externalities not easily modeled and not under ARIN's control. OTOH, if this were adopted, it would certainly do nice things if it were applied to my end-user fees since I have 3 /24s and 1 /48 for a total of 3..000015258 units in that case and the cost per unit is likely to be relatively low. Owen On Apr 15, 2013, at 15:41 , Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > John, > > Thank you. Here's my suggestion for fees. Comments are always welcome. > > Take the following pieces of data: > Total assigned /24 for IPv4 > Total assigned /32 for IPv6 > ARIN's yearly costs > > Find the following: > Take ARINs yearly cost an divide it by the first two numbers. I think that should dictate fees per /24 or /32 regardless of whether or not that's allocated in a /20 (IPv6) or a /12 (IPv4). > > If we were to do that what would that cost per /32 or /24? > > Also, regarding ARINs costs. I'm curious to know what the other options and their price was vs this retreat ARIN is doing to Trinidad... Is that really the best, most economical use of our fees? How many IPs are in use there? I was pretty appalled when I saw that show up in my inbox. Surely ARIN can find better uses for our funds than such extravagance... > > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:23 PM, "John Curran" wrote: > >> On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: >> >>> John, >>> >>> Thanks so much for finally breaking this down. I've asked for this a few >>> times. >> >> Jesse - >> >> We've provided this information already; you did you review the referenced fee presentation? >> >> >>> Here is how the data you pasted breaks out in fees collected in aggregate >>> by those groups based on your numbers. >>> >>> X-Small 948 $1,185,000 >>> Small 2,240 $5,600,000 >>> Medium 630 $2,835,000 >>> Large 106 $954,000 >>> X?Large 73 $1,314,000 >> >> Per page 13 of the above presentation, here are the 2011 actual >> costs as broken down by the existing fee categories: >> >> X?Small $1,245,000 11.51% >> Small $4,506,000 41.65% >> Medium $2,835,000 26.21% >> Large $ 909,000 8.40% >> X?Large $1,323,000 12.23% >> >>> My next question, John, is would you kindly superimpose the resources >>> consumed in each category? What I want to know specifically is what how >>> many IP's are currently allocated to each "class". For example, the small >>> category can only possibly be allocated 18,345,600 IPv4's at the very most. >> >> We have not done the above calculation, but it can be derived from the >> whois data if you desire to do so. >> >>> Here's what I find particularly interesting about these numbers: >>> The entire group of "Small" are using in total less IP's than many SINGLE >>> customers in X-Large. However, they are collectively paying 5x more. In >>> other words. 2,240 customers are collectively paying $5.6million dollars >>> for what 1 customer is paying $18k for! What the heck? >> >> That is not surprising at all, and I will note that under IPv6, this effect is >> even more pronounced (a single ISP with a /20 of IPv6 space will likely exceed >> the total IPv6 holdings of thousands of ISP's with smaller address holdings.) >> >> FYI, >> /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 springer at inlandnet.com Mon Apr 15 22:21:32 2013 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <4D32DF0C-3C2B-4B0D-A9C9-BBE04A899EB1@la-broadband.com> References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com>, <4D32DF0C-3C2B-4B0D-A9C9-BBE04A899EB1@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: Hi Jesse, On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > John, > > I know ARIN serves that region :) ACK grin back. And just for clarity, Barbados and Bajians. > that was more of an aside. But the second part of my comment along that > line was what is Trinidad's total allocation and does it justify the > expense of flying John and however many others on his staff out there :) and me, not to put too fine a point on it. > vs awarding those two all expense paid tickets for two Trinidadian's to > come to the US or Canada or just make it totally neutral and somewhere > close to ARINs office :) And herein lies the rub. It is not two Bajians, but potentially (and eventually, in fact) rather more of a bunch of Caribbeans. Large enough to make it worthwhile under quite a lot of considerations. And even if not, it's kinda harsh to argue that citizens of sovereign nations must pass under the loving hands of our, ahem, entrance requirements, to participate in f2f meetings on number policy based on how _FEW_ IPV4 addresses they have. SRSLY?! No. > I didn't really want that to be the focus of my comments though. K sorry, didn't mean to get worked up. :) > I just thought it was interesting to include since we are talking about > fees here. I think it was a reasonable assumption to say hey would ARINs > fees be lower if we weren't doing that kind of "outreach" and what is > the expected return on that visit being in that specific location. Understood. Low fees, good. Ideas about return, supergood. Maybe the problem is the word 'outreach'. To me, this is more about seat at the table. John Springer > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:27 PM, "John Springer" wrote: > >> Hi Jesse >> >> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: >> >>> >>> Also, regarding ARINs costs. I'm curious to know what the other options >> and their price was vs this retreat ARIN is doing to Trinidad... Is that >> really the best, most economical use of our fees? How many IPs are in use >> there? I was pretty appalled when I saw that show up in my inbox. Surely >> ARIN can find better uses for our funds than such extravagance... >> >> Residents of the Caribbean are ARIN members and members of the community. Also, Canada! IMO, it is equitable to site meetings in other ARIN nations occasionally, that attendees from them may have more modest travel costs. Not to mention that entering the good ole USA as a furriner is rather less fun than it used to be. >> >> YMMV >> >> John Springer > > > From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 15 22:36:13 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:36:13 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com>, <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82CCC@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: >> Nearly the same as revenues, and per page 14 of the fee slide deck, >> approximately $15.4 million. > > I got that, the number I didn't know is the allocations per specific block size. Thank you > >>> If we were to do that what would that cost per /32 or /24? >> >> If it were purely divided by ISP IPv4 allocations, then >> it would be approximately $8/year per /24 equivalent. > > Now that is truly fascinating. John, I hate to ask for one more thing but if you were to pick someone at random in the x-large, what would that do to their fees? It would change the fees for x-large dramatically. > What impact do you and others think that would have on their current end user IP allocation policy? It would not change end-user allocation policy, that is up to the community. What change would you propose? > What harm do you think would come from making people pay per x sized block instead of the current tiered model which I think disproportionately favours them? As was noted earlier, you are allocating based on "per x block", and actual costs are probably quite different in distribution. Is your goal aiming for "perfect" equitable cost-recovery, or recovering costs pro-rated against perceived value? > Just questions, I think are worth answering. I don't see the need for a few people's intense disregard for looking at other completely different models which John himself suggested we consider. Any cost-recovery model is going to be imperfect, but each will have strengths in meeting certain goals (such as equitable when compared to the effort to support the member, or comparable to value as perceived, etc.) > My goal here, and some of this may be lost in how aggressively I've had to reiterate due to a few folks personal remarks is that we get IPv6 out there and implemented as fast as possible. A couple other things that I'm interested in is removing ARIN as an inadvertent but formidable barrier to entry for businesses. If that's the case, then the ratio of fees between IPv4 and IPv6 becomes all important. Unfortunately, if you skew things to be a great benefit to IPv6 over the short-term, then you also create significant uncertainty over the long-term, since not is very likely not sustainable. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 15 22:48:01 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:48:01 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com>, , Message-ID: <58014627-A9FB-44F3-98FD-4CC33776BC8F@delong.com> On Apr 15, 2013, at 16:26 , Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > Matthew, > > Unlike you, I didn't say anyone's comments weren't worth listening to. You're still young yet and I suspect once you start your own business vs what you've been doing the last 4 years (customer service 3yrs & IP management 1yr) you will have a different perspective. > > With that said there are 3 factors you can base pricing on: > > 1. Totally arbitrary number (current model) If you review John's slides, you will see that the current model is actually much closer to (3) than you wish to admit. It really isn't (1) no matter how many times you repeat this claim. > 2. Equally based on blocks assigned > 3. Based on ARIN time consumed. > > The third one is the one you're suggesting. This model is the second least perfect because it is arbitrary as well. All you can do is average everyone out which means I may be paying for some dude generating tons of tickets while I only created a few tickets in the last few years. This is an unequal yoke. The world contains many unequal yokes and placing customers into tiered categories and yoking all customers in a given category with the same fees is not at all unusual. Look at unlimited telephone and internet plans, for example. You may use 2 kilobytes a month yet you pay the same price as the guy that downloads several gigs. Such is life. I'm guessing your the guy that makes the waiter split the check or makes everyone calculate their own individual exact meal costs rather than accepting that div/n works out close enough. ARIN's model is not arbitrary. It comes close to div/n based on the cost units per tier from ARIN's cost accounting efforts. (That's the foundation for my earlier comments, btw). > The only way to guarantee everyone is equally yoked is to base it strictly on blocks assigned and get rid of all the categories altogether. Except that's a much more unequal yoke than what we have currently. As I said, I would benefit tremendously from this pricing. My employer would probably suffer a little, but not too much. > I think all of us agree one of the reasons we are out of IPs is because of waste. Making it strictly an allocation based model with no tiers should help combat waste. If I'm assigning /22's to a bunch of T1's and have to request a bunch of POs to get more IPs on a linear cost model I will have to justify that to accounting. At some point your CFO will say what the heck are you doing, this doesn't scale. I can't continue to spend x amount to acquire each customer. NO. We ran out of IPs a long time ago, not because of waste, but because there are 3.2 billion unicast IPv4 addresses to serve 6.8 billion people, most of whom will need 3-5 or more addresses each without accounting for smart meters, environmental sensors, routers, switches, servers, HVAC units, building controls, industrial controls, SCADA systems, FADEC systems, et. al. We created an artificial masking of the fact that we ran out of IP addresses a long time ago by inflicting NAT on the majority of the internet's users and converting most users from members of the internet to second-class citizens. However, the mask is wearing thinner and thinner. What little (and I do mean little) waste does exist has been variously estimated as between 2 and 3 years worth of address space which would take at least 8-10 years to reclaim. The issue of waste in IPv4 is a red herring whose ship sailed long ago. Nonetheless, it remains a battle cry of those who dislike the status quo merely because it makes an attractive sound bite. Any deeper analysis rapidly reveals it, along with all other IPv4 continuity efforts as expensive, burdensome mechanisms with relatively low yield of useful addresses and/or actual protocol longevity. Owen > > > > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 4:14 PM, "Matthew Wilder" wrote: > >> Jesse, >> >> I am sorry that the message was lost. Here it is again: >> >> ARIN does not spend appreciably more time interacting with me ? and I would argue X-Large ISPs in general ? than any ISP who regularly requests allocations every 3 months under current policies. Certainly the amount of effort is very, very far from being proportional to the resource being requested which is what you are arguing if I understand you correctly. >> >> To put this in more tangible terms; if it takes a small ISP 2 hours of ARIN?s effort to get a /22 allocated, you would suggest it takes 256 man hours of ARIN?s resources to allocate a /16? >> >> I am aware a lot of people think it makes sense to charge per resource, but ARIN?s expenses are not linear in proportion to the resources, and I think you would have an impossible time trying to prove me wrong on this. The other 2 people who are arguing my point are an ARIN AC member and a past ARIN board member. I know them both and they have a wealth of experience operating in the ARIN community and their comments are worth listening to. >> >> mw >> >> From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] >> Sent: April 15, 2013 3:48 PM >> To: Matthew Wilder >> Cc: Lee Howard; arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >> >> Matthew, >> >> Your personal remarks are unhelpful and childish. Further I have seen about 6 people in the last few hours say the exact same thing as I (regarding making a flat fee) and about 2 people disagreeing. >> >> With regards to your smidgen of useful content I am aware of exactly what Lee said regarding having full time people at the ISPs managing those allocations. Having been that person I am also aware of the amount of time I've had to spend going back and forth with ARIN in that role and it was exponentially greater compared to the amount of time I've had to consume in the "small" category. >> >> In other words, x-large takes more ARIN time and more provider time. >> >> Jesse Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> >> On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:39 PM, "Matthew Wilder" wrote: >> >> Jesse ? As much as I hate to feed the troll, I can?t help but point out your incredible non sequitur here. Lee said the ISP employs someone full time, NOT that ARIN employs someone full time for each Large ISP. >> >> I am one such FTE dedicated to IP Address Management for an X-Large ISP, soon to be XX-Large. And yet, believe it or not, ARIN only deals with me once every 3 months at most apart from meetings and mailing lists. That?s the same as they might deal with medium or small ISPs. We run Referral Whois for our IPv4 resources, so even the registry function is not being taxed, although with IPv6 we are using RESTful-RWS to report our reassignments ? all without the operational involvement of any ARIN staff. >> >> So as much as admirable as it is to take Lee?s words and announce that Lee is confirming your assertion that ARIN is burdened by on-going operational activity related only to X-Large ISPs, it is actually not admirable at all. At best it?s a terrible non sequitur, and at worst it?s putting words in someone?s mouth. Either way it?s lazy and annoying. >> >> mw >> >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis >> Sent: April 15, 2013 3:15 PM >> To: Lee Howard >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >> >> Lee, >> >> You've just inadvertently argued (I'd say accurately) against the repeated assertions by those in this group that the large ISPs consume fewer man hours than small ISPs. Unlike Owen who's largest 'ISP' he's worked at is netcom in the early 90's I have worked at worldcom, uunet, and charter communications I happen to know (as you've rightfully pointed out) that x-large ISPs consume enormous amounts of ARIN man hours compared to everyone else. >> >> A flat fee addresses all these concerns. Everyone pays for what they actually use >> It discourages many of the ridiculous allocations we all see on a daily basis. Both by ARIN to ISPs and ISPs to customers by the x-large group. >> >> Lee if you think apple needs a /8 to sell iPhones, ford needs a /8 to sell cars, HP needs a /8 to sell printer ink, and Eli Lilly needs a /8 to sell erections you and the rest of us may have very different ideas of what constitutes waste. >> >> >> Jesse Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> >> On Apr 15, 2013, at 2:39 PM, "Lee Howard" wrote: >> >> The scrutiny on large ISPs is at least as rigorous as on small ISPs. Large ISPs have a full time person managing IP address records and ARIN requests, and nothing else. That is as it should be. >> >> Lee >> >> >> From: Brian Jankovich >> To: 'Jawaid Bazyar' ; arin-discuss at arin.net >> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:36 PM >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >> >> I agree and doubt ARIN is really holding them to the 3mo justification of >> these IP blocks they are procuring. >> >> Brian Jankovich >> President | vaultnetworks >> >> 305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com >> skype: brianvaultnet >> www.vaultnetworks.com >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net] >> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >> >> Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused >> IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. >> >> >> >> On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: >> > >> >> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have >> realized >> >> that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have >> been >> >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the >> time that >> >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >> >> >> > I don't believe that for a second. >> > >> > I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was >> formed >> > and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it >> was formed. >> > >> >> -- >> >> Jawaid Bazyar >> >> President >> >> ph 303.815.1814 >> >> fax 303.815.1001 >> >> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >> >> Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 15 22:53:36 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:53:36 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Why as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <87164BE7-EE7A-4DBA-BACF-42F2F70BF13F@la-broadband.com> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <6F34D67ED101432B8CAB20EBFA2EC7FE@dp9100> <516CADE4.6050602@communicatefreely.net> <87164BE7-EE7A-4DBA-BACF-42F2F70BF13F@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82E0F@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:00 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" wrote: > > For me, ARINs policies were my biggest hindrance in starting my own company. Getting customers with no IPs then having to get an allocation for my customers from an upstream provider, using that to justify an ARIN allocation, then renumbering off the temporary address space onto my own doesn't make good business sense. Jesse - The policies you refer to (those which encourage provider-assigned and "slow start" ISP addressing for new ISPs) actually pre-date ARIN, so I would be careful with attribution... At this point, however, they are indeed subject to change if the community decides that it makes sense to do so. Rather than grousing about the aspects of this policy that you disagree with, have you considered submitting a policy proposal to change the ISP initial allocation policy? This is a real step that you can take to address the situation and independent of any fee schedule structure aspects to be discussed here. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 15 23:11:37 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:11:37 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com>, <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> On Apr 15, 2013, at 19:14 , "Jesse D. Geddis" wrote: > Below: > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:42 PM, "John Curran" wrote: > >> On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: >> >>> John, >>> >>> Thank you. Here's my suggestion for fees. Comments are always welcome. >>> >>> Take the following pieces of data: >>> Total assigned /24 for IPv4 >>> Total assigned /32 for IPv6 >> >> How do you wish to count ISP allocations and end-users assignments, >> i.e. separately or together? >> >> Also, why /32 for IPv6 and not /48? (presuming 1 /48 per end-user >> with IPv6, similar to 1 /32 IPv4 for end-user due to NAT use...) > > John, the only reason I suggested /32 vs /48 is because it seemed to me that the /36 and /48 allocations weren't particularly popular with the members on this list. Their future is unclear to me and I had to pick something :) > You are (potentially) missing the following issues: 1. Allocations and assignments are distinct from one another. The argument on the list has been about ISP Allocations and References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com>, , Message-ID: Hi Jesse, Please see below: I didn't say anyone wasn't worth listening to. I simply said Owen and Lee were worth listening to because you ignored what Owen had said and misconstrued what Lee said to somehow fit your argument. I just mean you should pay more careful attention to what people are saying. On the note of my experience, I actually have 8 Year of Network Engineering, including 5 years of IP Address Management. Not sure how you derived your analysis from my LinkedIn profile. Your list of the 3 different factors is generally good (apart from characterization as option 1 as "totally arbitrary"). I believe the board and many members would see it as very much tied to the services ARIN performs for its members and community. I think it is a mistake, however, to assume that it has to be either 2 or 3 and nothing else. Both give the sense of fairness to opposite stakeholders in the community, which is clearly not balanced. Although you concluded I was arguing that option 3 be followed, I was rather arguing that option 2 NOT be followed because I believe there are several factors that should be taken into account in the fee structure, not just one factor. I believe others have adequately pointed out the long term risks of a fee structure entirely based on the aggregate IPv4 space since IPv6 will likely see a more common resource holding in the community. Certainly the board and community need to address this as IPv4 becomes increasingly removable from customer networks, but I don't think we are well served by putting ARIN's operations at risk with flawed fee structures. Also as Owen pointed out, the waste arguments are red herrings and not ultimately held up by proper analysis. I've never heard (ARIN board member) Vint Cerf say he wishes the big ISPs and very early corporate adopters of the Internet Protocol wouldn't waste so much IPv4 space. I have however heard him say he wishes he had designed IPv4 with more than 32 bits (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/why-ipv6-vint-cerf-keeps-blaming-himself). mw From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] Sent: April 15, 2013 4:26 PM To: Matthew Wilder Cc: Lee Howard; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Matthew, Unlike you, I didn't say anyone's comments weren't worth listening to. You're still young yet and I suspect once you start your own business vs what you've been doing the last 4 years (customer service 3yrs & IP management 1yr) you will have a different perspective. With that said there are 3 factors you can base pricing on: 1. Totally arbitrary number (current model) 2. Equally based on blocks assigned 3. Based on ARIN time consumed. The third one is the one you're suggesting. This model is the second least perfect because it is arbitrary as well. All you can do is average everyone out which means I may be paying for some dude generating tons of tickets while I only created a few tickets in the last few years. This is an unequal yoke. The only way to guarantee everyone is equally yoked is to base it strictly on blocks assigned and get rid of all the categories altogether. I think all of us agree one of the reasons we are out of IPs is because of waste. Making it strictly an allocation based model with no tiers should help combat waste. If I'm assigning /22's to a bunch of T1's and have to request a bunch of POs to get more IPs on a linear cost model I will have to justify that to accounting. At some point your CFO will say what the heck are you doing, this doesn't scale. I can't continue to spend x amount to acquire each customer. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 4:14 PM, "Matthew Wilder" > wrote: Jesse, I am sorry that the message was lost. Here it is again: ARIN does not spend appreciably more time interacting with me - and I would argue X-Large ISPs in general - than any ISP who regularly requests allocations every 3 months under current policies. Certainly the amount of effort is very, very far from being proportional to the resource being requested which is what you are arguing if I understand you correctly. To put this in more tangible terms; if it takes a small ISP 2 hours of ARIN's effort to get a /22 allocated, you would suggest it takes 256 man hours of ARIN's resources to allocate a /16? I am aware a lot of people think it makes sense to charge per resource, but ARIN's expenses are not linear in proportion to the resources, and I think you would have an impossible time trying to prove me wrong on this. The other 2 people who are arguing my point are an ARIN AC member and a past ARIN board member. I know them both and they have a wealth of experience operating in the ARIN community and their comments are worth listening to. mw From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] Sent: April 15, 2013 3:48 PM To: Matthew Wilder Cc: Lee Howard; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Matthew, Your personal remarks are unhelpful and childish. Further I have seen about 6 people in the last few hours say the exact same thing as I (regarding making a flat fee) and about 2 people disagreeing. With regards to your smidgen of useful content I am aware of exactly what Lee said regarding having full time people at the ISPs managing those allocations. Having been that person I am also aware of the amount of time I've had to spend going back and forth with ARIN in that role and it was exponentially greater compared to the amount of time I've had to consume in the "small" category. In other words, x-large takes more ARIN time and more provider time. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:39 PM, "Matthew Wilder" > wrote: Jesse - As much as I hate to feed the troll, I can't help but point out your incredible non sequitur here. Lee said the ISP employs someone full time, NOT that ARIN employs someone full time for each Large ISP. I am one such FTE dedicated to IP Address Management for an X-Large ISP, soon to be XX-Large. And yet, believe it or not, ARIN only deals with me once every 3 months at most apart from meetings and mailing lists. That's the same as they might deal with medium or small ISPs. We run Referral Whois for our IPv4 resources, so even the registry function is not being taxed, although with IPv6 we are using RESTful-RWS to report our reassignments - all without the operational involvement of any ARIN staff. So as much as admirable as it is to take Lee's words and announce that Lee is confirming your assertion that ARIN is burdened by on-going operational activity related only to X-Large ISPs, it is actually not admirable at all. At best it's a terrible non sequitur, and at worst it's putting words in someone's mouth. Either way it's lazy and annoying. mw From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: April 15, 2013 3:15 PM To: Lee Howard Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Lee, You've just inadvertently argued (I'd say accurately) against the repeated assertions by those in this group that the large ISPs consume fewer man hours than small ISPs. Unlike Owen who's largest 'ISP' he's worked at is netcom in the early 90's I have worked at worldcom, uunet, and charter communications I happen to know (as you've rightfully pointed out) that x-large ISPs consume enormous amounts of ARIN man hours compared to everyone else. A flat fee addresses all these concerns. Everyone pays for what they actually use It discourages many of the ridiculous allocations we all see on a daily basis. Both by ARIN to ISPs and ISPs to customers by the x-large group. Lee if you think apple needs a /8 to sell iPhones, ford needs a /8 to sell cars, HP needs a /8 to sell printer ink, and Eli Lilly needs a /8 to sell erections you and the rest of us may have very different ideas of what constitutes waste. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 2:39 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: The scrutiny on large ISPs is at least as rigorous as on small ISPs. Large ISPs have a full time person managing IP address records and ARIN requests, and nothing else. That is as it should be. Lee ________________________________ From: Brian Jankovich > To: 'Jawaid Bazyar' >; arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? I agree and doubt ARIN is really holding them to the 3mo justification of these IP blocks they are procuring. Brian Jankovich President | vaultnetworks 305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com skype: brianvaultnet www.vaultnetworks.com -----Original Message----- From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6. On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> You ARE new to this. If you had been around longer, you would have realized >> that large players run the show at ARIN. Otherwise, the fees would have been >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the time that >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4. >> > I don't believe that for a second. > > I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was formed > and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it was formed. > -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > > Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drake.pallister at duraserver.com Tue Apr 16 00:00:16 2013 From: drake.pallister at duraserver.com (Drake Pallister) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:00:16 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Why as justification for IPv4? References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><6F34D67ED101432B8CAB20EBFA2EC7FE@dp9100>, <516CADE4.6050602@communicatefreely.net> <87164BE7-EE7A-4DBA-BACF-42F2F70BF13F@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <757CBFF13BFB4E8FA544B64F97E9EA25@dp9100> Tim, I see your dilema, Let me paste in something I just read that John Curran emailed to the list a little while ago. It has all to do with first getting your IP stock from your upstream whoever that may be. It's easier if you're multi-homed, having dual upstreams, but more expensive. More expensive can also mean more stable if one goes down you are routing throuth the other. It doesn't even matter if it's two subsidiaries of some huge upstream as long as they separate Autonomous systems (paths to the worls) and that's proven by dual AS numbers. Yes, the cost does hurt like a toothache, but I was glad when someone went down. Just say you have an arguement with one upstream--- you can unplug them and strike a deal with another one. Just keep it stable while going through the process of application. You already know that the AS and an Direct Alloc are your walking papers to port from or peer with anyone of that calibre. With your own AS and Direct Alloc., you're not under the thumb of any upstream and can swing that circuit over to some other upstream, even a top tier backbone provider if you so choose and they will have you. Sometimes it means giving away services to get where you want to get. Certainly it's like the old question (but in action) what came first, the chicken or the egg? Need IP's to get customers, but need customers to get IPs'. Maybe it would have been easier to open a shoe store? Best to you--- Here's that cut-n-paste from Mr Curran's comment a half hour ago as I see the timestamp on my email. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:00 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" wrote: > > For me, ARINs policies were my biggest hindrance in starting my own company. Getting customers with no IPs then having to get an > allocation for my customers from an upstream provider, using that to justify an ARIN allocation, then renumbering off the > temporary address space onto my own doesn't make good business sense. Jesse - The policies you refer to (those which encourage provider-assigned and "slow start" ISP addressing for new ISPs) actually pre-date ARIN, so I would be careful with attribution... At this point, however, they are indeed subject to change if the community decides that it makes sense to do so. Rather than grousing about the aspects of this policy that you disagree with, have you considered submitting a policy proposal to change the ISP initial allocation policy? This is a real step that you can take to address the situation and independent of any fee schedule structure aspects to be discussed here. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse D. Geddis" To: "Tim St. Pierre" Cc: Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:00 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Why as justification for IPv4? > Tim, > > I think your point is worth emphasising. I had to go through this same thing. It creates a significant barrier for entry to start > a business that I don't think needs to be there. I think this fact is completely lost on folks like Matthew who work for an ISP > vs. starting one up yourselves. ARIN should be policy or few neutral to both but heavily favours the large ISP and heavily impedes > both via policy an fees the person starting a business > > For me, ARINs policies were my biggest hindrance in starting my own company. Getting customers with no IPs then having to get an > allocation for my customers from an upstream provider, using that to justify an ARIN allocation, then renumbering off the > temporary address space onto my own doesn't make good business sense. In fact it's the same argument that folks like Matthew use > for being laggards in rolling out ipv6 wholesale on their own networks. It's too much work. This is absurd. On the one hand it's > your excuse for not rolling out IPv6 but then on the other it's your argument for telling me everyone else should pay more and > deal with a process slanted against them. > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:50 PM, "Tim St. Pierre" wrote: > >> Hi Drake, >> >> I think I can explain this a little - and I appreciate the sideways >> compliment. >> >> As much as I would rather run a v6 only network, I can't yet because >> everyone else is still stuck in IPv4 land. It was pretty easy for me to >> get an IPv6 allocation to use to build my network, but I still can't get >> an IPv4 allocation. >> >> I believe the spirit of the nrpm policy is "prove to use you have a real >> customer base before we give you a meaningful address allocation". I >> can't meet the /23 requirement because I can't get a /23, so I'm >> suggesting that I be able to prove my customer base by making IPv6 >> assignments. >> >> I need IPv4 space to support my dual-stack customers that are all behind >> NAT, but should really have a proper IPv4 assignment. I'm arguing that >> by demonstrating an IPv6 deployment, it shows me as worthy to be >> allocated scarce IPv4 resources to the same network. >> >> If I could just fill out some forms and get a /22 from the get-go, then >> this wouldn't be an issue at all. >> >> Hope that makes sense. >> >> -Tim >> >> On 13-04-15 08:19 PM, Drake Pallister wrote: >>> Hello folks, >>> >>> I don't get this twist on V6 holdings as justification for getting V4 >>> allocations. >>> >>> We were in a world of V4 which had to transition to something new >>> because V4 (that would never run out, as thought 15 years ago) so we >>> came up with V6. >>> >>> If there are some creative intelligent people who built an >>> infrastructure of all V6, I am amazed. They are Genius with a capital >>> G because I am in awe of your doings. >>> >>> But please tell me why that should be used as a criteria for >>> dispersion of V4 IP numbers. >>> >>> As more and more Genius providers connect more and more V6 customer >>> base, then the need for V4 should decrease drastically. >>> >>> I don't see the logic. Is it a reward for making use of V6? Are we >>> new suddenly rolling in newly unused V4 now because V6 is in such >>> widespread use? >>> >>> Time for an analogy? If I go into a tavern and can successfully >>> consume.... Well, Nope that analogy goes nowhere. >>> >>> The summary of my thought pattern is straight forward. If you need or >>> want V6, you requisition for V6. If you need or want V4, you >>> requisition for V4. >>> >>> In the end, I was to believe a strive for a transition over to V6 with >>> backward compatibility for the tiny quantity of V4 still in use. >>> >>> Drake >>> -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289 225 1220 >>> x5101 tim at communicatefreely.net www.communicatefreely.net >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Apr 16 00:06:30 2013 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> Message-ID: <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> I agree that a flat cost per an equal unit of space doesn't make sense, as it gets pretty ridiculous at both ends of the scale. One of the places I can see where things seem a little arbitrary is right on the borders of the categories. If you have a /16 plus a /24, you pay twice as much as someone who has just a /16. I wonder if it should be more like a flat fee per "bit." For example, you could define that a /24 is the base amount, and go from there. A /23 is twice as much as a /24, a /22 3 times as much, etc. So if you have a /22, you pay for 3 units. /20 = 5 units /16 = 9 units /8 = 17 units If you have a /20 and a /22, you pay for 8 units, thus putting a bit of extra cost per IP space, due to the additional registry entries, and additional staff resources needed to allocate and maintain That seems like it would be fairly similar to the current system, but more smoothly progressive. -Randy > Bottom line, as has been repeatedly stated, ARIN's costs do not scale > linearly with the size of the blocks being distributed or the aggregate > total address space distributed, so it is unbalanced to have their fees do > so. > > This not only has foundation, it's been proven by ARIN. > > Owen From jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Apr 16 02:15:47 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:15:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com>, <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com>, <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> Message-ID: <98C281AE-18C1-4011-A0FF-6D3470EDFC4A@la-broadband.com> Owen, As I've said repeatedly I have no interest in how ARINs costs scale per allocation because they don't. I don't find trying to use that as a cost model interesting. I think it's only useful in determining the bucket size. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:38 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 19:14 , "Jesse D. Geddis" wrote: > >> Below: >> >> Jesse Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> >> On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:42 PM, "John Curran" wrote: >> >>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: >>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> Thank you. Here's my suggestion for fees. Comments are always welcome. >>>> >>>> Take the following pieces of data: >>>> Total assigned /24 for IPv4 >>>> Total assigned /32 for IPv6 >>> >>> How do you wish to count ISP allocations and end-users assignments, >>> i.e. separately or together? >>> >>> Also, why /32 for IPv6 and not /48? (presuming 1 /48 per end-user >>> with IPv6, similar to 1 /32 IPv4 for end-user due to NAT use...) >> >> John, the only reason I suggested /32 vs /48 is because it seemed to me that the /36 and /48 allocations weren't particularly popular with the members on this list. Their future is unclear to me and I had to pick something :) >> > > You are (potentially) missing the following issues: > > 1. Allocations and assignments are distinct from one another. > The argument on the list has been about ISP Allocations and However, end-user assignments at /48 are very appropriate. > > 2. It is unclear, but some of your earlier language implies you think that end-users and ISPs should pay > the same linear fee per resource consumed. This brings into question whether an ISP with a /32 should > pay for 65,536 /48s or a single /32 and whether an end users should pay for 0.000015 /32s or should > pay for one allocation unit as well even though they'd then be getting a /48 for the price of a /32. > > > Bottom line, as has been repeatedly stated, ARIN's costs do not scale linearly with the size of the blocks being distributed or the aggregate total address space distributed, so it is unbalanced to have their fees do so. > > This not only has foundation, it's been proven by ARIN. > > Owen > > From jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Apr 16 01:57:36 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:57:36 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com>, <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Message-ID: <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> Randy, You're speaking to my core issue. I don't like the cut off at the top. This is not dissimilar to what I was suggesting, just using a different unit of measurement to achieve what I think is the right goal. Commercially/economically, here's the net effect of current fees. In order to start a business you have to beg some IP admin like Matthew with no experience as a business owner for address space who will then effectively decide whether or not you can start a company. This IP admin isn't paying for these addresses and his company is charging an arm and a leg to the customer for those IPs while his org is getting them for fractions of a cent. Then that business has to jump through all these hoops to pay out the nose for a tiny allocation. This skews things both in fees and in policy heavily towards the larger providers. I think the scale should be linear because the consumption is linear. I don't think ARINs costs per org are a good barometer for fees because its highly situational and will vary vastly from org to org. Ultimately, the end user always pays for the IPs. Why should one org get them cheaper than everyone else and then have policy and fees geared to keep it that way. When I look at a company like telus and compare them to my own or to Owen's employer we have rolled out ipv6 100% on our networks as have many people on this list. What's telus's excuse for failing to make any meaningful inroads there? Matthew, what I think would be a very useful contribution from you is why hasn't telus done it and how can we help you get beyond that? As far as your input on fees, I'm not sure what you can add there. Fees aren't your issue and you aren't paying them (personally) anyway. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:07 PM, "Randy Carpenter" wrote: > > I agree that a flat cost per an equal unit of space doesn't make sense, as it gets pretty ridiculous at both ends of the scale. > > One of the places I can see where things seem a little arbitrary is right on the borders of the categories. If you have a /16 plus a /24, you pay twice as much as someone who has just a /16. > > I wonder if it should be more like a flat fee per "bit." > > For example, you could define that a /24 is the base amount, and go from there. A /23 is twice as much as a /24, a /22 3 times as much, etc. > > So if you have a /22, you pay for 3 units. > > /20 = 5 units > /16 = 9 units > /8 = 17 units > > If you have a /20 and a /22, you pay for 8 units, thus putting a bit of extra cost per IP space, due to the additional registry entries, and additional staff resources needed to allocate and maintain > > That seems like it would be fairly similar to the current system, but more smoothly progressive. > > -Randy > >> Bottom line, as has been repeatedly stated, ARIN's costs do not scale >> linearly with the size of the blocks being distributed or the aggregate >> total address space distributed, so it is unbalanced to have their fees do >> so. >> >> This not only has foundation, it's been proven by ARIN. >> >> 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 jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Apr 16 02:03:24 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:03:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com>, Message-ID: <1DE512BE-050F-4769-AE6F-85FA0D14E237@la-broadband.com> Owen, My unit of measurement was arbitrary because I needed to give John a number so I could understand the implications. Randy had another good idea as a unit marker. Per unit the cost would go down year over year as more people adopt ipv6 and are paying into the proverbial bucket. For orgs growing their allocation their fees would scale with their allocation. This assumes of course that the bucket size is pegged at ARINs cost and ARIN doesn't go hog wild with business vacations... I mean trips :) Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:38 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > What fraction of the cost should IPv4 represent vs. IPv6? > > Are you suggesting just treat /24 and /32 as equivalent for cost computation? > > Not that I dislike the incentives this creates (hand back all your IPv4 as fast as possible), but it > would create an interesting situation for IPv6 pricing as this occurred... > > The faster IPv4 was deprecated as a result, the faster IPv6 fees would increase. Both the > rate and interim amounts of increase would be completely unpredictable as they are a function > of externalities not easily modeled and not under ARIN's control. > > OTOH, if this were adopted, it would certainly do nice things if it were applied to my end-user > fees since I have 3 /24s and 1 /48 for a total of 3..000015258 units in that case and the cost > per unit is likely to be relatively low. > > Owen > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 15:41 , Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > >> John, >> >> Thank you. Here's my suggestion for fees. Comments are always welcome. >> >> Take the following pieces of data: >> Total assigned /24 for IPv4 >> Total assigned /32 for IPv6 >> ARIN's yearly costs >> >> Find the following: >> Take ARINs yearly cost an divide it by the first two numbers. I think that should dictate fees per /24 or /32 regardless of whether or not that's allocated in a /20 (IPv6) or a /12 (IPv4). >> >> If we were to do that what would that cost per /32 or /24? >> >> Also, regarding ARINs costs. I'm curious to know what the other options and their price was vs this retreat ARIN is doing to Trinidad... Is that really the best, most economical use of our fees? How many IPs are in use there? I was pretty appalled when I saw that show up in my inbox. Surely ARIN can find better uses for our funds than such extravagance... >> >> >> Jesse Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> >> On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:23 PM, "John Curran" wrote: >> >>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: >>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> Thanks so much for finally breaking this down. I've asked for this a few >>>> times. >>> >>> Jesse - >>> >>> We've provided this information already; you did you review the referenced fee presentation? >>> >>> >>>> Here is how the data you pasted breaks out in fees collected in aggregate >>>> by those groups based on your numbers. >>>> >>>> X-Small 948 $1,185,000 >>>> Small 2,240 $5,600,000 >>>> Medium 630 $2,835,000 >>>> Large 106 $954,000 >>>> X?Large 73 $1,314,000 >>> >>> Per page 13 of the above presentation, here are the 2011 actual >>> costs as broken down by the existing fee categories: >>> >>> X?Small $1,245,000 11.51% >>> Small $4,506,000 41.65% >>> Medium $2,835,000 26.21% >>> Large $ 909,000 8.40% >>> X?Large $1,323,000 12.23% >>> >>>> My next question, John, is would you kindly superimpose the resources >>>> consumed in each category? What I want to know specifically is what how >>>> many IP's are currently allocated to each "class". For example, the small >>>> category can only possibly be allocated 18,345,600 IPv4's at the very most. >>> >>> We have not done the above calculation, but it can be derived from the >>> whois data if you desire to do so. >>> >>>> Here's what I find particularly interesting about these numbers: >>>> The entire group of "Small" are using in total less IP's than many SINGLE >>>> customers in X-Large. However, they are collectively paying 5x more. In >>>> other words. 2,240 customers are collectively paying $5.6million dollars >>>> for what 1 customer is paying $18k for! What the heck? >>> >>> That is not surprising at all, and I will note that under IPv6, this effect is >>> even more pronounced (a single ISP with a /20 of IPv6 space will likely exceed >>> the total IPv6 holdings of thousands of ISP's with smaller address holdings.) >>> >>> FYI, >>> /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 rcarpen at network1.net Tue Apr 16 03:07:08 2013 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 03:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Replies inline... ----- Original Message ----- > Randy, > > You're speaking to my core issue. I don't like the cut off at the top. This > is not dissimilar to what I was suggesting, just using a different unit of > measurement to achieve what I think is the right goal. What you are suggesting is that an org with a /8 should pay 65,000 times more than one with a /24. My quick brainstorm showed an example where it would be 17 times more. In both cases, we are talking about a single org with a single entry in the registry. The /8 org certainly has more overhead in the beginning, but certainly not 65,000 times more, and not much more at all on an ongoing basis. I would say that qualifies as dissimilar. > Commercially/economically, here's the net effect of current fees. In order to > start a business you have to beg some IP admin like Matthew with no > experience as a business owner for address space who will then effectively > decide whether or not you can start a company. I am not sure how assumptions about specific people's experience and pejorative comments help your arguments at all. It is not constructive whatsoever. > This IP admin isn't paying > for these addresses and his company is charging an arm and a leg to the > customer for those IPs while his org is getting them for fractions of a > cent. Then that business has to jump through all these hoops to pay out the > nose for a tiny allocation. This skews things both in fees and in policy > heavily towards the larger providers. I think the scale should be linear > because the consumption is linear. I don't think ARINs costs per org are a > good barometer for fees because its highly situational and will vary vastly > from org to org. What you are talking about here is a serious issue. I agree wholeheartedly that ARIN needs to fix the chicken/egg problem that currently exists with new entities. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with your argument above. If a organization is being denied IPs from their upstream provider, it means that the upstream provider is dumb. They either are not properly managing their IP space, or are simply refusing because they feel like it. Do you think that changing the upstream providers fees from $32,000/year to $1,000,000/year is going to change that? Let me throw out a quick suggestion for a potential policy proposal: Change NRPM to remove the references to "upstream provider" from section 4.2, and instead allow new entities that can provide proper justification the ability to apply for a /22 of initial space. In other words, make all initial allocations fall under the current rules for multi-homed orgs. (Obviously, a proper policy proposal would require a more thorough investigation, and proper wording and such, but you get the idea.) There is a simple idea that I think many people can agree on, at least in concept. > Ultimately, the end user always pays for the IPs. Why should one org get them > cheaper than everyone else and then have policy and fees geared to keep it > that way. It sounds like you think IPs are a commodity. They aren't. They are a finite and unique resource which require reasonable stewardship. Can we all please stop trying to attach a unit price to single IP addresses? It doesn't make much sense in IPv4, and with IPv6 becomes absolutely ludicrous. > When I look at a company like telus and compare them to my own or to Owen's > employer we have rolled out ipv6 100% on our networks as have many people on > this list. What's telus's excuse for failing to make any meaningful inroads > there? Matthew, what I think would be a very useful contribution from you is > why hasn't telus done it and how can we help you get beyond that? Again, you are calling out a specific entity. I have no experience with Telus, so I don't really have much comment other than: If you think they are doing it wrong, do you think raising their fees by an order of magnitude will somehow change that? > As far as > your input on fees, I'm not sure what you can add there. Fees aren't your > issue and you aren't paying them (personally) anyway. > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. Fees are an issue for me. I am directly involved with several orgs that pay fees to ARIN. -Randy From jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Apr 16 03:39:41 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:39:41 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com>, <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Message-ID: <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> Below: Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 12:07 AM, "Randy Carpenter" wrote: > > Replies inline... > > ----- Original Message ----- >> Randy, >> >> You're speaking to my core issue. I don't like the cut off at the top. This >> is not dissimilar to what I was suggesting, just using a different unit of >> measurement to achieve what I think is the right goal. > > What you are suggesting is that an org with a /8 should pay 65,000 times more than one with a /24. My quick brainstorm showed an example where it would be 17 times more. In both cases, we are talking about a single org with a single entry in the registry. The /8 org certainly has more overhead in the beginning, but certainly not 65,000 times more, and not much more at all on an ongoing basis. > > I would say that qualifies as dissimilar. Randy, I asked what would it cost if we used x baseline that I pulled out of a hat to start somewhere (as I've mentioned repeatedly). You're looking at my comment too narrowly. At the root of it was remove the ceiling. Again you're going down the ARIN cost model and based on what I've seen from folks on this list is that goes nowhere... slowly. For me, I don't care what x org costs ARIN I don't care what it takes to maintain x orgs records. I don't believe ARIN has this data anyway. I care about these fees as they relate to: 1. Getting IPv6 widely adopted 2. Getting ARIN out of the way of starting a business. 3. Making this fee model more equitable. 4. Getting rid of the cut off at /14's and larger. What you suggested is going by aggregate. That's virtually identical as saying going by /x arbitrary block size. It's a linear model. That's where it's similar. I think going by aggregate is an interesting suggestion. > >> Commercially/economically, here's the net effect of current fees. In order to >> start a business you have to beg some IP admin like Matthew with no >> experience as a business owner for address space who will then effectively >> decide whether or not you can start a company. > > I am not sure how assumptions about specific people's experience and pejorative comments help your arguments at all. It is not constructive whatsoever. It's extremely important because there is a macroeconomic impact of the current nibble policy as well as the fee structure. ARIN policy effectively created Matthew's position in the same way as Sarbanes Oxley (policy) created an entire cottage industry of document retention. Matthew is my example because he held his organisation up as one. > >> This IP admin isn't paying >> for these addresses and his company is charging an arm and a leg to the >> customer for those IPs while his org is getting them for fractions of a >> cent. Then that business has to jump through all these hoops to pay out the >> nose for a tiny allocation. This skews things both in fees and in policy >> heavily towards the larger providers. I think the scale should be linear >> because the consumption is linear. I don't think ARINs costs per org are a >> good barometer for fees because its highly situational and will vary vastly >> from org to org. > > What you are talking about here is a serious issue. I agree wholeheartedly that ARIN needs to fix the chicken/egg problem that currently exists with new entities. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with your argument above. If a organization is being denied IPs from their upstream provider, it means that the upstream provider is dumb. They either are not properly managing their IP space, or are simply refusing because they feel like it. Do you think that changing the upstream providers fees from $32,000/year to $1,000,000/year is going to change that? If that cost per pegged to something linear for the provider that is a fixed cost and would more likely become one for their end users. Right now for a provider like AT&T that cost is totally arbitrary. They have multiple /8's but they charge over $1,000 a year for a few static IPs that they aren't even paying a penny for. And like many providers their size they are a decade behind many of us on this list in IPv6 deployment. > > Let me throw out a quick suggestion for a potential policy proposal: > > Change NRPM to remove the references to "upstream provider" from section 4.2, and instead allow new entities that can provide proper justification the ability to apply for a /22 of initial space. In other words, make all initial allocations fall under the current rules for multi-homed orgs. (Obviously, a proper policy proposal would require a more thorough investigation, and proper wording and such, but you get the idea.) > > There is a simple idea that I think many people can agree on, at least in concept. > >> Ultimately, the end user always pays for the IPs. Why should one org get them >> cheaper than everyone else and then have policy and fees geared to keep it >> that way. > > It sounds like you think IPs are a commodity. They aren't. They are a finite and unique resource which require reasonable stewardship. Can we all please stop trying to attach a unit price to single IP addresses? It doesn't make much sense in IPv4, and with IPv6 becomes absolutely ludicrous. IPs are a commodity. They are sold as a commodity all day long by folks like AT&T and virtually every other provider I can think of off the top of my head. They are "transferred"/bought when a company with resources gets bought. Are there exceptions? Sure but by and large IPs are treated as a commodity. To pretend they aren't is a bit silly. > >> When I look at a company like telus and compare them to my own or to Owen's >> employer we have rolled out ipv6 100% on our networks as have many people on >> this list. What's telus's excuse for failing to make any meaningful inroads >> there? Matthew, what I think would be a very useful contribution from you is >> why hasn't telus done it and how can we help you get beyond that? > > Again, you are calling out a specific entity. I have no experience with Telus, so I don't really have much comment other than: If you think they are doing it wrong, do you think raising their fees by an order of magnitude will somehow change that? > >> As far as >> your input on fees, I'm not sure what you can add there. Fees aren't your >> issue and you aren't paying them (personally) anyway. >> >> Jesse Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC > > I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. Fees are an issue for me. I am directly involved with several orgs that pay fees to ARIN. That comment wasn't directed at you. It was directed at IP admins at x-large ISPs in general. Being involved with orgs who pay fees and paying the fees yourself, however, are two totally different perspectives. > > -Randy From dk at intuix.com Tue Apr 16 07:52:50 2013 From: dk at intuix.com (Dmitry Kohmanyuk) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:52:50 +0300 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com>, <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: Folks, here are my few comments on a new hot topic for this spring :) Disclaimer: I am also on NRO NC as representative from RIPE region, so I know a bit about RIPE's policies and can compare some. On Apr 16, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > On Apr 16, 2013, at 12:07 AM, "Randy Carpenter" wrote: > > Randy, I asked what would it cost if we used x baseline that I pulled out of a hat to start somewhere (as I've mentioned repeatedly). You're looking at my comment too narrowly. At the root of it was remove the ceiling. Again you're going down the ARIN cost model and based on what I've seen from folks on this list is that goes nowhere... slowly. > > For me, I don't care what x org costs ARIN > I don't care what it takes to maintain x orgs records. > I don't believe ARIN has this data anyway. > > I care about these fees as they relate to: > 1. Getting IPv6 widely adopted > 2. Getting ARIN out of the way of starting a business. > 3. Making this fee model more equitable. > 4. Getting rid of the cut off at /14's and larger. While we can debate here whether there should be cost dependent on total size of IP address blocks allocated ("tax the rich"), or should tiers be narrower ("16 ranks of IP consumption"), I would also like to bring attention to new RIPE policy which just became effective after last year General Meeting - RIPE NCC Members (LIRs, equivalent of ISPs) used to pay a fee depending on their tier, calculated using a formula doing a weighted sum of allocated address blocks depending on their age ("charging scheme") used as a scope and then sorting all members by that score, and then dividing them by categories so each class had certain percentage of total members. Thus, fees were not exactly predictable as they depended not just on a member paying them, but on total distribution of membership allocations and their ages ("seniority".) Here is current schema, and historical data for reference (5 fee bands): http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-566 So, RIPE members voted for flat fee structure, where each member pays exactly same amount of money, plus fixed fee per each PI object. AS numbers are excluded from fee calculation. So, one obtains addresses on need, and money is not a concern at all. Right now, ARIN members vote the same but pay depending on their allocations. New RIPE approach essentially aligns vote and payment. On another end of spectrum ("market power") would be not just make ARIN members to pay in strict proportion to allocated addresses, but also vote with them. Would this option appeal to proponents of market approach ("IPv4 as commodity")? (I am not in this camp, for sure.) > What you suggested is going by aggregate. That's virtually identical as saying going by /x arbitrary block size. It's a linear model. That's where it's similar. I think going by aggregate is an interesting suggestion. > > [?] > It's extremely important because there is a macroeconomic impact of the current nibble policy as well as the fee structure. ARIN policy effectively created Matthew's position in the same way as Sarbanes Oxley (policy) created an entire cottage industry of document retention. Matthew is my example because he held his organisation up as one. So, speaking of nibble policy (I am not exactly sure what is it) - which bad effects does it have, in your opinion? >> What you are talking about here is a serious issue. I agree wholeheartedly that ARIN needs to fix the chicken/egg problem that currently exists with new entities. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with your argument above. If a organization is being denied IPs from their upstream provider, it means that the upstream provider is dumb. They either are not properly managing their IP space, or are simply refusing because they feel like it. Do you think that changing the upstream providers fees from $32,000/year to $1,000,000/year is going to change that? > > If that cost per pegged to something linear for the provider that is a fixed cost and would more likely become one for their end users. Right now for a provider like AT&T that cost is totally arbitrary. They have multiple /8's but they charge over $1,000 a year for a few static IPs that they aren't even paying a penny for. And like many providers their size they are a decade behind many of us on this list in IPv6 deployment. So, if we make everybody to pay same amount of $ for IP address regardless size of allocation, it would discourage address resale and hoarding, at a cost of increasing fees of "big, bad" ISPs by factor of thousands. Is that a good way to solve a problem? (Methinks, no.) My suggestion would be to make it easier to obtain initial allocation (and perhaps make it smaller - say, /23 - and perhaps remove restriction on multihoming - allowing new ISPs with no immediate need of /22 to get started on their own IP space. Tying IPv4 requests to existing customer base of IPv6 users is interesting idea, but it may be different to quantify in policy. -- dk@ From msalim at localweb.com Tue Apr 16 08:14:05 2013 From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:14:05 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com><94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com><205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net><49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com>, <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net><87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: Hello all, I noticed that this has become a hot topic for many folks as of yesterday. I am curious: Are ARIN fees really that unfair or onerous? Or is there a motivation among some, that the big guys need to be charged much more just because they are big guys, no matter what? Maybe I am reading the emails wrong but some of the conversation seems to be along the lines of "the big guys need to pay a whole lot more because ...". I just do not see any obvious justification for that line of argument. Since (IMHO and probably in the opinion of many, or most, ARIN members) the fees are not all that unfair, and since ARIN appears to be balancing its budget just fine with no pending budget crisis and no sudden need of a large cash infusion, why the big hubbub about fees? Or did I miss something? (and apologies if I did). I think the adage applies: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. A minor tweak or two is fine but I am hearing some major changes being suggested. (As a disclaimer, being a S or X-S, I do not consider myself one of the big guys - yet). 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. From rlc at usfamily.net Tue Apr 16 09:53:33 2013 From: rlc at usfamily.net (rlc at usfamily.net) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:53:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Message-ID: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> If I understand the ARIN revenue "needs" as approximately $8 per class C correctly, that means we are paying almost 6x more than that (in our particular case). It would seem that a lot of you on the list don't seem to care that big ISP's get their IP's at a discounted rate, thus putting the rest of us at a market disadvantage. I knew exactly where the thread go when I pulled it (nowhere), but it is amusing to watch the action. I did see somewhat of a new bizarre response this time around, though. Someone actually likened this to getting the rich to "pay their fair share". Perhaps they didn't notice, but nobody was advocating for a progressive tax. Quite the contrary, we are talking about a "flat tax" to replace the current heavily REGRESSIVE tax. Thus, that was one of the most preposterous responses ever. I have heard continual whining about lack of IPv6 adoption, while ARIN refuses to adopt policies to encourage it. Stop the whining, or do something about it. In the meantime, the big ISP's will continue to pull the strings. From bjankovich at vaultnetworks.com Tue Apr 16 09:56:21 2013 From: bjankovich at vaultnetworks.com (Brian Jankovich) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:56:21 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com><94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com><205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net><49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com>, <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net><87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <0b1f01ce3aaa$2d2c1c80$87845580$@vaultnetworks.com> Hello All, I would have to agree with Mike. As a small ISP owner who maintains the network and makes decisions that make the most business sense, I feel like Mike's got valid points in the fact that the revenues don't curb use or encourage adaption. My biggest fear is having customers looking to procure services from my ISP but I do not have any ips to give them causing my business to suffer. I'm sure there are many business owners on this list that may have had inklings like this at one time or another but haven't done anything about it. At this time, we(small ISPs) have the same voting power as the GIANTS to change the way big ISPs procure ips. Besides it's somewhat pointless to charge the rich more as they have the money to pay the fees. Also if we vote to charge more than those fees will likely result in a rate increase of some sort directly to the consumer. So at the end of the day the plan is just making more inflation in our economy. What ARIN's policies need is reform on how and what IPv4 ips can be used for. It shouldn't be acceptable to put a public ip on a printer or desktop PC anymore. We have firewalls and NAT. We all saw where adaption led us with the health care industry in the past decade. It wasn't until a mandate was passed by govt that forced people to move to electronic medical records that the masses started using them. This is going to be the same for IPv6 adaption till someone puts their foot down. My thought process is the start reforming at places where IPv4 is not required. I also believe this is where a BULK of our IPv4 address space is being used. WHY do all the millions of cell phones, wireless cards, cable/DSL models need IPv4 ips on them when there is no hosting involved with their services AND they support ipv6? Why can't LARGE carriers do some 6-to-4 natting or something creative to get their networks on IPv6 and open up IPv4 ips to Hosting companies who actually need the ips? Just as one concept. FOR EXAMPLE: If we pass policies where an ISP of X,Y,Z sorts who just has people surfing the net and no real resource requirements, then you have to meet these certain IPV6 transition guidelines otherwise ARIN will not allow approve new allocations of transfers of other's allocation. Such guides can be measures at 6mo, 12mo, 18mo and final full implementation of IPv6 at 24mos with the intention of giving back v4 ranges to ARIN for other to use. If ISP does not meet requirements at the time of review then they are no longer able to procure IPv4 from ARIN. This type of reform mandate will jumpstart adaption at the backbone and subscribers areas we need it to be at AND open up ipv4 space at the hosting/datacenter levels where we need it. It will also encourage business to dual-stack their offerings as they know there are many subscribers out there that are IPv6 native. If this is possible, I think that raising costs of allocations is the right thing to do as ARIN will likely need to hire more staff to audit this process. Afterall it's for the better of the internet. Brian Jankovich President | vaultnetworks 305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com skype: brianvaultnet www.vaultnetworks.com -----Original Message----- From: Mike A. Salim [mailto:msalim at localweb.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:14 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Hello all, I noticed that this has become a hot topic for many folks as of yesterday. I am curious: Are ARIN fees really that unfair or onerous? Or is there a motivation among some, that the big guys need to be charged much more just because they are big guys, no matter what? Maybe I am reading the emails wrong but some of the conversation seems to be along the lines of "the big guys need to pay a whole lot more because ...". I just do not see any obvious justification for that line of argument. Since (IMHO and probably in the opinion of many, or most, ARIN members) the fees are not all that unfair, and since ARIN appears to be balancing its budget just fine with no pending budget crisis and no sudden need of a large cash infusion, why the big hubbub about fees? Or did I miss something? (and apologies if I did). I think the adage applies: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. A minor tweak or two is fine but I am hearing some major changes being suggested. (As a disclaimer, being a S or X-S, I do not consider myself one of the big guys - yet). 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. _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Apr 16 11:02:21 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:02:21 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Dmitry - Thanks for that excellent post summarizing this recent change at RIPE. I noted this in a similar discussion on the PPML mailing list recently but appreciate your message's additional, helpful background information. While it is very important that each region establish its own fees based on its services and requirements, there is nothing wrong with comparing the structural aspects of other regions schedules as examples of possible frameworks to consider... Thanks again for your note! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote: > Folks, > > here are my few comments on a new hot topic for this spring :) > > Disclaimer: I am also on NRO NC as representative from RIPE region, so I know a bit about RIPE's policies and can compare some. > ... > While we can debate here whether there should be cost dependent on total size of IP address blocks allocated ("tax the rich"), > or should tiers be narrower ("16 ranks of IP consumption"), I would also like to bring attention to new RIPE policy which just became > effective after last year General Meeting - > > RIPE NCC Members (LIRs, equivalent of ISPs) used to pay a fee depending on their tier, calculated using a formula doing a weighted > sum of allocated address blocks depending on their age ("charging scheme") used as a scope and then sorting all members by that score, > and then dividing them by categories so each class had certain percentage of total members. Thus, fees were not exactly predictable > as they depended not just on a member paying them, but on total distribution of membership allocations and their ages ("seniority".) > > Here is current schema, and historical data for reference (5 fee bands): > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-566 > > So, RIPE members voted for flat fee structure, where each member pays exactly same amount of money, plus fixed fee per each PI object. > AS numbers are excluded from fee calculation. So, one obtains addresses on need, and money is not a concern at all. > ... > So, if we make everybody to pay same amount of $ for IP address regardless size of allocation, it would discourage address resale > and hoarding, at a cost of increasing fees of "big, bad" ISPs by factor of thousands. Is that a good way to solve a problem? (Methinks, no.) > > My suggestion would be to make it easier to obtain initial allocation (and perhaps make it smaller - say, /23 - and perhaps remove restriction on > multihoming - allowing new ISPs with no immediate need of /22 to get started on their own IP space. > > Tying IPv4 requests to existing customer base of IPv6 users is interesting idea, but it may be different to quantify in policy. > > -- dk@ From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Tue Apr 16 11:41:18 2013 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:41:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <94182764-04CD-40C0-9F55-723BC052C8D4@la-broadband.com> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com>, <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com>, <1366077141.18365.YahooMailNeo@web121604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <94182764-04CD-40C0-9F55-723BC052C8D4@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <1366126878.41641.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> >________________________________ > From: Jesse D. Geddis >To: Lee Howard >Cc: Brian Jankovich ; Jawaid Bazyar ; "arin-discuss at arin.net" >Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:06 PM >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > > >Lee, > > >What do apple, MIT, and HP an others have to do with ARIN fees? Perhaps you missed my point. MIT is paying $18,000 per year (it could be lower because they're legacy) to sit on as many IPs as the entire small tier is using and paying $5mil or thereabouts for. If MIT or apple or whoever were paying a proportionate amount there's a decent chance they would reconsider the cost/benefit of doing so and not hoard millions of IPs... > > I have no information on the relationship between those organizations and ARIN, but since they are legacy end-user organizations, I doubt they pay ARIN anything, including attention. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Apr 16 12:22:26 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:22:26 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy address holder fees (was: Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: <1366126878.41641.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20130415125120.xumveveznk0o048g@webmail.usfamily.net> <516C4FDC.4020307@forethought.net> <0a0401ce3a18$e7faea10$b7f0be30$@vaultnetworks.com> <1366059876.87919.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <9094D90F-4C96-48BD-86B2-AB11CEC6E833@la-broadband.com> <1366077141.18365.YahooMailNeo@web121604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <94182764-04CD-40C0-9F55-723BC052C8D4@la-broadband.com> <1366126878.41641.YahooMailNeo@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB951B4@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> From: Jesse D. Geddis > What do apple, MIT, and HP an others have to do with ARIN fees? Perhaps you missed my point. MIT is paying $18,000 per year (it could be lower because they're legacy) to sit on as many IPs as the entire small tier is using and paying $5mil or thereabouts for. If MIT or apple or whoever were paying a proportionate amount there's a decent chance they would reconsider the cost/benefit of doing so and not hoard millions of IPs... Jesse - Several hundred legacy address holders have entered into LRSA agreements with ARIN, and therefore will be transitioning to paying according to the revised end-user schedule of $100 per year for each resource record (subject to any cap that may be contained in earlier LRSA agreement which may only allow for $25/year increase in fees.) ARIN has tried to very hard to leave legacy address holders undisturbed to the extent that they simply wish to use their number resources. This has included voluntary entry into an LRSA agreement and nominal maintenance fees. (Some may argue that we have not succeeded in our handling of legacy holders, due to our requirement that the registry be operated accordingly to the policy set by the community in the region, but that is a fundamental principle from ARIN's early formation that is inviolate.) While you may suggest raising fees for such legacy holders, it is simply not a viable approach because legacy address holders who enter into the LRSA are protected from ever paying more than other ARIN registry users - "ARIN may increase the Legacy Maintenance Fee after December 31, 2012, provided that (i) the Legacy Maintenance Fee cannot exceed the maintenance fee charged to comparable non-legacy holders for the maintenance service as set forth in ARIN?s Standard Fee Schedule as posted on ARIN?s Website for comparable number resources, and (ii) ARIN must set these fees in an open and transparent manner through the ARIN community consultation process." (Thanks to all those legacy address holders who worked with ARIN over the years on improvements to the language such as the above... :-) As the LRSA provides contractual protection from what you suggest, it's likely not a fruitful approach to any fee schedule. Legacy IPv4 address holders are the Internet community's legacy (many of them having made rather significant contributions in the Internet's earliest years) and they are to be treated as equals in the establishment of any fee schedule. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Tue Apr 16 12:31:48 2013 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:31:48 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> On 4/16/13 10:02 , John Curran wrote: > While it is very important that each region establish its own fees based > on its services and requirements, there is nothing wrong with comparing > the structural aspects of other regions schedules as examples of possible > frameworks to consider... John, Is there anything like the NRO "RIR Comparative Policy Overview" available that summarizes and compares the other differences of the RIRs like fee structure, administrative structure, and membership structure as well? With a quick search I couldn't find anything, but I remember Geoff Huston summarizing the APNIC fee model as based one logarithmic function a while back. I find the Comparative Policy Overview very useful from time to time, but it only covers policy, sometimes it would be useful to compare and contrast the RIRs based on other issues as well. Maybe simply adding a non-policy section to the current Comparative Policy Overview would be the easiest and most helpful thing. This isn't necessarily out of scope for the Comparative Policy Overview, because policy is subtly effected by these other issues occasionally. Thanks -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ From dk at intuix.com Tue Apr 16 12:35:46 2013 From: dk at intuix.com (Dmitry Kohmanyuk) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:35:46 +0300 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:31 PM, David Farmer wrote: > On 4/16/13 10:02 , John Curran wrote: > >> While it is very important that each region establish its own fees based >> on its services and requirements, there is nothing wrong with comparing >> the structural aspects of other regions schedules as examples of possible >> frameworks to consider... > > John, > > Is there anything like the NRO "RIR Comparative Policy Overview" available that summarizes and compares the other differences of the RIRs like fee structure, administrative structure, and membership structure as well? > > With a quick search I couldn't find anything, but I remember Geoff Huston summarizing the APNIC fee model as based one logarithmic function a while back. I find the Comparative Policy Overview very useful from time to time, but it only covers policy, sometimes it would be useful to compare and contrast the RIRs based on other issues as well. > > Maybe simply adding a non-policy section to the current Comparative Policy Overview would be the easiest and most helpful thing. This isn't necessarily out of scope for the Comparative Policy Overview, because policy is subtly effected by these other issues occasionally. Thanks for idea David. Such an analysis can be indeed helpful, especially with IPv4 exhaustion driving some policy matters to change. -- dk@ From KevinDz at tst-us.com Tue Apr 16 12:41:28 2013 From: KevinDz at tst-us.com (Kevin Dziekonski) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:41:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> Message-ID: <076d01ce3ac1$3e044750$ba0cd5f0$@tst-us.com> Dear all, Please update my new email address to Kevin at Dziekonski.com for ARIN discussions. Thank you, Kevin Dziekonski -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Dmitry Kohmanyuk Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:36 PM To: David Farmer Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net List; John Curran Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:31 PM, David Farmer wrote: > On 4/16/13 10:02 , John Curran wrote: > >> While it is very important that each region establish its own fees based >> on its services and requirements, there is nothing wrong with comparing >> the structural aspects of other regions schedules as examples of possible >> frameworks to consider... > > John, > > Is there anything like the NRO "RIR Comparative Policy Overview" available that summarizes and compares the other differences of the RIRs like fee structure, administrative structure, and membership structure as well? > > With a quick search I couldn't find anything, but I remember Geoff Huston summarizing the APNIC fee model as based one logarithmic function a while back. I find the Comparative Policy Overview very useful from time to time, but it only covers policy, sometimes it would be useful to compare and contrast the RIRs based on other issues as well. > > Maybe simply adding a non-policy section to the current Comparative Policy Overview would be the easiest and most helpful thing. This isn't necessarily out of scope for the Comparative Policy Overview, because policy is subtly effected by these other issues occasionally. Thanks for idea David. Such an analysis can be indeed helpful, especially with IPv4 exhaustion driving some policy matters to change. -- 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. From jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Apr 16 12:58:07 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:58:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com><94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com><205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net><49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com>, <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net><87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> , Message-ID: Mike, I've advocated a flat, linear fee structure. There's no "x should pay more" in there. Quite the contrary, I and several others are saying we should all pay the same amount. I find some of the folk's takeaways from these emails mind bending... The vast majority of the people on this list subsidise those 73 orgs in x-large by encouraging policies and fees put yourself on weaker footing. Maybe some of you don't understand the sheer scale you are kneecapping yourselves at. AT&T has Well over 32 million friggin IPs. Does anyone on this list honestly believe att has done a stellar job on IPv6? Or with IPv4 for that matter? They are paying _at_most_ $0.0005 an IP address while someone in small is paying $0.61 an IP. Are you friggin joking me? I have yet to hear a single person make an argument as to why the cap at /14 is a reasoned one. Someone take a stab at it. The fee scales linearly all the way up until /14 and then you guys all seem to have a brain fart and argue against a linear scale. Why do they different rules? Don't tell me a linear scale doesn't make sense because its what's in place now! Tell me why it should stop at /14 and give everyone above that a free friggin ride on our backs. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 5:15 AM, "Mike A. Salim" wrote: > Hello all, > > I noticed that this has become a hot topic for many folks as of yesterday. I am curious: Are ARIN fees really that unfair or onerous? Or is there a motivation among some, that the big guys need to be charged much more just because they are big guys, no matter what? > > Maybe I am reading the emails wrong but some of the conversation seems to be along the lines of "the big guys need to pay a whole lot more because ...". I just do not see any obvious justification for that line of argument. > > Since (IMHO and probably in the opinion of many, or most, ARIN members) the fees are not all that unfair, and since ARIN appears to be balancing its budget just fine with no pending budget crisis and no sudden need of a large cash infusion, why the big hubbub about fees? Or did I miss something? (and apologies if I did). > > I think the adage applies: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. A minor tweak or two is fine but I am hearing some major changes being suggested. > > (As a disclaimer, being a S or X-S, I do not consider myself one of the big guys - yet). > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Apr 16 13:14:40 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:14:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> Message-ID: <9B676C41-4C00-429F-8C55-49DF883310B5@la-broadband.com> What's funny is the model some these guys are arguing for is a tax model like: We pay 10% until our income is $100,000 At which point we should pay no more than $10,000 total in taxes/fees on all income past a trillion and into infinity. It doesn't make sense... If you're going to make a linear scale keep it linear. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 6:55 AM, "rlc at usfamily.net" wrote: > If I understand the ARIN revenue "needs" as approximately $8 per class C > correctly, that means we are paying almost 6x more than that (in our particular > case). It would seem that a lot of you on the list don't seem to care that big > ISP's get their IP's at a discounted rate, thus putting the rest of us at a > market disadvantage. I knew exactly where the thread go when I pulled it > (nowhere), but it is amusing to watch the action. > > I did see somewhat of a new bizarre response this time around, though. Someone > actually likened this to getting the rich to "pay their fair share". Perhaps > they didn't notice, but nobody was advocating for a progressive tax. Quite > the contrary, we are talking about a "flat tax" to replace the current heavily > REGRESSIVE tax. Thus, that was one of the most preposterous responses ever. > > I have heard continual whining about lack of IPv6 adoption, while ARIN refuses > to adopt policies to encourage it. Stop the whining, or do something about it. > > In the meantime, the big ISP's will continue to pull the strings. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 eric at a5.com Tue Apr 16 13:26:35 2013 From: eric at a5.com (Eric Fisher) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:26:35 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com><94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com><205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net><49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com>, <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net><87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> , Message-ID: <008001ce3ac7$8bba7a40$a32f6ec0$@a5.com> Jesse's right----there is a hybrid model here that works against encouraging ipv6 adoption by the larger community (mostly small operators)---(I believe that is still the underlying goal of this discussion?) There is a scale on org costs but not one that is complete. That imbalance has created a bit of cart/horse issue. There is no compelling business case from a client-demand perspective that we see currently (echoed by others) to motivate us at this point on ipv6. The reality is that these larger orgs likely won't pay on the same scale, which forces the financial burden onto the smaller providers (where the scale exists). That logic continues through to the ipv6 funding model as well. If there were equivalent scaled financing of ipv4, ARIN's budget would be significantly different----which could allow them to subsidize/further enable small operators to take on ipv6 costs and increasing the deployment speed. Interesting discussion---and I feel for the OP---challenging time to deploy a public IP network. Good luck! Eric www.a5.com -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:58 AM To: Mike A. Salim Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Mike, I've advocated a flat, linear fee structure. There's no "x should pay more" in there. Quite the contrary, I and several others are saying we should all pay the same amount. I find some of the folk's takeaways from these emails mind bending... The vast majority of the people on this list subsidise those 73 orgs in x-large by encouraging policies and fees put yourself on weaker footing. Maybe some of you don't understand the sheer scale you are kneecapping yourselves at. AT&T has Well over 32 million friggin IPs. Does anyone on this list honestly believe att has done a stellar job on IPv6? Or with IPv4 for that matter? They are paying _at_most_ $0.0005 an IP address while someone in small is paying $0.61 an IP. Are you friggin joking me? I have yet to hear a single person make an argument as to why the cap at /14 is a reasoned one. Someone take a stab at it. The fee scales linearly all the way up until /14 and then you guys all seem to have a brain fart and argue against a linear scale. Why do they different rules? Don't tell me a linear scale doesn't make sense because its what's in place now! Tell me why it should stop at /14 and give everyone above that a free friggin ride on our backs. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 5:15 AM, "Mike A. Salim" wrote: > Hello all, > > I noticed that this has become a hot topic for many folks as of yesterday. I am curious: Are ARIN fees really that unfair or onerous? Or is there a motivation among some, that the big guys need to be charged much more just because they are big guys, no matter what? > > Maybe I am reading the emails wrong but some of the conversation seems to be along the lines of "the big guys need to pay a whole lot more because ...". I just do not see any obvious justification for that line of argument. > > Since (IMHO and probably in the opinion of many, or most, ARIN members) the fees are not all that unfair, and since ARIN appears to be balancing its budget just fine with no pending budget crisis and no sudden need of a large cash infusion, why the big hubbub about fees? Or did I miss something? (and apologies if I did). > > I think the adage applies: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. A minor tweak or two is fine but I am hearing some major changes being suggested. > > (As a disclaimer, being a S or X-S, I do not consider myself one of the big guys - yet). > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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 quonix.net Tue Apr 16 13:32:37 2013 From: john at quonix.net (John Von Essen) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:32:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <9B676C41-4C00-429F-8C55-49DF883310B5@la-broadband.com> References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> <9B676C41-4C00-429F-8C55-49DF883310B5@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <43634A6F-3DBE-499B-873F-EFCE6194876E@quonix.net> Just for thought.... Lets say in the future (5 years from now), the entire world has switched over to IPv6 and IPv4 is completely dead in the public space. Since v6 space is so huge and abundant, the fees by Arin, Apnic, etc.,. should be almost nothing compared to what they are now since the effort to manage and give it out will be minimal. The blocks are so large, that 99% of Orgs would request one block, and never ever need to make another request again. So the number of support tickets by Arin for resource requests would be a fraction of what they are now. Not to mention, there wont be as many small multi-homed ISP's applying since getting IP space from upstreams will no longer be "difficult". This means in the future that bodies like Arin will get smaller, with less staff, and a much smaller operating budget. Hmmm, maybe this is why IPv4 is still around, and will remain for a very very long time. Heck, if we can upgrade every computers OS for Y2K, we can switch the world over to IPv6 and kill v4 once and for all. -John On Apr 16, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > What's funny is the model some these guys are arguing for is a tax > model like: > > We pay 10% until our income is $100,000 > > At which point we should pay no more than $10,000 total in taxes/ > fees on all income past a trillion and into infinity. It doesn't > make sense... > > If you're going to make a linear scale keep it linear. > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 6:55 AM, "rlc at usfamily.net" > wrote: > >> If I understand the ARIN revenue "needs" as approximately $8 per >> class C >> correctly, that means we are paying almost 6x more than that (in >> our particular >> case). It would seem that a lot of you on the list don't seem to >> care that big >> ISP's get their IP's at a discounted rate, thus putting the rest of >> us at a >> market disadvantage. I knew exactly where the thread go when I >> pulled it >> (nowhere), but it is amusing to watch the action. >> >> I did see somewhat of a new bizarre response this time around, >> though. Someone >> actually likened this to getting the rich to "pay their fair >> share". Perhaps >> they didn't notice, but nobody was advocating for a progressive >> tax. Quite >> the contrary, we are talking about a "flat tax" to replace the >> current heavily >> REGRESSIVE tax. Thus, that was one of the most preposterous >> responses ever. >> >> I have heard continual whining about lack of IPv6 adoption, while >> ARIN refuses >> to adopt policies to encourage it. Stop the whining, or do >> something about it. >> >> In the meantime, the big ISP's will continue to pull the strings. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bjones at vt.edu Tue Apr 16 14:30:52 2013 From: bjones at vt.edu (Brian Jones) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <43634A6F-3DBE-499B-873F-EFCE6194876E@quonix.net> References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> <9B676C41-4C00-429F-8C55-49DF883310B5@la-broadband.com> <43634A6F-3DBE-499B-873F-EFCE6194876E@quonix.net> Message-ID: Just an observation from your observation... If we were sufficiently motivated we could fully implement IPv6 quickly... Thinking back to the Y2K software and hardware upgrades it demonstrates what can be done when it is deemed absolutely necessary... -- Brian On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:32 PM, John Von Essen wrote: > Just for thought.... > > Lets say in the future (5 years from now), the entire world has switched > over to IPv6 and IPv4 is completely dead in the public space. > > Since v6 space is so huge and abundant, the fees by Arin, Apnic, etc.,. > should be almost nothing compared to what they are now since the effort to > manage and give it out will be minimal. The blocks are so large, that 99% > of Orgs would request one block, and never ever need to make another > request again. So the number of support tickets by Arin for resource > requests would be a fraction of what they are now. Not to mention, there > wont be as many small multi-homed ISP's applying since getting IP space > from upstreams will no longer be "difficult". > > This means in the future that bodies like Arin will get smaller, with less > staff, and a much smaller operating budget. > > Hmmm, maybe this is why IPv4 is still around, and will remain for a very > very long time. > > Heck, if we can upgrade every computers OS for Y2K, we can switch the > world over to IPv6 and kill v4 once and for all. > > -John > > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > > What's funny is the model some these guys are arguing for is a tax model >> like: >> >> We pay 10% until our income is $100,000 >> >> At which point we should pay no more than $10,000 total in taxes/fees on >> all income past a trillion and into infinity. It doesn't make sense... >> >> If you're going to make a linear scale keep it linear. >> >> Jesse Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> >> On Apr 16, 2013, at 6:55 AM, "rlc at usfamily.net" wrote: >> >> If I understand the ARIN revenue "needs" as approximately $8 per class C >>> correctly, that means we are paying almost 6x more than that (in our >>> particular >>> case). It would seem that a lot of you on the list don't seem to care >>> that big >>> ISP's get their IP's at a discounted rate, thus putting the rest of us >>> at a >>> market disadvantage. I knew exactly where the thread go when I pulled it >>> (nowhere), but it is amusing to watch the action. >>> >>> I did see somewhat of a new bizarre response this time around, though. >>> Someone >>> actually likened this to getting the rich to "pay their fair share". >>> Perhaps >>> they didn't notice, but nobody was advocating for a progressive tax. >>> Quite >>> the contrary, we are talking about a "flat tax" to replace the current >>> heavily >>> REGRESSIVE tax. Thus, that was one of the most preposterous responses >>> ever. >>> >>> I have heard continual whining about lack of IPv6 adoption, while ARIN >>> refuses >>> to adopt policies to encourage it. Stop the whining, or do something >>> about it. >>> >>> In the meantime, the big ISP's will continue to pull the strings. >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Apr 16 14:44:30 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:44:30 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> Message-ID: <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> David - No, there is not, and such is unlikely to be prepared (at least by ARIN) as each region needs to consider its fees and services independently and focused on on the needs of its community. Feel free to research structures as you see fit, but discussion of actual fees in other regions should not be a germane consideration in ARIN fee discussions. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Apr 16, 2013, at 12:31 PM, David Farmer wrote: > On 4/16/13 10:02 , John Curran wrote: > >> While it is very important that each region establish its own fees based >> on its services and requirements, there is nothing wrong with comparing >> the structural aspects of other regions schedules as examples of possible >> frameworks to consider... > > John, > > Is there anything like the NRO "RIR Comparative Policy Overview" available that summarizes and compares the other differences of the RIRs like fee structure, administrative structure, and membership structure as well? > > With a quick search I couldn't find anything, but I remember Geoff Huston summarizing the APNIC fee model as based one logarithmic function a while back. I find the Comparative Policy Overview very useful from time to time, but it only covers policy, sometimes it would be useful to compare and contrast the RIRs based on other issues as well. > > Maybe simply adding a non-policy section to the current Comparative Policy Overview would be the easiest and most helpful thing. This isn't necessarily out of scope for the Comparative Policy Overview, because policy is subtly effected by these other issues occasionally. > > Thanks > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > 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. From rcarpen at network1.net Tue Apr 16 14:53:11 2013 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <9B676C41-4C00-429F-8C55-49DF883310B5@la-broadband.com> References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> <9B676C41-4C00-429F-8C55-49DF883310B5@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <1827051627.224681.1366138391930.JavaMail.root@network1.net> I guess I am still missing the point. Can you tell me, specifically, how raising the fees will promote IPv6 adoption? thanks, -Randy ----- Original Message ----- > What's funny is the model some these guys are arguing for is a tax model > like: > > We pay 10% until our income is $100,000 > > At which point we should pay no more than $10,000 total in taxes/fees on all > income past a trillion and into infinity. It doesn't make sense... > > If you're going to make a linear scale keep it linear. > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Tue Apr 16 15:00:26 2013 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com><94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com><205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net><49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com>, <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net><87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> , Message-ID: <1366138826.62751.YahooMailNeo@web121603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> >________________________________ > From: Jesse D. Geddis >To: Mike A. Salim >Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:58 PM >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > >The vast majority of the people on this list subsidise those 73 orgs in x-large by encouraging policies and fees put yourself on weaker footing. Maybe some of you don't understand the sheer scale you are kneecapping yourselves at. > > Or maybe they do understand, and simply disagree with you.? AT&T has Well over 32 million friggin IPs. Does anyone on this list honestly believe att has done a stellar job on IPv6? > > Yes, absolutely stellar.? According to http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ they have 8.26% of users reaching IPv6-enabled web sites over IPv6.? They have more IPv6 users than anyone else in the world.? I seem to recall that they have 34 million Internet customers, so they have at least 2.8 million IPv6 customers.? In practice, it may be more like 25-30% of their users have IPv6, but it isn't being used because of Apple's Happy Eyeballs implementation, possibly in combination with 6rd, or content providers' slow IPv6 networks. If you meet someone from AT&T, you should shake their hand and congratulate them on their IPv6 rollout, and thank them for leading the way. >Or with IPv4 for that matter? They are paying _at_most_ $0.0005 an IP address while someone in small is paying $0.61 an IP. Are you friggin joking me? > > I see that you are getting upset.? That will not make your argument more convincing. It sounds as if you are convinced that per-address pricing is the only fair way to set fees.? That does not seem to be the consensus. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Matthew.Wilder at telus.com Tue Apr 16 15:13:24 2013 From: Matthew.Wilder at telus.com (Matthew Wilder) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:13:24 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> <9B676C41-4C00-429F-8C55-49DF883310B5@la-broadband.com> <43634A6F-3DBE-499B-873F-EFCE6194876E@quonix.net> Message-ID: John and Brian, The comparison is laudable, however it doesn't take into account a few differences which end up having a significant impact on the implementation of the solution. Hopefully as you read this not as discouraging news but rather realistic challenges and their resulting impacts. Here are what I believe to be the most significant differences: 1) Y2K was an event which was absolutely certain in timing. IPv4 Address depletion was predicted two decades ago. Yet it only occurred at a global level through IANA a couple of years ago, and at APNIC then RIPE, but has yet to occur at ARIN, LACNIC and AFRINIC. And then each provider has varying pools, and if some providers are not experiencing subscriber growth, IPv4 depletion isn't actually something to worry about. The point is IPv4 exhaust is not as universally necessary and coincidental as Y2K was. 2) Y2K didn't have significant inter-operability challenges. Each standalone system required patches or perhaps in some cases synchronization was required within an entity's system, but at least it was all within their control. In the case of the internet, the end to end ecosystem includes myriad equipment manufacturers (including consumer electronic), OS makers, ISPs, content providers, and so on. No single entity controls the ecosystem, but it is shared by many, many participants, which means that perfect co-ordination is out of the question, which means transition is necessary. The point here is unlike Y2K, you can't just go out and fix the problem once and for all. At minimum there are a few phases you need to plan for. In addition, there are a few barriers to IPv6 including familiarity of the staff with IPv4 over IPv6. In the case of Y2K the date format was not changing to a degree that necessitated serious training for the staff to understand a new format. Additionally the transition phase(s) resulting from point 2 means additional cost for a likely long period of time operating dual-stack in some form. I could go on with other reasons, but I think these constitute the major differences between Y2K and IPv6. Now with the "bad" news behind us, I would back up Lee's comments of the positive signs of IPv6 deployment. Google statistics show that the industry recently passed the 1% threshold of traffic over IPv6. This may not seem like a major milestone, but the S curve model, which is used also to represent the spread of a virus in a population increases its slope significantly when a tipping point like this is achieved. By the end of 2015, Google data predicts 10-14% of internet traffic will be IPv6, and by the end of 2020 it will be 70%. And I am not aware of a major provider that is not ramping up their IPv6 effort. Hopefully this message is ultimately encouraging. I am personally excited to think that IPv6 will represent the majority of traffic by the end of the decade. That's awesome! mw From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Jones Sent: April 16, 2013 11:31 AM To: John Von Essen Cc: arin-discuss Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Just an observation from your observation... If we were sufficiently motivated we could fully implement IPv6 quickly... Thinking back to the Y2K software and hardware upgrades it demonstrates what can be done when it is deemed absolutely necessary... -- Brian On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:32 PM, John Von Essen > wrote: Just for thought.... Lets say in the future (5 years from now), the entire world has switched over to IPv6 and IPv4 is completely dead in the public space. Since v6 space is so huge and abundant, the fees by Arin, Apnic, etc.,. should be almost nothing compared to what they are now since the effort to manage and give it out will be minimal. The blocks are so large, that 99% of Orgs would request one block, and never ever need to make another request again. So the number of support tickets by Arin for resource requests would be a fraction of what they are now. Not to mention, there wont be as many small multi-homed ISP's applying since getting IP space from upstreams will no longer be "difficult". This means in the future that bodies like Arin will get smaller, with less staff, and a much smaller operating budget. Hmmm, maybe this is why IPv4 is still around, and will remain for a very very long time. Heck, if we can upgrade every computers OS for Y2K, we can switch the world over to IPv6 and kill v4 once and for all. -John On Apr 16, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: What's funny is the model some these guys are arguing for is a tax model like: We pay 10% until our income is $100,000 At which point we should pay no more than $10,000 total in taxes/fees on all income past a trillion and into infinity. It doesn't make sense... If you're going to make a linear scale keep it linear. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 6:55 AM, "rlc at usfamily.net" > wrote: If I understand the ARIN revenue "needs" as approximately $8 per class C correctly, that means we are paying almost 6x more than that (in our particular case). It would seem that a lot of you on the list don't seem to care that big ISP's get their IP's at a discounted rate, thus putting the rest of us at a market disadvantage. I knew exactly where the thread go when I pulled it (nowhere), but it is amusing to watch the action. I did see somewhat of a new bizarre response this time around, though. Someone actually likened this to getting the rich to "pay their fair share". Perhaps they didn't notice, but nobody was advocating for a progressive tax. Quite the contrary, we are talking about a "flat tax" to replace the current heavily REGRESSIVE tax. Thus, that was one of the most preposterous responses ever. I have heard continual whining about lack of IPv6 adoption, while ARIN refuses to adopt policies to encourage it. Stop the whining, or do something about it. In the meantime, the big ISP's will continue to pull the strings. _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Tue Apr 16 15:32:06 2013 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:32:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> <9B676C41-4C00-429F-8C55-49DF883310B5@la-broadband.com> <43634A6F-3DBE-499B-873F-EFCE6194876E@quonix.net> Message-ID: Rhetorical question: Why not making the v4 to v6 transition as painless from the protocol design phase? When it was the time that the brains of Internet (or ARPAnet) realized that it was no longer small play in a few labs/colleges, the protocol should have been redone to make the addressing space extensible. RFC1883 was done in 1995. At that time, the hardware was not fast enough to do 128-bit addressing lookup, so the only sensible way should have been an extensible numbering/addressing scheme. If we had a backwards compatible v6, life would be much different, and on the better side, IMHO. yi From: owner-arin at sprint.net [mailto:owner-arin at sprint.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Wilder Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:13 PM To: bjones at vt.edu; John Von Essen Cc: arin-discuss Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? John and Brian, The comparison is laudable, however it doesn't take into account a few differences which end up having a significant impact on the implementation of the solution. Hopefully as you read this not as discouraging news but rather realistic challenges and their resulting impacts. Here are what I believe to be the most significant differences: 1) Y2K was an event which was absolutely certain in timing. IPv4 Address depletion was predicted two decades ago. Yet it only occurred at a global level through IANA a couple of years ago, and at APNIC then RIPE, but has yet to occur at ARIN, LACNIC and AFRINIC. And then each provider has varying pools, and if some providers are not experiencing subscriber growth, IPv4 depletion isn't actually something to worry about. The point is IPv4 exhaust is not as universally necessary and coincidental as Y2K was. 2) Y2K didn't have significant inter-operability challenges. Each standalone system required patches or perhaps in some cases synchronization was required within an entity's system, but at least it was all within their control. In the case of the internet, the end to end ecosystem includes myriad equipment manufacturers (including consumer electronic), OS makers, ISPs, content providers, and so on. No single entity controls the ecosystem, but it is shared by many, many participants, which means that perfect co-ordination is out of the question, which means transition is necessary. The point here is unlike Y2K, you can't just go out and fix the problem once and for all. At minimum there are a few phases you need to plan for. In addition, there are a few barriers to IPv6 including familiarity of the staff with IPv4 over IPv6. In the case of Y2K the date format was not changing to a degree that necessitated serious training for the staff to understand a new format. Additionally the transition phase(s) resulting from point 2 means additional cost for a likely long period of time operating dual-stack in some form. I could go on with other reasons, but I think these constitute the major differences between Y2K and IPv6. Now with the "bad" news behind us, I would back up Lee's comments of the positive signs of IPv6 deployment. Google statistics show that the industry recently passed the 1% threshold of traffic over IPv6. This may not seem like a major milestone, but the S curve model, which is used also to represent the spread of a virus in a population increases its slope significantly when a tipping point like this is achieved. By the end of 2015, Google data predicts 10-14% of internet traffic will be IPv6, and by the end of 2020 it will be 70%. And I am not aware of a major provider that is not ramping up their IPv6 effort. Hopefully this message is ultimately encouraging. I am personally excited to think that IPv6 will represent the majority of traffic by the end of the decade. That's awesome! mw From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Jones Sent: April 16, 2013 11:31 AM To: John Von Essen Cc: arin-discuss Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Just an observation from your observation... If we were sufficiently motivated we could fully implement IPv6 quickly... Thinking back to the Y2K software and hardware upgrades it demonstrates what can be done when it is deemed absolutely necessary... -- Brian On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:32 PM, John Von Essen > wrote: Just for thought.... Lets say in the future (5 years from now), the entire world has switched over to IPv6 and IPv4 is completely dead in the public space. Since v6 space is so huge and abundant, the fees by Arin, Apnic, etc.,. should be almost nothing compared to what they are now since the effort to manage and give it out will be minimal. The blocks are so large, that 99% of Orgs would request one block, and never ever need to make another request again. So the number of support tickets by Arin for resource requests would be a fraction of what they are now. Not to mention, there wont be as many small multi-homed ISP's applying since getting IP space from upstreams will no longer be "difficult". This means in the future that bodies like Arin will get smaller, with less staff, and a much smaller operating budget. Hmmm, maybe this is why IPv4 is still around, and will remain for a very very long time. Heck, if we can upgrade every computers OS for Y2K, we can switch the world over to IPv6 and kill v4 once and for all. -John On Apr 16, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: What's funny is the model some these guys are arguing for is a tax model like: We pay 10% until our income is $100,000 At which point we should pay no more than $10,000 total in taxes/fees on all income past a trillion and into infinity. It doesn't make sense... If you're going to make a linear scale keep it linear. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 6:55 AM, "rlc at usfamily.net" > wrote: If I understand the ARIN revenue "needs" as approximately $8 per class C correctly, that means we are paying almost 6x more than that (in our particular case). It would seem that a lot of you on the list don't seem to care that big ISP's get their IP's at a discounted rate, thus putting the rest of us at a market disadvantage. I knew exactly where the thread go when I pulled it (nowhere), but it is amusing to watch the action. I did see somewhat of a new bizarre response this time around, though. Someone actually likened this to getting the rich to "pay their fair share". Perhaps they didn't notice, but nobody was advocating for a progressive tax. Quite the contrary, we are talking about a "flat tax" to replace the current heavily REGRESSIVE tax. Thus, that was one of the most preposterous responses ever. I have heard continual whining about lack of IPv6 adoption, while ARIN refuses to adopt policies to encourage it. Stop the whining, or do something about it. In the meantime, the big ISP's will continue to pull the strings. _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Matthew.Wilder at telus.com Tue Apr 16 15:55:40 2013 From: Matthew.Wilder at telus.com (Matthew Wilder) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:55:40 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> <9B676C41-4C00-429F-8C55-49DF883310B5@la-broadband.com> <43634A6F-3DBE-499B-873F-EFCE6194876E@quonix.net> Message-ID: An excellent point that has been brought up a good number of times. Unfortunately, it is too late to revisit, and we have to adopt IPv6 as it is. You may find the following video very interesting because that question was posed to the co-authors of IPv6, Steve Deering and Bob Hinden. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwRVNwa6nJc mw From: Chu, Yi [NTK] [mailto:Yi.Chu at sprint.com] Sent: April 16, 2013 12:32 PM To: Matthew Wilder; bjones at vt.edu; John Von Essen Cc: arin-discuss Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Rhetorical question: Why not making the v4 to v6 transition as painless from the protocol design phase? When it was the time that the brains of Internet (or ARPAnet) realized that it was no longer small play in a few labs/colleges, the protocol should have been redone to make the addressing space extensible. RFC1883 was done in 1995. At that time, the hardware was not fast enough to do 128-bit addressing lookup, so the only sensible way should have been an extensible numbering/addressing scheme. If we had a backwards compatible v6, life would be much different, and on the better side, IMHO. yi From: owner-arin at sprint.net [mailto:owner-arin at sprint.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Wilder Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:13 PM To: bjones at vt.edu; John Von Essen Cc: arin-discuss Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? John and Brian, The comparison is laudable, however it doesn't take into account a few differences which end up having a significant impact on the implementation of the solution. Hopefully as you read this not as discouraging news but rather realistic challenges and their resulting impacts. Here are what I believe to be the most significant differences: 1) Y2K was an event which was absolutely certain in timing. IPv4 Address depletion was predicted two decades ago. Yet it only occurred at a global level through IANA a couple of years ago, and at APNIC then RIPE, but has yet to occur at ARIN, LACNIC and AFRINIC. And then each provider has varying pools, and if some providers are not experiencing subscriber growth, IPv4 depletion isn't actually something to worry about. The point is IPv4 exhaust is not as universally necessary and coincidental as Y2K was. 2) Y2K didn't have significant inter-operability challenges. Each standalone system required patches or perhaps in some cases synchronization was required within an entity's system, but at least it was all within their control. In the case of the internet, the end to end ecosystem includes myriad equipment manufacturers (including consumer electronic), OS makers, ISPs, content providers, and so on. No single entity controls the ecosystem, but it is shared by many, many participants, which means that perfect co-ordination is out of the question, which means transition is necessary. The point here is unlike Y2K, you can't just go out and fix the problem once and for all. At minimum there are a few phases you need to plan for. In addition, there are a few barriers to IPv6 including familiarity of the staff with IPv4 over IPv6. In the case of Y2K the date format was not changing to a degree that necessitated serious training for the staff to understand a new format. Additionally the transition phase(s) resulting from point 2 means additional cost for a likely long period of time operating dual-stack in some form. I could go on with other reasons, but I think these constitute the major differences between Y2K and IPv6. Now with the "bad" news behind us, I would back up Lee's comments of the positive signs of IPv6 deployment. Google statistics show that the industry recently passed the 1% threshold of traffic over IPv6. This may not seem like a major milestone, but the S curve model, which is used also to represent the spread of a virus in a population increases its slope significantly when a tipping point like this is achieved. By the end of 2015, Google data predicts 10-14% of internet traffic will be IPv6, and by the end of 2020 it will be 70%. And I am not aware of a major provider that is not ramping up their IPv6 effort. Hopefully this message is ultimately encouraging. I am personally excited to think that IPv6 will represent the majority of traffic by the end of the decade. That's awesome! mw From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Jones Sent: April 16, 2013 11:31 AM To: John Von Essen Cc: arin-discuss Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Just an observation from your observation... If we were sufficiently motivated we could fully implement IPv6 quickly... Thinking back to the Y2K software and hardware upgrades it demonstrates what can be done when it is deemed absolutely necessary... -- Brian On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:32 PM, John Von Essen > wrote: Just for thought.... Lets say in the future (5 years from now), the entire world has switched over to IPv6 and IPv4 is completely dead in the public space. Since v6 space is so huge and abundant, the fees by Arin, Apnic, etc.,. should be almost nothing compared to what they are now since the effort to manage and give it out will be minimal. The blocks are so large, that 99% of Orgs would request one block, and never ever need to make another request again. So the number of support tickets by Arin for resource requests would be a fraction of what they are now. Not to mention, there wont be as many small multi-homed ISP's applying since getting IP space from upstreams will no longer be "difficult". This means in the future that bodies like Arin will get smaller, with less staff, and a much smaller operating budget. Hmmm, maybe this is why IPv4 is still around, and will remain for a very very long time. Heck, if we can upgrade every computers OS for Y2K, we can switch the world over to IPv6 and kill v4 once and for all. -John On Apr 16, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: What's funny is the model some these guys are arguing for is a tax model like: We pay 10% until our income is $100,000 At which point we should pay no more than $10,000 total in taxes/fees on all income past a trillion and into infinity. It doesn't make sense... If you're going to make a linear scale keep it linear. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 6:55 AM, "rlc at usfamily.net" > wrote: If I understand the ARIN revenue "needs" as approximately $8 per class C correctly, that means we are paying almost 6x more than that (in our particular case). It would seem that a lot of you on the list don't seem to care that big ISP's get their IP's at a discounted rate, thus putting the rest of us at a market disadvantage. I knew exactly where the thread go when I pulled it (nowhere), but it is amusing to watch the action. I did see somewhat of a new bizarre response this time around, though. Someone actually likened this to getting the rich to "pay their fair share". Perhaps they didn't notice, but nobody was advocating for a progressive tax. Quite the contrary, we are talking about a "flat tax" to replace the current heavily REGRESSIVE tax. Thus, that was one of the most preposterous responses ever. I have heard continual whining about lack of IPv6 adoption, while ARIN refuses to adopt policies to encourage it. Stop the whining, or do something about it. In the meantime, the big ISP's will continue to pull the strings. _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Apr 16 15:09:43 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:09:43 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <1366138826.62751.YahooMailNeo@web121603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com><94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com><205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net><49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com>, <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net><87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> , , <1366138826.62751.YahooMailNeo@web121603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lee, I fully realise one of the pitfalls of using an example where some in the audience are obtuse is that those individuals will spend all the time focusing on the tangential instead of the actual point. Thank you for doing that. Now can we get back to the actual topic? I look at these token ipv6 launch day "statistics" you're referencing as the marketing manure they are. Telus shovelled the same crap on both world launch days but they haven't delivered it to their users. 2% usage in 15 years by best estimates anyone's given on this list is a friggin joke. Stop lying to yourselves. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 12:00 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: ________________________________ From: Jesse D. Geddis > To: Mike A. Salim > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? The vast majority of the people on this list subsidise those 73 orgs in x-large by encouraging policies and fees put yourself on weaker footing. Maybe some of you don't understand the sheer scale you are kneecapping yourselves at. Or maybe they do understand, and simply disagree with you. AT&T has Well over 32 million friggin IPs. Does anyone on this list honestly believe att has done a stellar job on IPv6? Yes, absolutely stellar. According to http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ they have 8.26% of users reaching IPv6-enabled web sites over IPv6. They have more IPv6 users than anyone else in the world. I seem to recall that they have 34 million Internet customers, so they have at least 2.8 million IPv6 customers. In practice, it may be more like 25-30% of their users have IPv6, but it isn't being used because of Apple's Happy Eyeballs implementation, possibly in combination with 6rd, or content providers' slow IPv6 networks. If you meet someone from AT&T, you should shake their hand and congratulate them on their IPv6 rollout, and thank them for leading the way. Or with IPv4 for that matter? They are paying _at_most_ $0.0005 an IP address while someone in small is paying $0.61 an IP. Are you friggin joking me? I see that you are getting upset. That will not make your argument more convincing. It sounds as if you are convinced that per-address pricing is the only fair way to set fees. That does not seem to be the consensus. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Apr 16 15:24:24 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:24:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <1827051627.224681.1366138391930.JavaMail.root@network1.net> References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> <9B676C41-4C00-429F-8C55-49DF883310B5@la-broadband.com>, <1827051627.224681.1366138391930.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Message-ID: <900A1832-3A80-4B3C-93D3-ACEE1B6852EF@la-broadband.com> Randy, There's several issues I've mentioned that don't all directly have to do with getting IPv6 broadly accepted. 1. If we are going to have a linear fee structure it should be equitable all the way up the scale. Right now it isn't by any measure. 2. Removing ARIN and service providers as a barrier to business. Fees is one barrier and that's the topic of this discussion. Right now because of the fee structure deck is severely stacked against people starting up. 3. If the fees are equitable across the board assuming they stay revenue neutral for ARIN it will lower the fees for all but 73 originations encouraging adoption. 4. Is a policy one I've mentioned but this can be addressed through the policy suggestion process that John has mentioned. I saw someone make a suggestion earlier that was great to address this. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:53 AM, "Randy Carpenter" wrote: > > I guess I am still missing the point. Can you tell me, specifically, how raising the fees will promote IPv6 adoption? > > thanks, > -Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- >> What's funny is the model some these guys are arguing for is a tax model >> like: >> >> We pay 10% until our income is $100,000 >> >> At which point we should pay no more than $10,000 total in taxes/fees on all >> income past a trillion and into infinity. It doesn't make sense... >> >> If you're going to make a linear scale keep it linear. >> >> Jesse Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> From jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Apr 16 15:29:27 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:29:27 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: John, It sounds overly complex to me anyway. Is there any way ARIN can generate a fee model like the one randy suggested where the following happens: We take ARINs current operating budget of $15mil Rounding to the largest allocated aggregate is there a way to generate a break down for organisations allocations so we can figure out what that fee structure would look like? Randy's suggestion was the fee doubling for every aggregate an ISP gains. I think this is a very interesting idea. I dot have the data to do the math, however. It seems like it should start at /22 for ipv4 and /36 for ipv6? I believe those are the current minimum allocations most use today. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:46 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > David - > > No, there is not, and such is unlikely to be prepared > (at least by ARIN) as each region needs to consider > its fees and services independently and focused on > on the needs of its community. Feel free to research > structures as you see fit, but discussion of actual fees > in other regions should not be a germane consideration > in ARIN fee discussions. > > Thanks, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 12:31 PM, David Farmer wrote: > >> On 4/16/13 10:02 , John Curran wrote: >> >>> While it is very important that each region establish its own fees based >>> on its services and requirements, there is nothing wrong with comparing >>> the structural aspects of other regions schedules as examples of possible >>> frameworks to consider... >> >> John, >> >> Is there anything like the NRO "RIR Comparative Policy Overview" available that summarizes and compares the other differences of the RIRs like fee structure, administrative structure, and membership structure as well? >> >> With a quick search I couldn't find anything, but I remember Geoff Huston summarizing the APNIC fee model as based one logarithmic function a while back. I find the Comparative Policy Overview very useful from time to time, but it only covers policy, sometimes it would be useful to compare and contrast the RIRs based on other issues as well. >> >> Maybe simply adding a non-policy section to the current Comparative Policy Overview would be the easiest and most helpful thing. This isn't necessarily out of scope for the Comparative Policy Overview, because policy is subtly effected by these other issues occasionally. >> >> Thanks >> >> -- >> ================================================ >> David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 >> ================================================ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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 daryl at detel.com Tue Apr 16 17:22:15 2013 From: daryl at detel.com (Daryl Deshotel) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:22:15 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <5EF31AB4-937E-417E-ACA8-97E093815FF2@detel.com> Please remove me from this list!!!!!! Sent from my iPhone On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:11 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" wrote: > John, > > It sounds overly complex to me anyway. Is there any way ARIN can generate a fee model like the one randy suggested where the following happens: > > We take ARINs current operating budget of $15mil > Rounding to the largest allocated aggregate is there a way to generate a break down for organisations allocations so we can figure out what that fee structure would look like? > > Randy's suggestion was the fee doubling for every aggregate an ISP gains. I think this is a very interesting idea. I dot have the data to do the math, however. > > It seems like it should start at /22 for ipv4 and /36 for ipv6? I believe those are the current minimum allocations most use today. > > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:46 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > >> David - >> >> No, there is not, and such is unlikely to be prepared >> (at least by ARIN) as each region needs to consider >> its fees and services independently and focused on >> on the needs of its community. Feel free to research >> structures as you see fit, but discussion of actual fees >> in other regions should not be a germane consideration >> in ARIN fee discussions. >> >> Thanks, >> /John >> >> John Curran >> President and CEO >> ARIN >> >> On Apr 16, 2013, at 12:31 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> >>> On 4/16/13 10:02 , John Curran wrote: >>> >>>> While it is very important that each region establish its own fees based >>>> on its services and requirements, there is nothing wrong with comparing >>>> the structural aspects of other regions schedules as examples of possible >>>> frameworks to consider... >>> >>> John, >>> >>> Is there anything like the NRO "RIR Comparative Policy Overview" available that summarizes and compares the other differences of the RIRs like fee structure, administrative structure, and membership structure as well? >>> >>> With a quick search I couldn't find anything, but I remember Geoff Huston summarizing the APNIC fee model as based one logarithmic function a while back. I find the Comparative Policy Overview very useful from time to time, but it only covers policy, sometimes it would be useful to compare and contrast the RIRs based on other issues as well. >>> >>> Maybe simply adding a non-policy section to the current Comparative Policy Overview would be the easiest and most helpful thing. This isn't necessarily out of scope for the Comparative Policy Overview, because policy is subtly effected by these other issues occasionally. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> -- >>> ================================================ >>> David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu >>> Office of Information Technology >>> University of Minnesota >>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 >>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 >>> ================================================ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Matthew.Wilder at telus.com Tue Apr 16 18:03:32 2013 From: Matthew.Wilder at telus.com (Matthew Wilder) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:03:32 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com><94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com><205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net><49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com>, <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net><87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> , , <1366138826.62751.YahooMailNeo@web121603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jesse, I believe you have now fully shed any guise of good faith in these discussions. Insisting that people who don't agree with you are dense and slow-witted is not remotely helpful or acceptable in the community. mw From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: April 16, 2013 12:10 PM To: Lee Howard Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Lee, I fully realise one of the pitfalls of using an example where some in the audience are obtuse is that those individuals will spend all the time focusing on the tangential instead of the actual point. Thank you for doing that. Now can we get back to the actual topic? I look at these token ipv6 launch day "statistics" you're referencing as the marketing manure they are. Telus shovelled the same crap on both world launch days but they haven't delivered it to their users. 2% usage in 15 years by best estimates anyone's given on this list is a friggin joke. Stop lying to yourselves. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 12:00 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: ________________________________ From: Jesse D. Geddis > To: Mike A. Salim > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? The vast majority of the people on this list subsidise those 73 orgs in x-large by encouraging policies and fees put yourself on weaker footing. Maybe some of you don't understand the sheer scale you are kneecapping yourselves at. Or maybe they do understand, and simply disagree with you. AT&T has Well over 32 million friggin IPs. Does anyone on this list honestly believe att has done a stellar job on IPv6? Yes, absolutely stellar. According to http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ they have 8.26% of users reaching IPv6-enabled web sites over IPv6. They have more IPv6 users than anyone else in the world. I seem to recall that they have 34 million Internet customers, so they have at least 2.8 million IPv6 customers. In practice, it may be more like 25-30% of their users have IPv6, but it isn't being used because of Apple's Happy Eyeballs implementation, possibly in combination with 6rd, or content providers' slow IPv6 networks. If you meet someone from AT&T, you should shake their hand and congratulate them on their IPv6 rollout, and thank them for leading the way. Or with IPv4 for that matter? They are paying _at_most_ $0.0005 an IP address while someone in small is paying $0.61 an IP. Are you friggin joking me? I see that you are getting upset. That will not make your argument more convincing. It sounds as if you are convinced that per-address pricing is the only fair way to set fees. That does not seem to be the consensus. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agreene at webjogger.net Tue Apr 16 18:39:03 2013 From: agreene at webjogger.net (Adam Greene) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:39:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB7BD3D@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB65D66@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB76BF3@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <01b501ce39e0$5532c050$ff9840f0$@webjogger.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB7BD3D@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <03f001ce3af3$3263d370$972b7a50$@webjogger.net> John, Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it. I will have to sharpen my pencil to figure out if a /36 will be adequate. Based on http://www.ipbcop.org/ratified-bcops/bcop-ipv6-subnetting/, I assume so, but I have to wrap my head around the bit boundaries. Thanks again. If I can find the time to participate, I will! Adam -- Adam Greene Vice President Webjogger www.webjogger.net 845-757-4000 -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:31 AM To: Adam Greene Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Adam Greene wrote: > Hi, > > I have not been following this issue closely, so my comment may be obvious or may otherwise already have been considered. We are a small ISP (less than 700 subscribers), with (2) /22 IPv4 assignments. We're currently paying $1250/yr for them. I understand the proposed July 2013 fee schedule will reduce our fees $250/yr, which is great. But we would very much like to start ramping up IPv6. The main obstacle to our requesting an IPv6 assignment has been cost. If we could get an IPv6 assignment of the same relative size as our IPv4 assignment without paying more, we would do it in a heartbeat. If ARIN wants to make a /32 the smallest assignment that ISPs obtain, then I think it should allow a small ISP to obtain a /32 at a minimum without having to increase its fees. In our case, that would mean making an X-Small assignment include a /32 block. Adam - Presently, the smallest allocation under IPv6 is /36, which would result in no increase in fees. Does this suffice for your needs, or do you anticipate that a /32 would be needed due to the amount of customers/infrastructure? > I recognize my point of view is limited as a small ISP. I just wanted to make sure it was heard at least. Your input is highly valued, and you should not hesitate to provide it at any time! > John Curran's comment from a few days ago, "We just follow the policy that you folks develop and support via this mailing list and the Public Policy meetings" inspired me to participate. Excellent - also note that we have a Public Policy Meeting coming up next week, and even if you can't attend in person, you can participate in the discussions remotely - Thanks again! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Apr 16 18:49:26 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:49:26 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com><8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net><3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com><94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com><205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net><49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com>, <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net><87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> , , <1366138826.62751.YahooMailNeo@web121603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> , Message-ID: <93A29A96-F425-4818-8705-7566258587B3@la-broadband.com> Matt, Having borne the brunt of all your's and other's snarky remarks and name calling for simply pointing out that we shouldn't have two separate fee schedules I'm perfectly happy with my conduct. This double standard on fees is absurd. There are two classes of members right and you nor anyone else has provided a valid reason to continue to support such a fee structure. If you have an argument to make for your organisations free ride please put it forward so it can be debated. Sitting on the sidelines and snipping tangents isn't useful. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:02 PM, "Matthew Wilder" > wrote: Jesse, I believe you have now fully shed any guise of good faith in these discussions. Insisting that people who don't agree with you are dense and slow-witted is not remotely helpful or acceptable in the community. mw From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: April 16, 2013 12:10 PM To: Lee Howard Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Lee, I fully realise one of the pitfalls of using an example where some in the audience are obtuse is that those individuals will spend all the time focusing on the tangential instead of the actual point. Thank you for doing that. Now can we get back to the actual topic? I look at these token ipv6 launch day "statistics" you're referencing as the marketing manure they are. Telus shovelled the same crap on both world launch days but they haven't delivered it to their users. 2% usage in 15 years by best estimates anyone's given on this list is a friggin joke. Stop lying to yourselves. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 12:00 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: ________________________________ From: Jesse D. Geddis > To: Mike A. Salim > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? The vast majority of the people on this list subsidise those 73 orgs in x-large by encouraging policies and fees put yourself on weaker footing. Maybe some of you don't understand the sheer scale you are kneecapping yourselves at. Or maybe they do understand, and simply disagree with you. AT&T has Well over 32 million friggin IPs. Does anyone on this list honestly believe att has done a stellar job on IPv6? Yes, absolutely stellar. According to http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ they have 8.26% of users reaching IPv6-enabled web sites over IPv6. They have more IPv6 users than anyone else in the world. I seem to recall that they have 34 million Internet customers, so they have at least 2.8 million IPv6 customers. In practice, it may be more like 25-30% of their users have IPv6, but it isn't being used because of Apple's Happy Eyeballs implementation, possibly in combination with 6rd, or content providers' slow IPv6 networks. If you meet someone from AT&T, you should shake their hand and congratulate them on their IPv6 rollout, and thank them for leading the way. Or with IPv4 for that matter? They are paying _at_most_ $0.0005 an IP address while someone in small is paying $0.61 an IP. Are you friggin joking me? I see that you are getting upset. That will not make your argument more convincing. It sounds as if you are convinced that per-address pricing is the only fair way to set fees. That does not seem to be the consensus. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ram at robertmarder.com Tue Apr 16 18:09:35 2013 From: ram at robertmarder.com (Robert Marder) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:09:35 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] =?utf-8?q?IPv6_as_justification_for_IPv4=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <9534c6e12e6f26d26fac9fb23c314633@robertmarder.com> > We take ARINs current operating budget of $15mil Am I the only one that thinks this is excessive? An organization that does what ARIN does should not cost this much to operate each year, in my opinion. From alec at ionity.com Tue Apr 16 19:19:28 2013 From: alec at ionity.com (Alec Ginsberg) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:19:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <9534c6e12e6f26d26fac9fb23c314633@robertmarder.com> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> <9534c6e12e6f26d26fac9fb23c314633@robertmarder.com> Message-ID: <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60507D3CF2287@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> I also would like to understand why this budget is so large, given what ARIN does. Are there details around this published? At face value it seems like $15 million / year is a lot of money, but maybe there is more to it than meets the eye? In addition to this. Why not ramp up the IPv4 pricing while keeping the IPv6 pricing low (For the time being), as we roll off IPv4 the IPv6 price can increase to meet the operating budget of ARIN. As previously stated, with larger blocks that last longer, and fewer limitations it seems that as IPv4 ramps down the operating budget will be lower. Additionally, I don't think the small fees ARIN charges or an ASN / initial allocation should be considered a barrier to entry. People are providing a service to others for a profit. If there is no budget for the couple grand, it may be time to re-think the business model? (Maybe this is wrong of me to assume / say, but it is my gut instinct). -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Robert Marder Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:10 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > We take ARINs current operating budget of $15mil Am I the only one that thinks this is excessive? An organization that does what ARIN does should not cost this much to operate each year, in my opinion. _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Apr 16 19:38:31 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:38:31 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Budget Size (was: Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60507D3CF2287@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> <9534c6e12e6f26d26fac9fb23c314633@robertmarder.com> <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60507D3CF2287@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB97842@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 16, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Alec Ginsberg wrote: > I also would like to understand why this budget is so large, given what ARIN does. Are there details around this published? At face value it seems like $15 million / year is a lot of money, but maybe there is more to it than meets the eye? Alec - Several choices here in terms of getting the information that you seek... The annual report is online: (that will give you a good idea of the tasks and activities that we handle...) You also have the budget: In the end, I believe that the most useful information for understanding ARIN's costs is contained in the ARIN Function Cost model, which breaks down the core registry services costs, the costs of registry development (including items such as policy development and engineering development costs), ARIN corporate governance (which includes the Board, election process, legal, etc.) and Internet Governance (which has the costs of ARIN's participation in various Internet governance bodies) I gave the last presentation on this model at the ARIN Oct 2011 meeting in Philly, and the slides are here: https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/curran_cost_breakdown.pdf (and in terms of percentages, it is 32%, 50%, 6%, and 12% respectively) I hope this helps answer question; please let me know if any additional information is needed. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From serge at skycomp.ca Tue Apr 16 19:36:40 2013 From: serge at skycomp.ca (Serge Paquin) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:36:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60507D3CF2287@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> <9534c6e12e6f26d26fac9fb23c314633@robertmarder.com> <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60507D3CF2287@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> Message-ID: <2ABC191402431F42867832ECFA921CB514B2FB96@sky-mb1.skycomp.local> As for the Barrier to Entry; I don't believe it is the fees so much (The fee was not our issue at all) as the very hard time to justify the initial /22 allocation. Until you already have space swiped to you from your ISP and in production you can't get a direct assignment since you can't prove need. Then when you get your allocation you have a timeframe to renumber your now production clients into the new space and hand back your ISP allocated space. We did this a couple years ago and it was a major undertaking in additional costs of staff, tech support and scheduling to work with each client to renumber. It was a business decision that we'd be a more stable and healthy company having our own IP space and set forth with that goal in mind and accepted the cost but it was a lot more than the ARIN fees. I do have to say that the ARIN support staff were helpful and we had no issues dealing with them. We just had to meet all the criteria before they could issue us a direct allocation of course. Serge. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Alec Ginsberg Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:19 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? I also would like to understand why this budget is so large, given what ARIN does. Are there details around this published? At face value it seems like $15 million / year is a lot of money, but maybe there is more to it than meets the eye? In addition to this. Why not ramp up the IPv4 pricing while keeping the IPv6 pricing low (For the time being), as we roll off IPv4 the IPv6 price can increase to meet the operating budget of ARIN. As previously stated, with larger blocks that last longer, and fewer limitations it seems that as IPv4 ramps down the operating budget will be lower. Additionally, I don't think the small fees ARIN charges or an ASN / initial allocation should be considered a barrier to entry. People are providing a service to others for a profit. If there is no budget for the couple grand, it may be time to re-think the business model? (Maybe this is wrong of me to assume / say, but it is my gut instinct). -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Robert Marder Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:10 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > We take ARINs current operating budget of $15mil Am I the only one that thinks this is excessive? An organization that does what ARIN does should not cost this much to operate each year, in my opinion. _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Apr 16 19:52:41 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:52:41 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule In-Reply-To: <03f001ce3af3$3263d370$972b7a50$@webjogger.net> References: <51624503.6080604@burnttofu.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB3B3C5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <11691837-38C0-4E8B-BA46-8C7523296EA5@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB4A809@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <923F13D2-7511-4F4A-A007-8602D4BF3927@delong.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB5474C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB65D66@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB76BF3@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <01b501ce39e0$5532c050$ff9840f0$@webjogger.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB7BD3D@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <03f001ce3af3$3263d370$972b7a50$@webjogger.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB97C18@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Adam Greene wrote: > John, > > Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it. > > I will have to sharpen my pencil to figure out if a /36 will be adequate. > Based on http://www.ipbcop.org/ratified-bcops/bcop-ipv6-subnetting/, I > assume so, but I have to wrap my head around the bit boundaries. Acknowledged. Note that there is also an ongoing policy discussion (Draft Policy 2013-3) which would allow an ISP to opt to receive as small as an IPv6 /40 prefix, and your thoughts (as well as everyone elses) as to whether this makes good technical sense for any ISP would also be welcome input into the discussion which is taking place on the arin-ppml list regarding this policy proposal. > Thanks again. If I can find the time to participate, I will! Good to hear, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Apr 16 20:50:25 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:50:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <2ABC191402431F42867832ECFA921CB514B2FB96@sky-mb1.skycomp.local> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> <9534c6e12e6f26d26fac9fb23c314633@robertmarder.com> <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60507D3CF2287@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> <2ABC191402431F42867832ECFA921CB514B2FB96@sky-mb1.skycomp.local> Message-ID: Serge, It sounds like you're referencing ipv4 specifically. For me ARIN policy was the barrier to entry there rather than fees. As far as ipv6 is concerned the barrier was removed by ARINs fee waiver for my /32. Ipv6 in my experience hasn't been monetized by many, if any I've seen on this list. So purely from a business perspective if I can't monetize $300ish a month in ARIN ipv6 fees why would I bother. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:43 PM, "Serge Paquin" wrote: > As for the Barrier to Entry; I don't believe it is the fees so much (The fee was not our issue at all) as the very hard time to justify the initial /22 allocation. Until you already have space swiped to you from your ISP and in production you can't get a direct assignment since you can't prove need. > > Then when you get your allocation you have a timeframe to renumber your now production clients into the new space and hand back your ISP allocated space. > > We did this a couple years ago and it was a major undertaking in additional costs of staff, tech support and scheduling to work with each client to renumber. > > It was a business decision that we'd be a more stable and healthy company having our own IP space and set forth with that goal in mind and accepted the cost but it was a lot more than the ARIN fees. > > I do have to say that the ARIN support staff were helpful and we had no issues dealing with them. We just had to meet all the criteria before they could issue us a direct allocation of course. > > Serge. > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Alec Ginsberg > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:19 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > I also would like to understand why this budget is so large, given what ARIN does. Are there details around this published? At face value it seems like $15 million / year is a lot of money, but maybe there is more to it than meets the eye? > > In addition to this. Why not ramp up the IPv4 pricing while keeping the IPv6 pricing low (For the time being), as we roll off IPv4 the IPv6 price can increase to meet the operating budget of ARIN. > > As previously stated, with larger blocks that last longer, and fewer limitations it seems that as IPv4 ramps down the operating budget will be lower. > > Additionally, I don't think the small fees ARIN charges or an ASN / initial allocation should be considered a barrier to entry. People are providing a service to others for a profit. If there is no budget for the couple grand, it may be time to re-think the business model? (Maybe this is wrong of me to assume / say, but it is my gut instinct). > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Robert Marder > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:10 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > >> We take ARINs current operating budget of $15mil > > Am I the only one that thinks this is excessive? > > An organization that does what ARIN does should not cost this much to operate each year, in my opinion. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 serge at skycomp.ca Tue Apr 16 22:06:58 2013 From: serge at skycomp.ca (Serge Paquin) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 02:06:58 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> <9534c6e12e6f26d26fac9fb23c314633@robertmarder.com> <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60507D3CF2287@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> <2ABC191402431F42867832ECFA921CB514B2FB96@sky-mb1.skycomp.local> Message-ID: <2ABC191402431F42867832ECFA921CB514B3084C@sky-mb1.skycomp.local> Yes I was referring to ipv4 and it was Policy not Cost that was my barrier as well. If you don't mind me asking (and I hope I haven't done my math wrong) at /32 IPv6 is about $166 per month but with the current waiver discount it's really about $125 for this year. Where are you getting the $300? I just received my ARIN bill and it's not $3,600. I am actually one of the people in which my /32 IPv6 allotment has pushed me to a Small from X-Small but I don't have IPv6 in production yet. -----Original Message----- From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:50 PM To: Serge Paquin Cc: Alec Ginsberg; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Serge, It sounds like you're referencing ipv4 specifically. For me ARIN policy was the barrier to entry there rather than fees. As far as ipv6 is concerned the barrier was removed by ARINs fee waiver for my /32. Ipv6 in my experience hasn't been monetized by many, if any I've seen on this list. So purely from a business perspective if I can't monetize $300ish a month in ARIN ipv6 fees why would I bother. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:43 PM, "Serge Paquin" wrote: > As for the Barrier to Entry; I don't believe it is the fees so much (The fee was not our issue at all) as the very hard time to justify the initial /22 allocation. Until you already have space swiped to you from your ISP and in production you can't get a direct assignment since you can't prove need. > > Then when you get your allocation you have a timeframe to renumber your now production clients into the new space and hand back your ISP allocated space. > > We did this a couple years ago and it was a major undertaking in additional costs of staff, tech support and scheduling to work with each client to renumber. > > It was a business decision that we'd be a more stable and healthy company having our own IP space and set forth with that goal in mind and accepted the cost but it was a lot more than the ARIN fees. > > I do have to say that the ARIN support staff were helpful and we had no issues dealing with them. We just had to meet all the criteria before they could issue us a direct allocation of course. > > Serge. > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Alec Ginsberg > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:19 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > I also would like to understand why this budget is so large, given what ARIN does. Are there details around this published? At face value it seems like $15 million / year is a lot of money, but maybe there is more to it than meets the eye? > > In addition to this. Why not ramp up the IPv4 pricing while keeping the IPv6 pricing low (For the time being), as we roll off IPv4 the IPv6 price can increase to meet the operating budget of ARIN. > > As previously stated, with larger blocks that last longer, and fewer limitations it seems that as IPv4 ramps down the operating budget will be lower. > > Additionally, I don't think the small fees ARIN charges or an ASN / initial allocation should be considered a barrier to entry. People are providing a service to others for a profit. If there is no budget for the couple grand, it may be time to re-think the business model? (Maybe this is wrong of me to assume / say, but it is my gut instinct). > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Robert Marder > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:10 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > >> We take ARINs current operating budget of $15mil > > Am I the only one that thinks this is excessive? > > An organization that does what ARIN does should not cost this much to operate each year, in my opinion. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Apr 16 22:23:41 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 02:23:41 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN AUP Reminder - J. Geddis In-Reply-To: <93A29A96-F425-4818-8705-7566258587B3@la-broadband.com> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <1366138826.62751.YahooMailNeo@web121603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <93A29A96-F425-4818-8705-7566258587B3@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB98B8D@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Jesse - We have received complaints regarding some of your posts to the arin-discuss mailing list. I wanted to make sure you were aware that ARIN does have an Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) , to which all subscribers must adhere, and this AUP requires that participants treat each other with respect. I request that any future posts to ARIN's mailing lists comply with the AUP. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions on this matter. Regards, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Apr 16 23:03:50 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:03:50 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <43634A6F-3DBE-499B-873F-EFCE6194876E@quonix.net> References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> <9B676C41-4C00-429F-8C55-49DF883310B5@la-broadband.com> <43634A6F-3DBE-499B-873F-EFCE6194876E@quonix.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB99C38@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:32 AM, John Von Essen wrote: > Just for thought.... > > Lets say in the future (5 years from now), the entire world has switched over to IPv6 and IPv4 is completely dead in the public space. A reasonable milestone to consider... I'll note that it is unlikely that folks will immediately reprovision existing working IPv4 customers, so the earlier milestone of when the vast majority of content is reachable via IPv6 is also of interest, since it is when businesses can stop worrying about IPv4 (i.e. they can provision new customers using IPv6, either w/o IPv4 or with access only to central IPv4 gateway services for access for any straggling IPv4-only content) > Since v6 space is so huge and abundant, the fees by Arin, Apnic, etc.,. should be almost nothing compared to what they are now since the effort to manage and give it out will be minimal. The blocks are so large, that 99% of Orgs would request one block, and never ever need to make another request again. So the number of support tickets by Arin for resource requests would be a fraction of what they are now. Not to mention, there wont be as many small multi-homed ISP's applying since getting IP space from upstreams will no longer be "difficult". Agreed. There's still a need for the registry, including various forms of access such as Whois, RESTul whois, and then related services such as reverse DNS and RPKI, but the amount of development should drop down, particularly if the policy base is stable. With less requests for changes, our development workload should be a lot shorter than today > This means in the future that bodies like Arin will get smaller, with less staff, and a much smaller operating budget. Correct. Amazingly, the ARIN Board discusses this possibility quite a bit, thinking about that long-term milestones and their implications for ARIN's structure and costs. ARIN's core registry costs still include servers, backup, and related system administration tasks even at that milestone, but as noted in a previous post, this is only about 1/3 of our ongoing budget today. Even if you add in the ARIN governance and same level of activity in Internet Governance, you've only got 50% of the costs of today. From a practical perspective, it's unlikely that changes in policy and system development will ever truly drop to zero, but it certainly could be a lot less than today, with corresponding savings in operating budget. I gave an related estimate on the ARIN ppml mailing list a few weeks back , that it's conceivable that in a steady state that ARIN's costs on a per ISP basis (presently about $2800) could be significantly lower (approximately $1500) if one presumes IPv6 success leading to very stable policy and system requirements. > Hmmm, maybe this is why IPv4 is still around, and will remain for a very very long time. Not ARIN's fault... We've done our share, in that ARIN's services have all been IPv6 reachable for years. Get the vast majority of content reachable via IPv6, and then your described nirvana is indeed within reach. > Heck, if we can upgrade every computers OS for Y2K, we can switch the world over to IPv6 and kill v4 once and for all. Having lived through that comparison for a decade, I'll note that Y2K was an issue whereby you could test your own systems in advance, and could see the breakage and fix it in preparation for your next test. Incentives were well-aligned with the problem and required steps for solution. With IPv4 depletion, the problem is that ISPs depend on being able to provision new customers, but the rest of the Internet doesn't even realize there is an issue. That is a very, very different situation with respect to incentives. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Apr 17 00:15:01 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:15:01 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB9A00E@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 16, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > Rounding to the largest allocated aggregate is there a way to generate a break down for organisations allocations so we can figure out what that fee structure would look like? I'm happy to supply data that you need, but want to make sure I understand the request... You want to know the distribution of the "largest allocated aggregate" for each ISP? By "largest allocated aggregate", do you mean the largest IPv4 allocation that ARIN has made to each ISP? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Wed Apr 17 11:12:54 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:12:54 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com>, <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: > Here is current schema, and historical data for reference (5 fee bands): > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-566 > > So, RIPE members voted for flat fee structure, where each member pays exactly same amount of money, plus fixed fee per each PI object. > AS numbers are excluded from fee calculation. So, one obtains addresses on need, and money is not a concern at all. > IMHO, the current RIPE fee structure only looks good when placed next to the previous one. > Right now, ARIN members vote the same but pay depending on their allocations. New RIPE approach essentially aligns vote and payment. I would certainly not favor a scheme where increased fees created increased voting rights because we already have an issue with the perception that large players dominate the ARIN process(es). Currently, it's a perception issue. Such a scheme would move it from perception problem to reality. >> It's extremely important because there is a macroeconomic impact of the current nibble policy as well as the fee structure. ARIN policy effectively created Matthew's position in the same way as Sarbanes Oxley (policy) created an entire cottage industry of document retention. Matthew is my example because he held his organisation up as one. > > So, speaking of nibble policy (I am not exactly sure what is it) - which bad effects does it have, in your opinion? ARIN policy calls for issuing IPv6 allocations and assignments on nibble boundaries. The next step up from a /48 is a /44, then /40, /36, etc. A nibble is 4 bits (half a "byte" so to speak, or a single hex digit). It also provides for ISPs to do nibble-boundary round-ups at one aggregation layer within their networks. This lends itself to reducing human factors errors, simplifies the registry and DNS, and allows providers to do better aggregation planning and simplify their network deployments, if desired. I suggest you review NRPM section 6 for more details. >>> What you are talking about here is a serious issue. I agree wholeheartedly that ARIN needs to fix the chicken/egg problem that currently exists with new entities. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with your argument above. If a organization is being denied IPs from their upstream provider, it means that the upstream provider is dumb. They either are not properly managing their IP space, or are simply refusing because they feel like it. Do you think that changing the upstream providers fees from $32,000/year to $1,000,000/year is going to change that? >> >> If that cost per pegged to something linear for the provider that is a fixed cost and would more likely become one for their end users. Right now for a provider like AT&T that cost is totally arbitrary. They have multiple /8's but they charge over $1,000 a year for a few static IPs that they aren't even paying a penny for. And like many providers their size they are a decade behind many of us on this list in IPv6 deployment. > > So, if we make everybody to pay same amount of $ for IP address regardless size of allocation, it would discourage address resale > and hoarding, at a cost of increasing fees of "big, bad" ISPs by factor of thousands. Is that a good way to solve a problem? (Methinks, no.) Applying linear fee escalation to something which is clearly not a linear cost escalation (in fact, quite far from it) is absurd. In spite of Mr. Carpenter's claim to the contrary, ARIN has released the data he claims they do not have and the current fee structure is based on that data. > My suggestion would be to make it easier to obtain initial allocation (and perhaps make it smaller - say, /23 - and perhaps remove restriction on > multihoming - allowing new ISPs with no immediate need of /22 to get started on their own IP space. I don't think it makes sense to issue ISP allocations smaller than /22 in most cases. > Tying IPv4 requests to existing customer base of IPv6 users is interesting idea, but it may be different to quantify in policy. I think there are better ways to fix the immediate needs (and more importantly, the general IPv4 policy). I think the real problem here is requiring pre-existing PA space of certain amounts as the initial test. The combination of a customer base, need, and efficient utilization of any PA space is probably the better test. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Apr 17 11:38:50 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:38:50 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> Message-ID: On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:53 AM, rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > If I understand the ARIN revenue "needs" as approximately $8 per class C > correctly, that means we are paying almost 6x more than that (in our particular > case). It would seem that a lot of you on the list don't seem to care that big > ISP's get their IP's at a discounted rate, thus putting the rest of us at a > market disadvantage. I knew exactly where the thread go when I pulled it > (nowhere), but it is amusing to watch the action. > Your first mistake is in having the perception that you are paying for IP addresses. You are not. They are not property. You are paying for IP address registration services and smaller organizations get those same services for less money than larger organizations. You can ask anyone in the industry and I think my history also speaks for itself. I tend to be pretty sympathetic to the smaller organizations. I, myself am a pretty small end-user organization as well as an employee of a large ISP organization. I also have clients who are XX-S, X-S, and Small ISPs. Pricing ARIN services per IP address does not make any sense to me because it has no correlation with how ARIN's costs are affected. I'm all for having fees that are proportional to organization size for the most part, but it has to be logarithmic rather than linear in nature (4x org size should not be 4x fees, but 4x org size = 2x fees is probably close to right for the most part). (I'll note that the current fee structure is roughly that). IMHO, the only problem with the current adopted fee structure is at the low end of IPv6 and all that is needed is a better mechanism than allocation size for determining organization size at the low end of IPv6. Mainly because I want to see us avoid creating powerful economic incentives for organizations to shoe--horn their customers into undersized IPv6 assignments. I recognize that some organizations intend to do this shoe-horning anyway, even without an economic incentive. That's unfortunate, but it is allowed in policy. However, there's a difference between allowing a certain amount of harmful behavior by independent choice (necessary in a free society) vs. providing an economic reward for that behavior (unnecessary and harmful in general). > I did see somewhat of a new bizarre response this time around, though. Someone > actually likened this to getting the rich to "pay their fair share". Perhaps > they didn't notice, but nobody was advocating for a progressive tax. Quite > the contrary, we are talking about a "flat tax" to replace the current heavily > REGRESSIVE tax. Thus, that was one of the most preposterous responses ever. It sounds good when you put it that way, but it ignores the economic realities because it is based on the incorrect assertion about what you are actually paying for and of the costs associated with the actual services you are receiving for your money. > I have heard continual whining about lack of IPv6 adoption, while ARIN refuses > to adopt policies to encourage it. Stop the whining, or do something about it. We have adopted a number of policies to encourage IPv6 adoption, actually. I don't think a per-ip address fee structure would encourage IPv6 adoption. If you have a proposal for policy that would do so, please submit it to policy at arin.net and let's discuss it. > In the meantime, the big ISP's will continue to pull the strings. Repeating this claim doesn't make it true. The strings are pulled by the people who participate in the policy discussions and the members who vote in the ARIN elections. Neither of these is dominated by large ISPs. Owen From rcarpen at network1.net Wed Apr 17 12:19:13 2013 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <1616965364.228597.1366215553036.JavaMail.root@network1.net> > > Applying linear fee escalation to something which is clearly not a linear > cost escalation (in fact, quite far from it) is absurd. In spite of Mr. > Carpenter's claim to the contrary, ARIN has released the data he claims they > do not have and the current fee structure is based on that data. Owen, To clarify, I never said anything about ARIN not releasing any data (maybe you have me confused with someone else, as there were several responses back and forth in quick succession). For the record, I think ARIN is quite sufficiently transparent (sometimes surprisingly so), and that their budget is within reason. I think the new fee schedule is reasonably fair. I offered up the suggestion of smoothing out the categories, and using the "bit" as the unit, mainly as an example of how to be constructive in the process, and as a retort to the ludicrous idea of charging per IP address. > > My suggestion would be to make it easier to obtain initial allocation (and > > perhaps make it smaller - say, /23 - and perhaps remove restriction on > > multihoming - allowing new ISPs with no immediate need of /22 to get > > started on their own IP space. > > I don't think it makes sense to issue ISP allocations smaller than /22 in > most cases. Agreed. > > Tying IPv4 requests to existing customer base of IPv6 users is interesting > > idea, but it may be different to quantify in policy. > > I think there are better ways to fix the immediate needs (and more > importantly, the general IPv4 policy). > > I think the real problem here is requiring pre-existing PA space of certain > amounts as the initial test. The combination of a customer base, need, and > efficient utilization of any PA space is probably the better test. This is something that I believe really needs fixed (and needs to be fixed very quickly). -Randy From jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Apr 16 23:05:51 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:05:51 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <2ABC191402431F42867832ECFA921CB514B3084C@sky-mb1.skycomp.local> Message-ID: Serge, You didn't do your math wrong. There's a few different cost proposals going around so that was an off the top of my head average while I was driving on the freeway after a wine tasting :D My point was really, though, that un-monetised is un-monetised at whatever amount. At the time I got it it was completely free for me and that was a big reason I picked it up for my company and rolled it out natively end to end. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/16/13 7:06 PM, "Serge Paquin" wrote: >Yes I was referring to ipv4 and it was Policy not Cost that was my >barrier as well. > >If you don't mind me asking (and I hope I haven't done my math wrong) at >/32 IPv6 is about $166 per month but with the current waiver discount >it's really about $125 for this year. > >Where are you getting the $300? I just received my ARIN bill and it's >not $3,600. I am actually one of the people in which my /32 IPv6 >allotment has pushed me to a Small from X-Small but I don't have IPv6 in >production yet. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] >Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:50 PM >To: Serge Paquin >Cc: Alec Ginsberg; arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > >Serge, > >It sounds like you're referencing ipv4 specifically. For me ARIN policy >was the barrier to entry there rather than fees. As far as ipv6 is >concerned the barrier was removed by ARINs fee waiver for my /32. Ipv6 in >my experience hasn't been monetized by many, if any I've seen on this >list. So purely from a business perspective if I can't monetize $300ish a >month in ARIN ipv6 fees why would I bother. > >Jesse Geddis >LA Broadband LLC > >On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:43 PM, "Serge Paquin" wrote: > >> As for the Barrier to Entry; I don't believe it is the fees so much >>(The fee was not our issue at all) as the very hard time to justify the >>initial /22 allocation. Until you already have space swiped to you from >>your ISP and in production you can't get a direct assignment since you >>can't prove need. >> >> Then when you get your allocation you have a timeframe to renumber your >>now production clients into the new space and hand back your ISP >>allocated space. >> >> We did this a couple years ago and it was a major undertaking in >>additional costs of staff, tech support and scheduling to work with each >>client to renumber. >> >> It was a business decision that we'd be a more stable and healthy >>company having our own IP space and set forth with that goal in mind and >>accepted the cost but it was a lot more than the ARIN fees. >> >> I do have to say that the ARIN support staff were helpful and we had no >>issues dealing with them. We just had to meet all the criteria before >>they could issue us a direct allocation of course. >> >> Serge. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Alec Ginsberg >> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:19 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >> >> I also would like to understand why this budget is so large, given what >>ARIN does. Are there details around this published? At face value it >>seems like $15 million / year is a lot of money, but maybe there is more >>to it than meets the eye? >> >> In addition to this. Why not ramp up the IPv4 pricing while keeping >>the IPv6 pricing low (For the time being), as we roll off IPv4 the IPv6 >>price can increase to meet the operating budget of ARIN. >> >> As previously stated, with larger blocks that last longer, and fewer >>limitations it seems that as IPv4 ramps down the operating budget will >>be lower. >> >> Additionally, I don't think the small fees ARIN charges or an ASN / >>initial allocation should be considered a barrier to entry. People are >>providing a service to others for a profit. If there is no budget for >>the couple grand, it may be time to re-think the business model? (Maybe >>this is wrong of me to assume / say, but it is my gut instinct). >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Robert Marder >> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:10 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >> >>> We take ARINs current operating budget of $15mil >> >> Am I the only one that thinks this is excessive? >> >> An organization that does what ARIN does should not cost this much to >>operate each year, in my opinion. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Apr 17 12:21:32 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:21:32 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net>, Message-ID: <37E077EA-CFA2-4E76-8282-BDFC199B632C@la-broadband.com> Owen, Whether its framed as 'paying for IP addresses' or 'paying for registration services' is really irrelevant. The fact is is that it is tiered up to a certain point until you get different rules from everyone else at x-large. Further, those tiers are pegged to an _allocation_size_. So applying a fee scale to IPs is something _ARIN_ did by implementing this tiered structure in the first place. Not us. Regarding your mention of ARINs costs associated with different tiers and the assertion that x-large costs ARIN less money. No one has put forth any hard data whatsoever to support that argument. Its an unfounded assertion that's been given mythological status by you and some other folks. Indeed, even John Curran himself mentioned we can look at other models including pegging the fees to actual ARIN costs implying that they aren't right now. Based on these things I don't find this to be a valid excuse to give x-large much lower costs proportionately and to allow them to scale exponentially with no concern of fees or having to proportionately 'support' like everyone else. What I'm interested in hearing, Owen, and others. As well as, I'm guessing the poster you replied to, several other people who have also publicly questioned the hybrid scale, and the 3 dozen people on this list who emailed me privately but weren't interested in the public flogging by some you folks (Matthew, Lee, and a couple others) is a reasoned answer to the following: Why *should* there be a fee increasing cutoff at /14 Why should x-large (73 orgs out of thousands) get a different set of rules than everyone else. And please, let's stick to the facts and avoid repeated assertions like the below that have no basis in actual data. Personally, I think trying to divine ARINs cost per tier and creating a fee structure based on that is a very bad idea. Indeed, my proposal is fundamental in getting rid of the current tier structure altogether. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 17, 2013, at 8:42 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:53 AM, rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > >> If I understand the ARIN revenue "needs" as approximately $8 per class C >> correctly, that means we are paying almost 6x more than that (in our particular >> case). It would seem that a lot of you on the list don't seem to care that big >> ISP's get their IP's at a discounted rate, thus putting the rest of us at a >> market disadvantage. I knew exactly where the thread go when I pulled it >> (nowhere), but it is amusing to watch the action. >> > > Your first mistake is in having the perception that you are paying for IP addresses. > You are not. They are not property. You are paying for IP address registration > services and smaller organizations get those same services for less money than > larger organizations. > > You can ask anyone in the industry and I think my history also speaks for itself. > I tend to be pretty sympathetic to the smaller organizations. I, myself am a pretty > small end-user organization as well as an employee of a large ISP organization. > I also have clients who are XX-S, X-S, and Small ISPs. > > Pricing ARIN services per IP address does not make any sense to me because > it has no correlation with how ARIN's costs are affected. I'm all for having fees > that are proportional to organization size for the most part, but it has to be > logarithmic rather than linear in nature (4x org size should not be 4x fees, > but 4x org size = 2x fees is probably close to right for the most part). > > (I'll note that the current fee structure is roughly that). > > IMHO, the only problem with the current adopted fee structure is at the low end > of IPv6 and all that is needed is a better mechanism than allocation size for > determining organization size at the low end of IPv6. > > Mainly because I want to see us avoid creating powerful economic incentives > for organizations to shoe--horn their customers into undersized IPv6 assignments. > I recognize that some organizations intend to do this shoe-horning anyway, even > without an economic incentive. That's unfortunate, but it is allowed in policy. > > However, there's a difference between allowing a certain amount of harmful > behavior by independent choice (necessary in a free society) vs. providing an > economic reward for that behavior (unnecessary and harmful in general). > >> I did see somewhat of a new bizarre response this time around, though. Someone >> actually likened this to getting the rich to "pay their fair share". Perhaps >> they didn't notice, but nobody was advocating for a progressive tax. Quite >> the contrary, we are talking about a "flat tax" to replace the current heavily >> REGRESSIVE tax. Thus, that was one of the most preposterous responses ever. > > It sounds good when you put it that way, but it ignores the economic realities because > it is based on the incorrect assertion about what you are actually paying for and > of the costs associated with the actual services you are receiving for your money. > >> I have heard continual whining about lack of IPv6 adoption, while ARIN refuses >> to adopt policies to encourage it. Stop the whining, or do something about it. > > We have adopted a number of policies to encourage IPv6 adoption, actually. > > I don't think a per-ip address fee structure would encourage IPv6 adoption. > > If you have a proposal for policy that would do so, please submit it to policy at arin.net > and let's discuss it. > >> In the meantime, the big ISP's will continue to pull the strings. > > Repeating this claim doesn't make it true. The strings are pulled by the people > who participate in the policy discussions and the members who vote in the ARIN > elections. Neither of these is dominated by large ISPs. > > 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 jcurran at arin.net Wed Apr 17 15:30:48 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:30:48 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <37E077EA-CFA2-4E76-8282-BDFC199B632C@la-broadband.com> References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> <37E077EA-CFA2-4E76-8282-BDFC199B632C@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBAED07@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > Regarding your mention of ARINs costs associated with different tiers and the assertion that x-large costs ARIN less money. No one has put forth any hard data whatsoever to support that argument. Its an unfounded assertion that's been given mythological status by you and some other folks. Indeed, even John Curran himself mentioned we can look at other models including pegging the fees to actual ARIN costs implying that they aren't right now. Jesse - There are lots of ways to establish fees, and each will excel at approximating costs for some users and do poorly for others. It is not feasible to aim for perfect cost recovery model, as it would have dozens of factors going into the calculation of each members fees. > And please, let's stick to the facts and avoid repeated assertions like the below that have no basis in actual data. Personally, I think trying to divine ARINs cost per tier and creating a fee structure based on that is a very bad idea. Indeed, my proposal is fundamental in getting rid of the current tier structure altogether. Recognize that there is a transaction cost involved in issuing (or transfering) an address block to a party, but beyond that point, ARIN's actual costs are not significantly different for a large IP address block versus a small IP address block. We should all be very thankful for this, as ARIN's costs would have become enormous upon the assignment of the first IPv4 block... (which has so many individual IP addresses that any cost per IP would still be too much.) ARIN's costs do go up with each address block in registry, and the structure of the present fee schedule is reasonable approach to the allocation of costs across the members based on their size. This is remarkably common among trade associations (which is our organizational structure) only we are doing it via address holdings rather than the most typical budget/revenue size. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Apr 17 15:38:32 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:38:32 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? - typo correction In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBAED07@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> <37E077EA-CFA2-4E76-8282-BDFC199B632C@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBAED07@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBAEDA2@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 17, 2013, at 1:30 PM, John Curran wrote: > We should all be > very thankful for this, as ARIN's costs would have become enormous > upon the assignment of the first IPv4 block... (which has so many > individual IP addresses that any cost per IP would still be too much.) It should have been "first IPv6 block" in the above text... i.e. The enormous number of IP addresses within each issued IPv6 block does not materially increase the cost of operating the registry. The same applies with the costs of large IPv4 blocks versus small IPv4 blocks in the registry. Apologies for the typo! FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jesse at la-broadband.com Wed Apr 17 17:40:32 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:40:32 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBAED07@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> <37E077EA-CFA2-4E76-8282-BDFC199B632C@la-broadband.com>, <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBAED07@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Below: Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 17, 2013, at 1:31 PM, "John Curran" wrote: > On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > >> Regarding your mention of ARINs costs associated with different tiers and the assertion that x-large costs ARIN less money. No one has put forth any hard data whatsoever to support that argument. Its an unfounded assertion that's been given mythological status by you and some other folks. Indeed, even John Curran himself mentioned we can look at other models including pegging the fees to actual ARIN costs implying that they aren't right now. > > Jesse - > > There are lots of ways to establish fees, and each will excel at > approximating costs for some users and do poorly for others. It > is not feasible to aim for perfect cost recovery model, as it would > have dozens of factors going into the calculation of each members fees. John, I have gone on the assumption that there's no perfect model. That's why I argue for an equitable model rather than the current one which from what I gather is neither equitable or based on ARINs actual costs. > >> And please, let's stick to the facts and avoid repeated assertions like the below that have no basis in actual data. Personally, I think trying to divine ARINs cost per tier and creating a fee structure based on that is a very bad idea. Indeed, my proposal is fundamental in getting rid of the current tier structure altogether. > > Recognize that there is a transaction cost involved in issuing (or > transfering) an address block to a party, but beyond that point, > ARIN's actual costs are not significantly different for a large IP > address block versus a small IP address block. We should all be > very thankful for this, as ARIN's costs would have become enormous > upon the assignment of the first IPv4 block... (which has so many > individual IP addresses that any cost per IP would still be too much.) Well I think that depends and is highly subjective. In my experience the time ARIN spends on a ticket directly correlates to the size of the requested block. With the larger block I have found ARIN spends exponentially more time vetting the documentation, diagrams, spreadsheets, projections, and contracts than it does with say a /22. From what I'm hearing you say you believe ARIN spends an equal amount of time vetting a /22 as it does a /14. I can't fathom how this could be possible. If I'm requesting a /14 ARIN would presumably be reviewing documentation for hundreds of thousands of IPs and huge diagrams and projections vs reviewing documentation for 500 IPs associated with a /22 request. > > ARIN's costs do go up with each address block in registry, and the > structure of the present fee schedule is reasonable approach to the > allocation of costs across the members based on their size. This is > remarkably common among trade associations (which is our organizational > structure) only we are doing it via address holdings rather than the > most typical budget/revenue size. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > From jesse at la-broadband.com Wed Apr 17 17:24:35 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:24:35 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB9A00E@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB81737@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <33B5C85E-9CB9-4902-A30F-CEF81D666474@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB82023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <3F3069E7-2167-49A0-AE2E-3F9C4CAA556D@la-broadband.com> <94B488F6-30D4-4DF7-8D80-B2041588096B@delong.com> <205888087.220513.1366085190001.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <49D0CA78-CAA8-4D6E-80E4-FE237F006929@la-broadband.com> <2034009167.221693.1366096028800.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <87B4EB04-B774-4AFD-B1A2-83796F117375@la-broadband.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> , <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB9A00E@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <9452CD34-3EBE-4754-AC88-ACA4C757D58C@la-broadband.com> John, This data doesn't need to be made public if its not already. What I am trying to figure out is what a fee model would look like based on an operating budget of $15mil if ARIN were to asses the fees based on assigned aggregates instead of tiers. (Just for ISPs) If you started with assigned /22 ipv4 And assigned /36 for ipv6 Based on the current distribution and the current revenue if you applied randy's model of the fee doubling with every bit increase what would that look like in dollars as far as fees? For folks that have say a /14 plus another /19 or whatever, please round that up to a /13. Is that possible to generate? Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 17, 2013, at 1:15 PM, "John Curran" wrote: > On Apr 16, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > >> Rounding to the largest allocated aggregate is there a way to generate a break down for organisations allocations so we can figure out what that fee structure would look like? > > I'm happy to supply data that you need, but want to make sure I understand > the request... You want to know the distribution of the "largest allocated > aggregate" for each ISP? > > By "largest allocated aggregate", do you mean the largest IPv4 allocation > that ARIN has made to each ISP? > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > From rcarpen at network1.net Wed Apr 17 18:28:58 2013 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:28:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <9452CD34-3EBE-4754-AC88-ACA4C757D58C@la-broadband.com> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB93023@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <516D7CF4.1050508@umn.edu> <553DDA40-CE75-408E-9AB4-66F25720D1CB@corp.arin.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FB9A00E@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <9452CD34-3EBE-4754-AC88-ACA4C757D58C@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <1491072507.229934.1366237738608.JavaMail.root@network1.net> ----- Original Message ----- > John, > > This data doesn't need to be made public if its not already. What I am trying > to figure out is what a fee model would look like based on an operating > budget of $15mil if ARIN were to asses the fees based on assigned aggregates > instead of tiers. (Just for ISPs) > > If you started with assigned /22 ipv4 > And assigned /36 for ipv6 > > Based on the current distribution and the current revenue if you applied > randy's model of the fee doubling with every bit increase what would that > look like in dollars as far as fees? For folks that have say a /14 plus > another /19 or whatever, please round that up to a /13. I will note that the hypothetical example I showed did *not* double the fee for each bit. That would equate to a flat cost per IPs, which you have supported, but I think is unreasonable. In my example, someone who has a /8 would pay 1 more unit (17, versus 16) than someone who has a /7, which is 6.25% more. The only doubling would be a /24 versus a /23, and I think that is reasonably fair. A more common example would be comparing a /16 to a /20, which under your proposal would be a 16,000% increase, and under mine, 80%. Again, I am not putting forward my little exercise as a policy proposal. It is simply and example, and food for though. Like Owen said, it would simply expand the current fee categories to have intermediate (and potentially higher) additional categories. -Randy From jesse at la-broadband.com Wed Apr 17 18:49:33 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:49:33 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <1491072507.229934.1366237738608.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Message-ID: Randy, My main issue here is that there's a fee cutoff after /14. I don't believe there should be. Whether it's pegged at each bit change or each doubling it's still pegged at a specific IP allocation which can be boiled down to a per ip cost just as ARIN's current fee schedule can be boiled down to a per IP cost. I haven't taken the time to do the math on your 16,000% assertion but my sense is that it's intended to be hyperbolic by selectively presenting the biggest number possible. Right now there's a 1,600% increase from /32 to /22 for IPv6. Percentage-wise that's quite a big number, right? But in real dollars it's only a 16x increase in fees for some astronomical increase in address space that I haven't taken the time to calculate. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/17/13 3:28 PM, "Randy Carpenter" wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >> John, >> >> This data doesn't need to be made public if its not already. What I am >>trying >> to figure out is what a fee model would look like based on an operating >> budget of $15mil if ARIN were to asses the fees based on assigned >>aggregates >> instead of tiers. (Just for ISPs) >> >> If you started with assigned /22 ipv4 >> And assigned /36 for ipv6 >> >> Based on the current distribution and the current revenue if you applied >> randy's model of the fee doubling with every bit increase what would >>that >> look like in dollars as far as fees? For folks that have say a /14 plus >> another /19 or whatever, please round that up to a /13. > >I will note that the hypothetical example I showed did *not* double the >fee for each bit. That would equate to a flat cost per IPs, which you >have supported, but I think is unreasonable. > >In my example, someone who has a /8 would pay 1 more unit (17, versus 16) >than someone who has a /7, which is 6.25% more. The only doubling would >be a /24 versus a /23, and I think that is reasonably fair. A more common >example would be comparing a /16 to a /20, which under your proposal >would be a 16,000% increase, and under mine, 80%. > >Again, I am not putting forward my little exercise as a policy proposal. >It is simply and example, and food for though. Like Owen said, it would >simply expand the current fee categories to have intermediate (and >potentially higher) additional categories. > >-Randy From rcarpen at network1.net Wed Apr 17 19:06:03 2013 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <76621406.230022.1366239963427.JavaMail.root@network1.net> ----- Original Message ----- > Randy, > > My main issue here is that there's a fee cutoff after /14. I don't believe > there should be. Now, that is a point that I think merits discussion. We could certainly add larger categories, but since there are so few large orgs, would it really make that much difference? Should we quadruple (or more) the fees of the top few, in order to give a 5% discount to the smallest? (Those values are completely made up.) I don't know... > Whether it's pegged at each bit change or each doubling it's still pegged > at a specific IP allocation which can be boiled down to a per ip cost just > as ARIN's current fee schedule can be boiled down to a per IP cost. > > I haven't taken the time to do the math on your 16,000% assertion but my > sense is that it's intended to be hyperbolic by selectively presenting the > biggest number possible. Not at all meant to hyperbolic. I think comparison between /16 and /20 is perfectly within the realm of normal. A hyperbolic comparison would be a /6 (which I believe is about the largest any one org has as an aggregate), versus a /24 (the smallest), which under the "same cost per IP address, would be a 26,214,400% difference versus a 1,900% difference under my example. A side effect of my example, would be more confusion due to there being potentially 20+ categories for IPv4 and 40+ for IPv6. Even if you boiled it down to an single equation, many would not understand it (*ahem* the HD-Ratio that used to be in policy for IPv6 allocations) > Right now there's a 1,600% increase from /32 to > /22 for IPv6. Percentage-wise that's quite a big number, right? But in > real dollars it's only a 16x increase in fees for some astronomical > increase in address space that I haven't taken the time to calculate. 1,600% increase in fee for a 102,400% increase in space, sounds about right, considering the amount of work needed, is more, but not linear compared to the space. -Randy From rcarpen at network1.net Wed Apr 17 19:19:18 2013 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:19:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <76621406.230022.1366239963427.JavaMail.root@network1.net> References: <76621406.230022.1366239963427.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Message-ID: <1232601147.230053.1366240758333.JavaMail.root@network1.net> >From an earlier post by John Curran: Size 2011 Category Count X-Small 948 Small 2,240 Medium 630 Large 106 X?Large 73 Note: this is according to the current/old fee schedule. Maybe John can answer what it looks like if we added more categories: XX-Large (larger than /12 up to /10) - $32,000 (already in the pending fee schedule) XXX-Large (larger than /10 up to /8) - $64,000 XXXX-Large (larger than /8) - $128,000 My guess is that there would be so few orgs in the top couple categories, that the fee increase would not be of any consequence. Is it just a matter of "but, they are big companies, so they should pay more money!"? thanks, -Randy ----- Original Message ----- > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Randy, > > > > My main issue here is that there's a fee cutoff after /14. I don't believe > > there should be. > > Now, that is a point that I think merits discussion. We could certainly add > larger categories, but since there are so few large orgs, would it really > make that much difference? Should we quadruple (or more) the fees of the top > few, in order to give a 5% discount to the smallest? (Those values are > completely made up.) I don't know... From jesse at la-broadband.com Wed Apr 17 20:04:23 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:04:23 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <1232601147.230053.1366240758333.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Message-ID: Randy, I'm shooting for simple and equitable. The only two ways I can see to accomplish this is via a flat fee or by using an exponential linear model. As an aside I just did the math on a flat fee model based on John's earlier revenue numbers of $9.9mil that comes out (rounded up) to $3,000 an Org. That would lower the cost for 1757 orgs and raise it $750 for 2,240. I think that's probably heading in the wrong direction since we have a dual goal of getting IPv6 and folks should probably subsidize the smaller allocations. For me, I think adding more categories would take a dated and inequitable model and keep it dated. The current model has been used since I was a teenager and it, like IPv4 address space hasn't scaled. However, based on what you're suggesting here it sounds more like doubling every 2 bits rather adding more categories which is fine by me. John, what do you think this would look like based on real numbers? Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/17/13 4:19 PM, "Randy Carpenter" wrote: > >From an earlier post by John Curran: > > Size 2011 > Category Count > > X-Small 948 > Small 2,240 > Medium 630 > Large 106 > X?Large 73 > >Note: this is according to the current/old fee schedule. > >Maybe John can answer what it looks like if we added more categories: > >XX-Large (larger than /12 up to /10) - $32,000 (already in the pending >fee schedule) >XXX-Large (larger than /10 up to /8) - $64,000 >XXXX-Large (larger than /8) - $128,000 > >My guess is that there would be so few orgs in the top couple categories, >that the fee increase would not be of any consequence. > >Is it just a matter of "but, they are big companies, so they should pay >more money!"? > >thanks, >-Randy > > > >----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > Randy, >> > >> > My main issue here is that there's a fee cutoff after /14. I don't >>believe >> > there should be. >> >> Now, that is a point that I think merits discussion. We could certainly >>add >> larger categories, but since there are so few large orgs, would it >>really >> make that much difference? Should we quadruple (or more) the fees of >>the top >> few, in order to give a 5% discount to the smallest? (Those values are >> completely made up.) I don't know... From owen at delong.com Wed Apr 17 22:50:47 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:50:47 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <37E077EA-CFA2-4E76-8282-BDFC199B632C@la-broadband.com> References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net>, <37E077EA-CFA2-4E76-8282-BDFC199B632C@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <438758E9-DBE1-4247-B0B3-DD426D22CCE7@delong.com> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "Jesse D. Geddis" wrote: > Owen, > > Whether its framed as 'paying for IP addresses' or 'paying for registration services' is really irrelevant. The fact is is that it is tiered up to a certain point until you get different rules from everyone else at x-large. Further, those tiers are pegged to an _allocation_size_. So applying a fee scale to IPs is something _ARIN_ did by implementing this tiered structure in the first place. Not us. > So what this really boils down to is that you're upset that ARIN doesn't extend the pricing model beyond XX-L (look at the adopted fee structure, not the current one) because a very small number of organizations at the top don't get charged even more for their relative sizes within that category. Frankly, the number of organizations at that tier is so small that extending the linear pricing model wouldn't make a significant dent in the pricing at any of the lower tiers, so it's not, IMHO, worth complicating the pricing structure to accommodate that. > Regarding your mention of ARINs costs associated with different tiers and the assertion that x-large costs ARIN less money. No one has put forth any hard data whatsoever to support that argument. Its an unfounded assertion that's been given mythological status by you and some other folks. Indeed, even John Curran himself mentioned we can look at other models including pegging the fees to actual ARIN costs implying that they aren't right now. Based on these things I don't find this to be a valid excuse to give x-large much lower costs proportionately and to allow them to scale exponentially with no concern of fees or having to proportionately 'support' like everyone else. They aren't pegged directly to costs because we aren't doing Fee for Service billing. I don't think you want that. However, ARIN has shown the over all cost to ARIN per organization size based on the current fee categories and has shown that the larger organizations do cost ARIN less per IP address to work with. There is hard data to support that fact. Further, simple logic from what ARIN actually does makes it pretty obvious that the costs to ARIN do not have any relationship to the size of address holdings of the various organizations ARIN deals with. It has more to do with the number of transactions, quality of the information provided by the organization in each transaction, and number of records held in the database. There's a little more staff time to review the greater amount of data associated with an application for a /12 than for a /22, but it certainly isn't 1024 times as much time. X-Large pays double what Large pays. XXL pays double what XL pays. This is the same as XS paying double what XXS pays, Small paying double XS, Medium paying double Small, Large paying double Medium, etc. At every tier your fee doubles and your amount of space quadruples. So by your argument, at every tier you pay proportionately less per IP address. This reflects the fact that ARIN's costs do not scale linearly with address size, but attempts to provide a rough approximation of mapping sizes to actual costs. Yes, the fee structure tops out at XXL. Once you reach a certain size and are paying $32,000/year, you don't have to pay more even as you get more addresses. In reality, extending that pricing linearly beyond XXL wouldn't change pricing at the lower tiers by much. Further, it is very unlikely that those organizations are actually creating costs for ARIN that would come even close to doing so. Let's assume, for a moment, that an ISP existed that held 3306 organizations), you would save each of those organizations less than $400 per year. I simply don't buy that it's somehow more fair to inflict 64k and 128k/year pricing on to a small number of organizations at the top end to subsidize $400 discounts to 3300 other organizations. > What I'm interested in hearing, Owen, and others. As well as, I'm guessing the poster you replied to, several other people who have also publicly questioned the hybrid scale, and the 3 dozen people on this list who emailed me privately but weren't interested in the public flogging by some you folks (Matthew, Lee, and a couple others) is a reasoned answer to the following: > > Why *should* there be a fee increasing cutoff at /14 Because beyond a certain point, continuing to double people's fees stops making sense. The size model is designed to be a convenient approximation of the cost-model that ARIN has along with some other tradeoffs. It attempts to allocate the burden along similar lines as ARIN's cost burden. If you extend it beyond the /12 point (which is where the XX-L category actually begins), then it rapidly makes no sense and is overly burdensome as described above. > Why should x-large (73 orgs out of thousands) get a different set of rules than everyone else. They don't. They live by the same rules. There are a number of services with similar cost structures where you pay less for each incremental level of service until you reach a certain tier where you simply get "all you can eat" service for that price. Some of them are even in this industry. It's not uncommon for mobile providers, for example, to have usage sensitive pricing where you pay less per GB transferred as you move up the usage stack until you finally reach a point where the next increment gets you unlimited consumption. > > And please, let's stick to the facts and avoid repeated assertions like the below that have no basis in actual data. Personally, I think trying to divine ARINs cost per tier and creating a fee structure based on that is a very bad idea. Indeed, my proposal is fundamental in getting rid of the current tier structure altogether. I wasn't divining ARIN's cost per tier? It was published data from ARIN. It is documented as one of the inputs to the current fee structure. Claiming it has no basis in facts when the ARIN CEO has contradicted you on this matter is folly. Your proposal is fundamental in getting rid of the tier structure. It's also a really bad idea IMHO. Your proposal is grossly unfair at both the top and bottom extremes. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Apr 17 23:03:28 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:03:28 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <20130416085334.sdw2qm8hugwscwo8@webmail.usfamily.net> <37E077EA-CFA2-4E76-8282-BDFC199B632C@la-broadband.com>, <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBAED07@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: >> Recognize that there is a transaction cost involved in issuing (or >> transfering) an address block to a party, but beyond that point, >> ARIN's actual costs are not significantly different for a large IP >> address block versus a small IP address block. We should all be >> very thankful for this, as ARIN's costs would have become enormous >> upon the assignment of the first IPv4 block... (which has so many >> individual IP addresses that any cost per IP would still be too much.) > > Well I think that depends and is highly subjective. In my experience the time ARIN spends on a ticket directly correlates to the size of the requested block. With the larger block I have found ARIN spends exponentially more time vetting the documentation, diagrams, spreadsheets, projections, and contracts than it does with say a /22. From what I'm hearing you say you believe ARIN spends an equal amount of time vetting a /22 as it does a /14. I can't fathom how this could be possible. If I'm requesting a /14 ARIN would presumably be reviewing documentation for hundreds of thousands of IPs and huge diagrams and projections vs reviewing documentation for 500 IPs associated with a /22 request. > Nope. ARIN spends a lot more time on a poorly considered, poorly documented repeated rounds of asking for additional documentation request for a /22 than they do on a well considered, well documented request for a /14. This has been stated in various forms multiple times, so it does not "lack foundation" as you are so fond of saying. Further, even in the case of a well formed request for a /22 and a well formed request for a /14, ARIN does not spend anywhere near 256 times as long on the /14 as the /22, yet you want to jack the price up *256 for that spread. In my experience, it's more like 1.5-2 times as long. Admittedly, my knowledge is limited to IPv4 from /24 to /12 and IPv6 from /48 to /24. I don't have experience applying for anything larger than /12 (IPv4) or /24 (IPv6). My experience does include multiple successful applications at each of those top sizes. ARIN should be spending considerably less time deliberating most IPv6 requests than they do most IPv4 requests, since the policy is quite a bit simpler and allows for significantly more liberal allocations. Also a larger fraction of these are likely initial allocations with near automatic qualification. Owen From Cameron.Byrne at T-Mobile.com Thu Apr 18 11:45:09 2013 From: Cameron.Byrne at T-Mobile.com (Byrne, Cameron) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:45:09 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <1232601147.230053.1366240758333.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Message-ID: <1F4ED938D73A4242BBBB1E7DD492EA0C16A482B1A0@PMBX03.gsm1900.org> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:04 PM > To: Randy Carpenter > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net List; John Curran > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > Randy, > > I'm shooting for simple and equitable. The only two ways I can see to > accomplish this is via a flat fee or by using an exponential linear model. > [Byrne, Cameron] Sorry, math newbie here. What is an "exponential linear model" ? I am familiar with exponential. I am familiar with linear. But, I don't know what is implied by "exponential linear" To me, it sounds like there is red, there is black, and you are suggesting RedBlack Cameron > As an aside I just did the math on a flat fee model based on John's > earlier revenue numbers of $9.9mil that comes out (rounded up) to $3,000 an > Org. That would lower the cost for 1757 orgs and raise it $750 for 2,240. I think > that's probably heading in the wrong direction since we have a dual goal of > getting IPv6 and folks should probably subsidize the smaller allocations. > > > For me, I think adding more categories would take a dated and > inequitable model and keep it dated. The current model has been used since I > was a teenager and it, like IPv4 address space hasn't scaled. However, based on > what you're suggesting here it sounds more like doubling every 2 bits rather > adding more categories which is fine by me. > > John, what do you think this would look like based on real numbers? > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > > > > On 4/17/13 4:19 PM, "Randy Carpenter" wrote: > > > > >From an earlier post by John Curran: > > > > Size 2011 > > Category Count > > > > X-Small 948 > > Small 2,240 > > Medium 630 > > Large 106 > > XLarge 73 > > > >Note: this is according to the current/old fee schedule. > > > >Maybe John can answer what it looks like if we added more categories: > > > >XX-Large (larger than /12 up to /10) - $32,000 (already in the pending > >fee schedule) XXX-Large (larger than /10 up to /8) - $64,000 XXXX-Large > >(larger than /8) - $128,000 > > > >My guess is that there would be so few orgs in the top couple > >categories, that the fee increase would not be of any consequence. > > > >Is it just a matter of "but, they are big companies, so they should pay > >more money!"? > > > >thanks, > >-Randy > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > Randy, > >> > > >> > My main issue here is that there's a fee cutoff after /14. I don't > >>believe > >> > there should be. > >> > >> Now, that is a point that I think merits discussion. We could > >>certainly add larger categories, but since there are so few large > >>orgs, would it really make that much difference? Should we quadruple > >>(or more) the fees of the top few, in order to give a 5% discount to > >>the smallest? (Those values are completely made up.) I don't know... > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jdaniels at forked.net Thu Apr 18 11:52:12 2013 From: jdaniels at forked.net (Jon Daniels) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:52:12 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Message-ID: > Yes, the fee structure tops out at XXL. Once you reach a certain size and are paying $32,000/year, you don't have to pay more even as you get more addresses. > > In reality, extending that pricing linearly beyond XXL wouldn't change pricing at the lower tiers by much. Further, it is very unlikely that those organizations are actually creating costs for ARIN that would come even close to doing so. > > Let's assume, for a moment, that an ISP existed that held there are probably fewer than 5 ISPs in the there is $480,000/year. Of the remaining 48 organizations in the XX-L category, I have no idea where the split would > fall between the $64,000 bracket you would establish at would be a ~50/50 split, so let's say 24 organizations. > > So, you would increase costs for top-end organizations as follows: > 5 * 96,000 > 24 * 32,000 > =============== > $1,248,000 > > If we were to spread that evenly across the X-S, S, and M registrants (total 3818->3306 organizations), you would save each of those organizations less than $400 per year. > > I simply don't buy that it's somehow more fair to inflict 64k and 128k/year pricing on to a small number of organizations at the top end to subsidize $400 discounts to 3300 other organizations. As a percentage of the involved organizations annual expenses, it could in fact be *more* fair. I don't know all the XX-Large orgs involved, other than an example of my own company paying $2000/year on the upcoming fee schedule with $60k in annual expenses and a /8 holder paying $32,000/year with $1 billion in expenses (quickly looking at a list of /8 holders, a significant portion have annual expenses way over $1 billion / year). XX-large: $32,000 is 0.0032% of $1 billion. My company: $2000 is ~3.3%of $60,000. As a percentage of operating expenses my small company pays 1031 (101,031%?) times more for IP address space (or registration services - depending on how you want to look at it). The number would be similar for net income, gross income, and virtually any other comparable. I would not call this 'inflicting' fees upon on XX-Larges. I would call it paying a fair share that everyone else has been paying, but somehow XX-Larges have been avoiding. Adding $128,000 per year to a $1 billion dollar budget is more like a fly landing atop a mountain than an infliction. Saving $400 per year would be significant to my company. I've been reading this ongoing debate with much interest and so far I have not heard any good arguments for not increasing the fees for holders of aggregates larger than /14 all the way to /8. The more I've watched this discussion the more I've noticed the fact that small and medium companies are subsidizing the large companies with free lunches via ARIN fees. Regards, Jon Daniels From dk at intuix.com Thu Apr 18 13:19:00 2013 From: dk at intuix.com (Dmitry Kohmanyuk) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:19:00 +0300 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <1F4ED938D73A4242BBBB1E7DD492EA0C16A482B1A0@PMBX03.gsm1900.org> References: <1232601147.230053.1366240758333.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <1F4ED938D73A4242BBBB1E7DD492EA0C16A482B1A0@PMBX03.gsm1900.org> Message-ID: <1D357F89-8F81-4C44-BD01-21844ECC4C67@intuix.com> On Apr 18, 2013, at 6:45 PM, "Byrne, Cameron" wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] >> On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis >> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:04 PM >> To: Randy Carpenter >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net List; John Curran >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >> >> Randy, >> >> I'm shooting for simple and equitable. The only two ways I can see to >> accomplish this is via a flat fee or by using an exponential linear model. >> > [Byrne, Cameron] > > Sorry, math newbie here. > > What is an "exponential linear model" ? > > I am familiar with exponential. > > I am familiar with linear. > > But, I don't know what is implied by "exponential linear" > > To me, it sounds like there is red, there is black, and you are suggesting RedBlack I think we can describe and name those pricing models by function of total IP addresses allocated. So, "fee per address" would be _linear_ (cost = X * addresses); "fee per bit of block size" would be _logarithmical_ (this includes current scheme: cost = K * log2(addresses) + N) and fixed fee regardless of size of allocation (a-la RIPE model) is _flat_ fee (cost = N). I am not doing advocacy of specific cost model (now or in the future) - but a formula is very useful to illustrate them. -- dk@ From jcurran at arin.net Thu Apr 18 13:28:11 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:28:11 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <1D357F89-8F81-4C44-BD01-21844ECC4C67@intuix.com> References: <1232601147.230053.1366240758333.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <1F4ED938D73A4242BBBB1E7DD492EA0C16A482B1A0@PMBX03.gsm1900.org> <1D357F89-8F81-4C44-BD01-21844ECC4C67@intuix.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBC83A9@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 18, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote: > I think we can describe and name those pricing models by function of total IP addresses allocated. > > So, "fee per address" would be _linear_ (cost = X * addresses); > "fee per bit of block size" would be _logarithmical_ (this includes current scheme: cost = K * log2(addresses) + N) > and fixed fee regardless of size of allocation (a-la RIPE model) is _flat_ fee (cost = N). > > I am not doing advocacy of specific cost model (now or in the future) - but a formula is very useful to illustrate them. Dmitry - The taxonomy of terms is quite useful. I'll note that some approaches are actually going to be a combination of these elements, and you need to add another potential element - Rename _linear_ to _address linear_, i.e. _address linear_ is cost = X * addresses Add _block linear_, which is cost = L * number of blocks I would describe RIPE's new model as _flat_ plus _block linear_ FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jesse at la-broadband.com Thu Apr 18 12:45:01 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:45:01 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <1F4ED938D73A4242BBBB1E7DD492EA0C16A482B1A0@PMBX03.gsm1900.org> References: <1232601147.230053.1366240758333.JavaMail.root@network1.net> , <1F4ED938D73A4242BBBB1E7DD492EA0C16A482B1A0@PMBX03.gsm1900.org> Message-ID: <6691E71F-2D6C-4490-AC00-63986EAC65CA@la-broadband.com> Byrne, I made it up :D more specifically what I meant was a linear model that doesn't stop at /14. Which I think would be more aptly described as a linear scale. However it's kind of a hybrid right now of a linear and flat fee or /14 and above so I made up a term to differentiate them based on the responses. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 18, 2013, at 9:30 AM, "Byrne, Cameron" wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] >> On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis >> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:04 PM >> To: Randy Carpenter >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net List; John Curran >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >> >> Randy, >> >> I'm shooting for simple and equitable. The only two ways I can see to >> accomplish this is via a flat fee or by using an exponential linear model. >> > [Byrne, Cameron] > > Sorry, math newbie here. > > What is an "exponential linear model" ? > > I am familiar with exponential. > > I am familiar with linear. > > But, I don't know what is implied by "exponential linear" > > To me, it sounds like there is red, there is black, and you are suggesting RedBlack > > Cameron > >> As an aside I just did the math on a flat fee model based on John's >> earlier revenue numbers of $9.9mil that comes out (rounded up) to $3,000 an >> Org. That would lower the cost for 1757 orgs and raise it $750 for 2,240. I think >> that's probably heading in the wrong direction since we have a dual goal of >> getting IPv6 and folks should probably subsidize the smaller allocations. >> >> >> For me, I think adding more categories would take a dated and >> inequitable model and keep it dated. The current model has been used since I >> was a teenager and it, like IPv4 address space hasn't scaled. However, based on >> what you're suggesting here it sounds more like doubling every 2 bits rather >> adding more categories which is fine by me. >> >> John, what do you think this would look like based on real numbers? >> >> Jesse Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> >> >> >> >> On 4/17/13 4:19 PM, "Randy Carpenter" wrote: >> >>> >>> From an earlier post by John Curran: >>> >>> Size 2011 >>> Category Count >>> >>> X-Small 948 >>> Small 2,240 >>> Medium 630 >>> Large 106 >>> XLarge 73 >>> >>> Note: this is according to the current/old fee schedule. >>> >>> Maybe John can answer what it looks like if we added more categories: >>> >>> XX-Large (larger than /12 up to /10) - $32,000 (already in the pending >>> fee schedule) XXX-Large (larger than /10 up to /8) - $64,000 XXXX-Large >>> (larger than /8) - $128,000 >>> >>> My guess is that there would be so few orgs in the top couple >>> categories, that the fee increase would not be of any consequence. >>> >>> Is it just a matter of "but, they are big companies, so they should pay >>> more money!"? >>> >>> thanks, >>> -Randy >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> Randy, >>>>> >>>>> My main issue here is that there's a fee cutoff after /14. I don't >>>> believe >>>>> there should be. >>>> >>>> Now, that is a point that I think merits discussion. We could >>>> certainly add larger categories, but since there are so few large >>>> orgs, would it really make that much difference? Should we quadruple >>>> (or more) the fees of the top few, in order to give a 5% discount to >>>> the smallest? (Those values are completely made up.) I don't know... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu Apr 18 12:58:24 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:58:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jon, Thank you for getting exactly what I've been after here. I'm just trying to understand why we have 2 different pay scales and looking for someone to present a solid argument to support the xx-large cut off. Like you, I haven't heard one thus far. If I may summarize the 'against' argument I've heard thus far it's been the assertion that xx-large must 'cost less' to ARIN. However, that assertion hasn't been supported by any presented data and our current pay scale isn't based on ARIN costs anyway. It's based purely on allocation size up until /14. So I'm not sure that's an assertion we can continue to make. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/18/13 8:52 AM, "Jon Daniels" wrote: >> Yes, the fee structure tops out at XXL. Once you reach a certain size >>and are paying $32,000/year, you don't have to pay more even as you get >>more addresses. >> >> In reality, extending that pricing linearly beyond XXL wouldn't change >>pricing at the lower tiers by much. Further, it is very unlikely that >>those organizations are actually creating costs for ARIN that would come >>even close to doing so. >> >> Let's assume, for a moment, that an ISP existed that held >your argument, said ISP should, instead of $32,000/year, pay >>$256,000/year instead of $32,000/year. To the best of my knowledge, >>there is no such ISP and >> there are probably fewer than 5 ISPs in the >$128,000/year, so your maximum additional yield >> there is $480,000/year. Of the remaining 48 organizations in the XX-L >>category, I have no idea where the split would >> fall between the $64,000 bracket you would establish at >the existing $32,000 bracket. My best guess >> would be a ~50/50 split, so let's say 24 organizations. >> >> So, you would increase costs for top-end organizations as follows: >> 5 * 96,000 >> 24 * 32,000 >> =============== >> $1,248,000 >> >> If we were to spread that evenly across the X-S, S, and M registrants >>(total 3818->3306 organizations), you would save each of those >>organizations less than $400 per year. >> >> I simply don't buy that it's somehow more fair to inflict 64k and >>128k/year pricing on to a small number of organizations at the top end >>to subsidize $400 discounts to 3300 other organizations. > > >As a percentage of the involved organizations annual expenses, it >could in fact be *more* fair. I don't know all the XX-Large orgs >involved, other than an example of my own company paying $2000/year on >the upcoming fee schedule with $60k in annual expenses and a /8 holder >paying $32,000/year with $1 billion in expenses (quickly looking at a >list of /8 holders, a significant portion have annual expenses way >over $1 billion / year). > >XX-large: >$32,000 is 0.0032% of $1 billion. > >My company: >$2000 is ~3.3%of $60,000. > >As a percentage of operating expenses my small company pays 1031 >(101,031%?) times more for IP address space (or registration services >- depending on how you want to look at it). The number would be >similar for net income, gross income, and virtually any other >comparable. > > >I would not call this 'inflicting' fees upon on XX-Larges. I would >call it paying a fair share that everyone else has been paying, but >somehow XX-Larges have been avoiding. Adding $128,000 per year to a >$1 billion dollar budget is more like a fly landing atop a mountain >than an infliction. > >Saving $400 per year would be significant to my company. I've been >reading this ongoing debate with much interest and so far I have not >heard any good arguments for not increasing the fees for holders of >aggregates larger than /14 all the way to /8. > >The more I've watched this discussion the more I've noticed the fact >that small and medium companies are subsidizing the large companies >with free lunches via ARIN fees. > >Regards, >Jon Daniels >_______________________________________________ >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 Thu Apr 18 13:54:55 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:54:55 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBC83A9@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <1232601147.230053.1366240758333.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <1F4ED938D73A4242BBBB1E7DD492EA0C16A482B1A0@PMBX03.gsm1900.org> <1D357F89-8F81-4C44-BD01-21844ECC4C67@intuix.com>, <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBC83A9@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <58CFBB0C-7015-4D27-B4B8-AB3FFCD22CC7@la-broadband.com> John/Dmitry, Thank you. It sounds like block linear would be the most appropriate label of what would scale the best, most simply, predictably, and most equitably, in my opinion. Or at least best describes what I'm highlighting as a suggestion for a new fee model. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 18, 2013, at 10:29 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > On Apr 18, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote: > >> I think we can describe and name those pricing models by function of total IP addresses allocated. >> >> So, "fee per address" would be _linear_ (cost = X * addresses); >> "fee per bit of block size" would be _logarithmical_ (this includes current scheme: cost = K * log2(addresses) + N) >> and fixed fee regardless of size of allocation (a-la RIPE model) is _flat_ fee (cost = N). >> >> I am not doing advocacy of specific cost model (now or in the future) - but a formula is very useful to illustrate them. > > Dmitry - > > The taxonomy of terms is quite useful. I'll note that some approaches are > actually going to be a combination of these elements, and you need to add > another potential element - > > Rename _linear_ to _address linear_, i.e. _address linear_ is cost = X * addresses > Add _block linear_, which is cost = L * number of blocks > > I would describe RIPE's new model as _flat_ plus _block linear_ > > FYI, > /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 rlc at usfamily.net Thu Apr 18 17:40:51 2013 From: rlc at usfamily.net (rlc at usfamily.net) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:40:51 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Message-ID: <20130418164054.19cccsvdsk808o4c@webmail.usfamily.net> I continue to be amused by the responses to the topic of per-ip pricing. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that ARIN's existing pricing model is sacrosanct. Methinks that depends upon which side of the curve you are on. Based upon the revenue "needs" of ARIN of $8 per IPv4 Class C equivalent, I prepared a little table below (please check my math, it is a little shaky when done while writing an email). Note that the curves cross at about a /14. It illustrates what a ridiculous advantage the big players have over the small players. We used to go up against them once in a while and would run into situations where prospective customers would say "But XXX will allocate me a much larger subnet, why won't you? We would have to respond that their 3 PC's and one server really couldn't justify a subnet 4x as large as they actually needed." So, these "well-run" big players who have spectacular record-keeping were busy giving away excessive ip address space we couldn't justify. We actually had to play by ARIN's rules. Well, I guess that's ok, because pretty much everybody thinks they are great guys and deserve a discount. Some on this list seem to think that we don't "pay for ip's" because they are not our property. Well, sort of. It would seem that the Legacy Holders do, in fact, own theirs. The rest of us are just renting them. In any case, fees shouldn't based upon the number of ip's, right? Except they are (if they aren't what are all those strange pricing categories about?). The "volume discounts" are just structured in way to give large ISP's advantages. But, we all know that the pricing cannot be linear, because, it just wouldn't be fair to those big companies. They can barely make ends meet. Whereas us rich little guys are rolling in cash, so a few grand to ARIN every year means nothing. I'm one of those little guys who hasn't requested a new allocation for nearly 5 years. But I'm not paying for ip's, I'm paying for services????? That's not the way my ARIN invoice looks. I have no suggestion at this time on IPv6 pricing except that any annual fee should be deferred until the adoption level reaches some reasonable threshhold. I suppose it is quantified somewhere, but it would be interesting to see statistics on the percentage of email addresses, nameservers, and web sites accessible directly via IPv6. Pricing $8/"C" Current X-Small /24 $8 $1,250 /23 $16 $1,250 /22 $32 $1,250 /21 $64 $1,250 Small /20 $128 $2,250 /19 $256 $2,250 Medium /18 $512 $4,500 /17 $1,024 $4,500 /16 $2,048 $4,500 Large /15 $4,096 $9,000 /14 $8,192 $9,000 X-Large /13 $16,384 $18,000 /12 $32,768 $18,000 /11 $65,536 $18,000 /10 $131,072 $18,000 /9 $262,144 $18,000 /8 $524,288 $18,000 ... From jesse at la-broadband.com Thu Apr 18 17:22:04 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:22:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: <438758E9-DBE1-4247-B0B3-DD426D22CCE7@delong.com>, Message-ID: <0C3F1CD1-9F2D-45AE-AB5F-C71A7E7D00D0@la-broadband.com> Further, if the price isn't reduced for the lower tiers it would raise an additional $1.5mil by one posters model or ARIN to continue to subsidise ipv6 or advocacy of it. That's not a small amount by ARIN budget terms. That's an increase in revenue of 10% for ARIN. Nothing to sneeze at. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 18, 2013, at 2:15 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" wrote: > Owen, > > This has already been discussed and disproven. It does make a dent in > everyone else's fees. I support the dent as being an appreciable one and > others have voiced the same. > > Thank you, > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > > > > On 4/17/13 7:50 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > >> >> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "Jesse D. Geddis" >> wrote: >> >>> Owen, >>> >>> Whether its framed as 'paying for IP addresses' or 'paying for >>> registration services' is really irrelevant. The fact is is that it is >>> tiered up to a certain point until you get different rules from everyone >>> else at x-large. Further, those tiers are pegged to an >>> _allocation_size_. So applying a fee scale to IPs is something _ARIN_ >>> did by implementing this tiered structure in the first place. Not us. >> >> So what this really boils down to is that you're upset that ARIN doesn't >> extend the pricing model beyond XX-L >> (look at the adopted fee structure, not the current one) because a very >> small number of organizations at the top >> don't get charged even more for their relative sizes within that category. >> >> Frankly, the number of organizations at that tier is so small that >> extending the linear pricing model wouldn't make >> a significant dent in the pricing at any of the lower tiers, so it's not, >> IMHO, worth complicating the pricing structure >> to accommodate that. >> >>> Regarding your mention of ARINs costs associated with different tiers >>> and the assertion that x-large costs ARIN less money. No one has put >>> forth any hard data whatsoever to support that argument. Its an >>> unfounded assertion that's been given mythological status by you and >>> some other folks. Indeed, even John Curran himself mentioned we can look >>> at other models including pegging the fees to actual ARIN costs implying >>> that they aren't right now. Based on these things I don't find this to >>> be a valid excuse to give x-large much lower costs proportionately and >>> to allow them to scale exponentially with no concern of fees or having >>> to proportionately 'support' like everyone else. >> >> They aren't pegged directly to costs because we aren't doing Fee for >> Service billing. I don't think you want that. >> >> However, ARIN has shown the over all cost to ARIN per organization size >> based on the current fee categories and >> has shown that the larger organizations do cost ARIN less per IP address >> to work with. There is hard data to support >> that fact. Further, simple logic from what ARIN actually does makes it >> pretty obvious that the costs to ARIN do not >> have any relationship to the size of address holdings of the various >> organizations ARIN deals with. It has more >> to do with the number of transactions, quality of the information >> provided by the organization in each transaction, >> and number of records held in the database. There's a little more staff >> time to review the greater amount of data associated with an application >> for a /12 than for a /22, but it certainly isn't 1024 times as much time. >> >> X-Large pays double what Large pays. XXL pays double what XL pays. >> >> This is the same as XS paying double what XXS pays, Small paying double >> XS, Medium paying double Small, >> Large paying double Medium, etc. At every tier your fee doubles and your >> amount of space quadruples. >> >> So by your argument, at every tier you pay proportionately less per IP >> address. This reflects the fact that ARIN's costs do not scale linearly >> with address size, but attempts to provide a rough approximation of >> mapping sizes to actual costs. >> >> Yes, the fee structure tops out at XXL. Once you reach a certain size and >> are paying $32,000/year, you don't have to pay more even as you get more >> addresses. >> >> In reality, extending that pricing linearly beyond XXL wouldn't change >> pricing at the lower tiers by much. Further, it is very unlikely that >> those organizations are actually creating costs for ARIN that would come >> even close to doing so. >> >> Let's assume, for a moment, that an ISP existed that held > your argument, said ISP should, instead of $32,000/year, pay >> $256,000/year instead of $32,000/year. To the best of my knowledge, there >> is no such ISP and >> there are probably fewer than 5 ISPs in the > $128,000/year, so your maximum additional yield >> there is $480,000/year. Of the remaining 48 organizations in the XX-L >> category, I have no idea where the split would >> fall between the $64,000 bracket you would establish at > the existing $32,000 bracket. My best guess >> would be a ~50/50 split, so let's say 24 organizations. >> >> So, you would increase costs for top-end organizations as follows: >> 5 * 96,000 >> 24 * 32,000 >> =============== >> $1,248,000 >> >> If we were to spread that evenly across the X-S, S, and M registrants >> (total 3818->3306 organizations), you would save each of those >> organizations less than $400 per year. >> >> I simply don't buy that it's somehow more fair to inflict 64k and >> 128k/year pricing on to a small number of organizations at the top end to >> subsidize $400 discounts to 3300 other organizations. >> >>> What I'm interested in hearing, Owen, and others. As well as, I'm >>> guessing the poster you replied to, several other people who have also >>> publicly questioned the hybrid scale, and the 3 dozen people on this >>> list who emailed me privately but weren't interested in the public >>> flogging by some you folks (Matthew, Lee, and a couple others) is a >>> reasoned answer to the following: >>> >>> Why *should* there be a fee increasing cutoff at /14 >> >> Because beyond a certain point, continuing to double people's fees stops >> making sense. The size model is designed to be a convenient approximation >> of the cost-model that ARIN has along with some other tradeoffs. It >> attempts to allocate the burden along similar lines as ARIN's cost burden. >> >> If you extend it beyond the /12 point (which is where the XX-L category >> actually begins), then it rapidly makes no sense and is overly burdensome >> as described above. >> >>> Why should x-large (73 orgs out of thousands) get a different set of >>> rules than everyone else. >> >> They don't. They live by the same rules. There are a number of services >> with similar cost structures where you pay less for each incremental >> level of service until you reach a certain tier where you simply get "all >> you can eat" service for that price. >> >> Some of them are even in this industry. It's not uncommon for mobile >> providers, for example, to have usage sensitive pricing where you pay >> less per GB transferred as you move up the usage stack until you finally >> reach a point where the next increment gets you unlimited consumption. >> >>> >>> And please, let's stick to the facts and avoid repeated assertions like >>> the below that have no basis in actual data. Personally, I think trying >>> to divine ARINs cost per tier and creating a fee structure based on that >>> is a very bad idea. Indeed, my proposal is fundamental in getting rid of >>> the current tier structure altogether. >> >> I wasn't divining ARIN's cost per tierS It was published data from ARIN. >> >> It is documented as one of the inputs to the current fee structure. >> >> Claiming it has no basis in facts when the ARIN CEO has contradicted you >> on this matter is folly. >> >> Your proposal is fundamental in getting rid of the tier structure. It's >> also a really bad idea IMHO. Your proposal is grossly unfair at both the >> top and bottom extremes. >> >> Owen > From jesse at la-broadband.com Thu Apr 18 17:15:36 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:15:36 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <438758E9-DBE1-4247-B0B3-DD426D22CCE7@delong.com> Message-ID: Owen, This has already been discussed and disproven. It does make a dent in everyone else's fees. I support the dent as being an appreciable one and others have voiced the same. Thank you, Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/17/13 7:50 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > >On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "Jesse D. Geddis" >wrote: > >> Owen, >> >> Whether its framed as 'paying for IP addresses' or 'paying for >>registration services' is really irrelevant. The fact is is that it is >>tiered up to a certain point until you get different rules from everyone >>else at x-large. Further, those tiers are pegged to an >>_allocation_size_. So applying a fee scale to IPs is something _ARIN_ >>did by implementing this tiered structure in the first place. Not us. >> > >So what this really boils down to is that you're upset that ARIN doesn't >extend the pricing model beyond XX-L >(look at the adopted fee structure, not the current one) because a very >small number of organizations at the top >don't get charged even more for their relative sizes within that category. > >Frankly, the number of organizations at that tier is so small that >extending the linear pricing model wouldn't make >a significant dent in the pricing at any of the lower tiers, so it's not, >IMHO, worth complicating the pricing structure >to accommodate that. > >> Regarding your mention of ARINs costs associated with different tiers >>and the assertion that x-large costs ARIN less money. No one has put >>forth any hard data whatsoever to support that argument. Its an >>unfounded assertion that's been given mythological status by you and >>some other folks. Indeed, even John Curran himself mentioned we can look >>at other models including pegging the fees to actual ARIN costs implying >>that they aren't right now. Based on these things I don't find this to >>be a valid excuse to give x-large much lower costs proportionately and >>to allow them to scale exponentially with no concern of fees or having >>to proportionately 'support' like everyone else. > >They aren't pegged directly to costs because we aren't doing Fee for >Service billing. I don't think you want that. > >However, ARIN has shown the over all cost to ARIN per organization size >based on the current fee categories and >has shown that the larger organizations do cost ARIN less per IP address >to work with. There is hard data to support >that fact. Further, simple logic from what ARIN actually does makes it >pretty obvious that the costs to ARIN do not >have any relationship to the size of address holdings of the various >organizations ARIN deals with. It has more >to do with the number of transactions, quality of the information >provided by the organization in each transaction, >and number of records held in the database. There's a little more staff >time to review the greater amount of data associated with an application >for a /12 than for a /22, but it certainly isn't 1024 times as much time. > >X-Large pays double what Large pays. XXL pays double what XL pays. > >This is the same as XS paying double what XXS pays, Small paying double >XS, Medium paying double Small, >Large paying double Medium, etc. At every tier your fee doubles and your >amount of space quadruples. > >So by your argument, at every tier you pay proportionately less per IP >address. This reflects the fact that ARIN's costs do not scale linearly >with address size, but attempts to provide a rough approximation of >mapping sizes to actual costs. > >Yes, the fee structure tops out at XXL. Once you reach a certain size and >are paying $32,000/year, you don't have to pay more even as you get more >addresses. > >In reality, extending that pricing linearly beyond XXL wouldn't change >pricing at the lower tiers by much. Further, it is very unlikely that >those organizations are actually creating costs for ARIN that would come >even close to doing so. > >Let's assume, for a moment, that an ISP existed that held your argument, said ISP should, instead of $32,000/year, pay >$256,000/year instead of $32,000/year. To the best of my knowledge, there >is no such ISP and >there are probably fewer than 5 ISPs in the $128,000/year, so your maximum additional yield >there is $480,000/year. Of the remaining 48 organizations in the XX-L >category, I have no idea where the split would >fall between the $64,000 bracket you would establish at the existing $32,000 bracket. My best guess >would be a ~50/50 split, so let's say 24 organizations. > >So, you would increase costs for top-end organizations as follows: > 5 * 96,000 > 24 * 32,000 >=============== > $1,248,000 > >If we were to spread that evenly across the X-S, S, and M registrants >(total 3818->3306 organizations), you would save each of those >organizations less than $400 per year. > >I simply don't buy that it's somehow more fair to inflict 64k and >128k/year pricing on to a small number of organizations at the top end to >subsidize $400 discounts to 3300 other organizations. > >> What I'm interested in hearing, Owen, and others. As well as, I'm >>guessing the poster you replied to, several other people who have also >>publicly questioned the hybrid scale, and the 3 dozen people on this >>list who emailed me privately but weren't interested in the public >>flogging by some you folks (Matthew, Lee, and a couple others) is a >>reasoned answer to the following: >> >> Why *should* there be a fee increasing cutoff at /14 > >Because beyond a certain point, continuing to double people's fees stops >making sense. The size model is designed to be a convenient approximation >of the cost-model that ARIN has along with some other tradeoffs. It >attempts to allocate the burden along similar lines as ARIN's cost burden. > >If you extend it beyond the /12 point (which is where the XX-L category >actually begins), then it rapidly makes no sense and is overly burdensome >as described above. > >> Why should x-large (73 orgs out of thousands) get a different set of >>rules than everyone else. > >They don't. They live by the same rules. There are a number of services >with similar cost structures where you pay less for each incremental >level of service until you reach a certain tier where you simply get "all >you can eat" service for that price. > >Some of them are even in this industry. It's not uncommon for mobile >providers, for example, to have usage sensitive pricing where you pay >less per GB transferred as you move up the usage stack until you finally >reach a point where the next increment gets you unlimited consumption. > >> >> And please, let's stick to the facts and avoid repeated assertions like >>the below that have no basis in actual data. Personally, I think trying >>to divine ARINs cost per tier and creating a fee structure based on that >>is a very bad idea. Indeed, my proposal is fundamental in getting rid of >>the current tier structure altogether. > >I wasn't divining ARIN's cost per tier? It was published data from ARIN. > >It is documented as one of the inputs to the current fee structure. > >Claiming it has no basis in facts when the ARIN CEO has contradicted you >on this matter is folly. > >Your proposal is fundamental in getting rid of the tier structure. It's >also a really bad idea IMHO. Your proposal is grossly unfair at both the >top and bottom extremes. > >Owen > > From jesse at la-broadband.com Thu Apr 18 17:16:04 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:16:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Owen, Honestly, I don't know why this is even a topic of conversation still. The fact is the fees are based on allocation size today and to my knowledge they have ALWAYS been based on allocation size. It's in black and white here: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html What I read in this fee schedule is "Size Category" with an associated "Fee (US Dollars)" followed by a "Block Size" Nowhere on this current fee schedule do I see anything (not even a hint) about it being linked to how many tickets ARIN thinks a specific size category takes. Nothing about them being based on who ARIN thinks generates better requests. Nothing. So can we please be done with that as an excuse for the current fee structure? Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/17/13 8:03 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: >>> Recognize that there is a transaction cost involved in issuing (or >>> transfering) an address block to a party, but beyond that point, >>> ARIN's actual costs are not significantly different for a large IP >>> address block versus a small IP address block. We should all be >>> very thankful for this, as ARIN's costs would have become enormous >>> upon the assignment of the first IPv4 block... (which has so many >>> individual IP addresses that any cost per IP would still be too much.) >> >> Well I think that depends and is highly subjective. In my experience >>the time ARIN spends on a ticket directly correlates to the size of the >>requested block. With the larger block I have found ARIN spends >>exponentially more time vetting the documentation, diagrams, >>spreadsheets, projections, and contracts than it does with say a /22. >>From what I'm hearing you say you believe ARIN spends an equal amount of >>time vetting a /22 as it does a /14. I can't fathom how this could be >>possible. If I'm requesting a /14 ARIN would presumably be reviewing >>documentation for hundreds of thousands of IPs and huge diagrams and >>projections vs reviewing documentation for 500 IPs associated with a /22 >>request. >> > >Nope. > >ARIN spends a lot more time on a poorly considered, poorly documented >repeated rounds of asking for additional documentation request for a /22 >than they do on a well considered, well documented request for a /14. >This has been >stated in various forms multiple times, so it does not "lack foundation" >as you are so fond of saying. > >Further, even in the case of a well formed request for a /22 and a well >formed request for a /14, ARIN does not spend anywhere near 256 times as >long on the /14 as the /22, yet you want to jack the price up *256 for >that spread. In my >experience, it's more like 1.5-2 times as long. Admittedly, my knowledge >is limited to IPv4 from /24 to /12 and IPv6 from /48 to /24. I don't have >experience applying for anything larger than /12 (IPv4) or /24 (IPv6). My >experience does include multiple successful applications at each of those >top sizes. > >ARIN should be spending considerably less time deliberating most IPv6 >requests than they do most IPv4 requests, since the policy is quite a bit >simpler and allows for significantly more liberal allocations. Also a >larger fraction of these are likely initial allocations with near >automatic qualification. > >Owen > From Jim.Connolly at excel.com Thu Apr 18 22:16:45 2013 From: Jim.Connolly at excel.com (Jim Connolly) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:16:45 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? References: Message-ID: <067DF37317372D4C84395FBEEFA95D32026CB8E8@pwsmail01.usa.vartec.com> Can you please stop with all the emails? 3 days of you going on and on. ________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: Thu 4/18/2013 4:16 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net List; John Curran Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Owen, Honestly, I don't know why this is even a topic of conversation still. The fact is the fees are based on allocation size today and to my knowledge they have ALWAYS been based on allocation size. It's in black and white here: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html What I read in this fee schedule is "Size Category" with an associated "Fee (US Dollars)" followed by a "Block Size" Nowhere on this current fee schedule do I see anything (not even a hint) about it being linked to how many tickets ARIN thinks a specific size category takes. Nothing about them being based on who ARIN thinks generates better requests. Nothing. So can we please be done with that as an excuse for the current fee structure? Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/17/13 8:03 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: >>> Recognize that there is a transaction cost involved in issuing (or >>> transfering) an address block to a party, but beyond that point, >>> ARIN's actual costs are not significantly different for a large IP >>> address block versus a small IP address block. We should all be >>> very thankful for this, as ARIN's costs would have become enormous >>> upon the assignment of the first IPv4 block... (which has so many >>> individual IP addresses that any cost per IP would still be too much.) >> >> Well I think that depends and is highly subjective. In my experience >>the time ARIN spends on a ticket directly correlates to the size of the >>requested block. With the larger block I have found ARIN spends >>exponentially more time vetting the documentation, diagrams, >>spreadsheets, projections, and contracts than it does with say a /22. >>From what I'm hearing you say you believe ARIN spends an equal amount of >>time vetting a /22 as it does a /14. I can't fathom how this could be >>possible. If I'm requesting a /14 ARIN would presumably be reviewing >>documentation for hundreds of thousands of IPs and huge diagrams and >>projections vs reviewing documentation for 500 IPs associated with a /22 >>request. >> > >Nope. > >ARIN spends a lot more time on a poorly considered, poorly documented >repeated rounds of asking for additional documentation request for a /22 >than they do on a well considered, well documented request for a /14. >This has been >stated in various forms multiple times, so it does not "lack foundation" >as you are so fond of saying. > >Further, even in the case of a well formed request for a /22 and a well >formed request for a /14, ARIN does not spend anywhere near 256 times as >long on the /14 as the /22, yet you want to jack the price up *256 for >that spread. In my >experience, it's more like 1.5-2 times as long. Admittedly, my knowledge >is limited to IPv4 from /24 to /12 and IPv6 from /48 to /24. I don't have >experience applying for anything larger than /12 (IPv4) or /24 (IPv6). My >experience does include multiple successful applications at each of those >top sizes. > >ARIN should be spending considerably less time deliberating most IPv6 >requests than they do most IPv4 requests, since the policy is quite a bit >simpler and allows for significantly more liberal allocations. Also a >larger fraction of these are likely initial allocations with near >automatic qualification. > >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. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by an automated system, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tony.stout at prtc.coop Thu Apr 18 22:32:04 2013 From: tony.stout at prtc.coop (Tony Stout) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:32:04 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <067DF37317372D4C84395FBEEFA95D32026CB8E8@pwsmail01.usa.vartec.com> References: <067DF37317372D4C84395FBEEFA95D32026CB8E8@pwsmail01.usa.vartec.com> Message-ID: <47B62888552B8F40AEDCDA4E7FC7605603F42C3ABC@Exchange07.PRTC.lowcountry.com> AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jim Connolly Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:17 PM To: Jesse D. Geddis; Owen DeLong Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; John Curran Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Can you please stop with all the emails? 3 days of you going on and on. ________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: Thu 4/18/2013 4:16 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net List; John Curran Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Owen, Honestly, I don't know why this is even a topic of conversation still. The fact is the fees are based on allocation size today and to my knowledge they have ALWAYS been based on allocation size. It's in black and white here: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html What I read in this fee schedule is "Size Category" with an associated "Fee (US Dollars)" followed by a "Block Size" Nowhere on this current fee schedule do I see anything (not even a hint) about it being linked to how many tickets ARIN thinks a specific size category takes. Nothing about them being based on who ARIN thinks generates better requests. Nothing. So can we please be done with that as an excuse for the current fee structure? Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/17/13 8:03 PM, "Owen DeLong" > wrote: >>> Recognize that there is a transaction cost involved in issuing (or >>> transfering) an address block to a party, but beyond that point, >>> ARIN's actual costs are not significantly different for a large IP >>> address block versus a small IP address block. We should all be >>> very thankful for this, as ARIN's costs would have become enormous >>> upon the assignment of the first IPv4 block... (which has so many >>> individual IP addresses that any cost per IP would still be too much.) >> >> Well I think that depends and is highly subjective. In my experience >>the time ARIN spends on a ticket directly correlates to the size of the >>requested block. With the larger block I have found ARIN spends >>exponentially more time vetting the documentation, diagrams, >>spreadsheets, projections, and contracts than it does with say a /22. >>From what I'm hearing you say you believe ARIN spends an equal amount of >>time vetting a /22 as it does a /14. I can't fathom how this could be >>possible. If I'm requesting a /14 ARIN would presumably be reviewing >>documentation for hundreds of thousands of IPs and huge diagrams and >>projections vs reviewing documentation for 500 IPs associated with a /22 >>request. >> > >Nope. > >ARIN spends a lot more time on a poorly considered, poorly documented >repeated rounds of asking for additional documentation request for a /22 >than they do on a well considered, well documented request for a /14. >This has been >stated in various forms multiple times, so it does not "lack foundation" >as you are so fond of saying. > >Further, even in the case of a well formed request for a /22 and a well >formed request for a /14, ARIN does not spend anywhere near 256 times as >long on the /14 as the /22, yet you want to jack the price up *256 for >that spread. In my >experience, it's more like 1.5-2 times as long. Admittedly, my knowledge >is limited to IPv4 from /24 to /12 and IPv6 from /48 to /24. I don't have >experience applying for anything larger than /12 (IPv4) or /24 (IPv6). My >experience does include multiple successful applications at each of those >top sizes. > >ARIN should be spending considerably less time deliberating most IPv6 >requests than they do most IPv4 requests, since the policy is quite a bit >simpler and allows for significantly more liberal allocations. Also a >larger fraction of these are likely initial allocations with near >automatic qualification. > >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. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by an automated system, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Apr 18 22:59:10 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 02:59:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <20130418164054.19cccsvdsk808o4c@webmail.usfamily.net> References: <20130418164054.19cccsvdsk808o4c@webmail.usfamily.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBC99A5@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 18, 2013, at 3:40 PM, rlc at usfamily.net wrote: > Some on this list seem to think that we don't "pay for ip's" because they are > not our property. Well, sort of. It would seem that the Legacy Holders do, in > fact, own theirs. RLC - All address holders have certain rights with respect to their address blocks, and this include legacy address holders. It is also true that the community has certain rights regarding those same address blocks, including the ability to establish policies regarding how they are maintained in the registry. ARIN operates the registry in accordance with the community developed policy, and have had multiple courts who have ordered that ARIN is not required to take any action in violation of ARIN?s Policies nor is it required to apply a different standard to the transfer of legacy versus non-legacy Internet Protocol numbers. (In re Borders Group, Inc., 11-10614 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), In re Teknowledge Corporation; 10-60457 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.) and GlobalNAPS, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc) ARIN fees are for registration services, regardless of when or how you were issued the address block. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From msalim at localweb.com Thu Apr 18 23:09:07 2013 From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:09:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? References: <067DF37317372D4C84395FBEEFA95D32026CB8E8@pwsmail01.usa.vartec.com> <47B62888552B8F40AEDCDA4E7FC7605603F42C3ABC@Exchange07.PRTC.lowcountry.com> Message-ID: Hello Jim and Tony, Same sentiment here. I created an Outlook rule filter for this particular thread, works like a champ for me. Most discussions on arin-discuss are worth listening to but this one is getting a bit noisy. I had to do the same on another thread a few months ago, but all was OK in between. 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. From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Tony Stout Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:32 PM To: Jim Connolly; Jesse D. Geddis; Owen DeLong Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; John Curran Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jim Connolly Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:17 PM To: Jesse D. Geddis; Owen DeLong Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; John Curran Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Can you please stop with all the emails? 3 days of you going on and on. ________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: Thu 4/18/2013 4:16 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net List; John Curran Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? Owen, Honestly, I don't know why this is even a topic of conversation still. The fact is the fees are based on allocation size today and to my knowledge they have ALWAYS been based on allocation size. It's in black and white here: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html What I read in this fee schedule is "Size Category" with an associated "Fee (US Dollars)" followed by a "Block Size" Nowhere on this current fee schedule do I see anything (not even a hint) about it being linked to how many tickets ARIN thinks a specific size category takes. Nothing about them being based on who ARIN thinks generates better requests. Nothing. So can we please be done with that as an excuse for the current fee structure? Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/17/13 8:03 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: >>> Recognize that there is a transaction cost involved in issuing (or >>> transfering) an address block to a party, but beyond that point, >>> ARIN's actual costs are not significantly different for a large IP >>> address block versus a small IP address block. We should all be >>> very thankful for this, as ARIN's costs would have become enormous >>> upon the assignment of the first IPv4 block... (which has so many >>> individual IP addresses that any cost per IP would still be too much.) >> >> Well I think that depends and is highly subjective. In my experience >>the time ARIN spends on a ticket directly correlates to the size of the >>requested block. With the larger block I have found ARIN spends >>exponentially more time vetting the documentation, diagrams, >>spreadsheets, projections, and contracts than it does with say a /22. >>From what I'm hearing you say you believe ARIN spends an equal amount of >>time vetting a /22 as it does a /14. I can't fathom how this could be >>possible. If I'm requesting a /14 ARIN would presumably be reviewing >>documentation for hundreds of thousands of IPs and huge diagrams and >>projections vs reviewing documentation for 500 IPs associated with a /22 >>request. >> > >Nope. > >ARIN spends a lot more time on a poorly considered, poorly documented >repeated rounds of asking for additional documentation request for a /22 >than they do on a well considered, well documented request for a /14. >This has been >stated in various forms multiple times, so it does not "lack foundation" >as you are so fond of saying. > >Further, even in the case of a well formed request for a /22 and a well >formed request for a /14, ARIN does not spend anywhere near 256 times as >long on the /14 as the /22, yet you want to jack the price up *256 for >that spread. In my >experience, it's more like 1.5-2 times as long. Admittedly, my knowledge >is limited to IPv4 from /24 to /12 and IPv6 from /48 to /24. I don't have >experience applying for anything larger than /12 (IPv4) or /24 (IPv6). My >experience does include multiple successful applications at each of those >top sizes. > >ARIN should be spending considerably less time deliberating most IPv6 >requests than they do most IPv4 requests, since the policy is quite a bit >simpler and allows for significantly more liberal allocations. Also a >larger fraction of these are likely initial allocations with near >automatic qualification. > >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. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by an automated system, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 34107 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Apr 19 03:20:40 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:20:40 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2013, at 08:52 , Jon Daniels wrote: >> Yes, the fee structure tops out at XXL. Once you reach a certain size and are paying $32,000/year, you don't have to pay more even as you get more addresses. >> >> In reality, extending that pricing linearly beyond XXL wouldn't change pricing at the lower tiers by much. Further, it is very unlikely that those organizations are actually creating costs for ARIN that would come even close to doing so. >> >> Let's assume, for a moment, that an ISP existed that held > there are probably fewer than 5 ISPs in the > there is $480,000/year. Of the remaining 48 organizations in the XX-L category, I have no idea where the split would >> fall between the $64,000 bracket you would establish at > would be a ~50/50 split, so let's say 24 organizations. >> >> So, you would increase costs for top-end organizations as follows: >> 5 * 96,000 >> 24 * 32,000 >> =============== >> $1,248,000 >> >> If we were to spread that evenly across the X-S, S, and M registrants (total 3818->3306 organizations), you would save each of those organizations less than $400 per year. >> >> I simply don't buy that it's somehow more fair to inflict 64k and 128k/year pricing on to a small number of organizations at the top end to subsidize $400 discounts to 3300 other organizations. > > > As a percentage of the involved organizations annual expenses, it > could in fact be *more* fair. I don't know all the XX-Large orgs > involved, other than an example of my own company paying $2000/year on > the upcoming fee schedule with $60k in annual expenses and a /8 holder > paying $32,000/year with $1 billion in expenses (quickly looking at a > list of /8 holders, a significant portion have annual expenses way > over $1 billion / year). Most of the /8 holders you're looking at are: 1. Legacy and don't pay ARIN fees. 2. Not ISPs. > > XX-large: > $32,000 is 0.0032% of $1 billion. Red herring. > My company: > $2000 is ~3.3%of $60,000. > > As a percentage of operating expenses my small company pays 1031 > (101,031%?) times more for IP address space (or registration services > - depending on how you want to look at it). The number would be > similar for net income, gross income, and virtually any other > comparable. So far, ARIN doesn't base fees on gross revenues or annual expenses. If you would like to see ARIN start collecting the information necessary to do so and switch to a fee structure based on that, you should submit a suggestion to the board. > I would not call this 'inflicting' fees upon on XX-Larges. I would > call it paying a fair share that everyone else has been paying, but > somehow XX-Larges have been avoiding. Adding $128,000 per year to a > $1 billion dollar budget is more like a fly landing atop a mountain > than an infliction. Again, I don't think this is an accurate reflection of the actual XX-L organizations paying the actual fees. > Saving $400 per year would be significant to my company. I've been > reading this ongoing debate with much interest and so far I have not > heard any good arguments for not increasing the fees for holders of > aggregates larger than /14 all the way to /8. > > The more I've watched this discussion the more I've noticed the fact > that small and medium companies are subsidizing the large companies > with free lunches via ARIN fees. Not when you consider how their activities impact ARIN's costs. Owen From tague at win.net Fri Apr 19 18:22:44 2013 From: tague at win.net (Michael Tague) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:22:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <045601ce3d4c$6a12f840$3e38e8c0$@net> As a smaller ISP ($600k/yr revenue), I have always felt that ARIN's fees to us feel very high. We currently pay $4500/yr and under the new fee schedule would pay $4000 (though I see from this discussion that we may qualify for $2000 because some of our IP space is legacy - TBD). That means we are paying (currently) 0.75% of our annual revenue to ARIN. Below I've expanded upon rcl at usfamily.net's table to include the Proposed Fee Schedule as well as the Current one. I've also added percentage columns for each which show how many percent more the Proposed or Current fees are compared with the Linear ($8/Class-C). As you can see the Proposed Fees are better than the Current one by about a factor of two, but still, both are heavily weighted against smaller providers and in favor of larger ones compared with the Linear scale. Size Linear Proposed Current ---- -------- -------------- --------------- /24 $8 $500 6150% $1,250 15525% /23 $16 $500 3125% $1,250 7713% /22 $32 $500 1463% $1,250 3806% /21 $64 $1,000 1463% $1,250 1953% /20 $128 $1,000 681% $2,250 1658% /19 $256 $2,000 681% $2,250 779% /18 $512 $2,000 291% $4,500 779% /17 $1,024 $4,000 291% $4,500 339% /16 $2,048 $4,000 95% $4,500 120% /15 $4,096 $8,000 95% $9,000 120% /14 $8,192 $8,000 -2% $9,000 10% /13 $16,384 $16,000 -2% $18,000 10% /12 $32,768 $16,000 -51% $18,000 -45% /11 $65,536 $32,000 -51% $18,000 -73% /10 $131,072 $32,000 -76% $18,000 -86% /9 $262,144 $32,000 -88% $18,000 -93% /8 $524,288 $32,000 -94% $18,000 -97% A 16 Class-C ISP (/20) would pay $128 on the Linear scale, will pay $1,000 on the Proposed schedule and is paying $2,250 on the Current schedule. It comes down to what one thinks is fair or what one is paying for? Michael Tague tague at win.net From drake.pallister at duraserver.com Sat Apr 20 03:20:18 2013 From: drake.pallister at duraserver.com (Drake Pallister) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 03:20:18 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? References: Message-ID: To any interested, What Owen says is true and has been the way forever. Once an ISP grows beyond a certain size, everything else (resources) is free, so to speak. That sort of reminds me of the USA Income tax System in many aspects. I've been a proponent the I.R.S. and States, having a Flat Tax, based upon exactly what you earn (less deductons, of course). My analogy of tonight will be one of a fuel filling station and tractor trailers. If I was a single owner-operator of my big rig Kenworth, I'd be paying for every gallon of diesel fuel I filled up with. Then as my truck fleet grows (or compare to a different, but larger fleet), they also pay for the gallons of fuel they put in the tank. However, once my truck fleet, or some other trucking fleet reaches the purchase and consumption of (let's say 300K Gallons a month)---- Imagine a dollar cap, where if they consume 300K gallons, 500K, or even a Million gallons of fuel per month--- they are capped at the 300K gallons "bought" regardless of how many gallons burned on the roadways, charging whatever per mile for freight transport.. Now, back to the smaller fleets of 1, 3, or 5 tractor trailers are still having to pay for the gallons they actually optain at the truck stop / gas station. That's the end of the analogy. It may partially relate to our industry and IP's resources, or it may get the smack-down by others smarter and more experienced than me. However, I "won't" pass an opinion either way with my comparison of a I.R.S. Flat tax idea, or the Diesel fuel analogy, as it might relate to flat rate billing for IP numbers allocation. Well, maybe I will pass a a vague opinion, that the billing brackets gor asset holders maybe ought to "not" have that point of everything after X is no additional fee. I would bet you lunch that the asset holders in those "big block clubs" are absolutely billing every last stinking customer 10, 15, or 20 dollars per IP (v4 for this conversatin) per month if the customer wants or needs an additional IP number for whatever reason (if they will even allow additional IPs onto the account) That is connectivity provideres, but compare to hosted services providers, they also usually charge the customer for more IPs. It takes extra configuration and might or --not mean the consumption of more bandwidth and data transfer. A hosting customer msy simply wish to have mail on a different IP from a web site, and still different from some subdomains. I cou;dn't say because every scenario in hosting can be different. I happen to know of big connectivity provider who will sell a business connectivity package with a /29 for xxx per month. But wait--- If the customer needed maybe 5 extra IPs for random independent purposes, the provider could just increase the customer to a /28 of IPv4 without adding any additional routers, cables, fibers, cablemodems, bandwidth, monthly data transfer, etc. Yet,Yet,Yet, the provider would outright refuse to just increase the size of the IP net from a /29 to a /28 (ok even for a small fee)---- But Nope--- they will make the customer purchase and pay monthly $xxx for a complete second account of a second /29 which might not even be in a contiguous block with the first /29. I'm asking myself if that kind super-duper connectivity should keep getting more IP numbers at no additional fee past the ARIN fees cutoff point. Something doesn't smell like fresh morning mountain air and blossoming flowers with those kinds of business practices. I'm simply tossing my thoughts out there and not demanding one procedure or another, as it will end up however it does anyhow. Aside from all that, I can not foresee the future when everything electrical has a v6 IP number, even my toaster or refrigerator. That will be an interesting ride to watch. Just think about a publicly addressable microwave oven. ~Drake ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 3:20 AM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > On Apr 18, 2013, at 08:52 , Jon Daniels wrote: > >>> Yes, the fee structure tops out at XXL. Once you reach a certain size and are paying $32,000/year, you don't have to pay more >>> even as you get more addresses. >>> >>> In reality, extending that pricing linearly beyond XXL wouldn't change pricing at the lower tiers by much. Further, it is very >>> unlikely that those organizations are actually creating costs for ARIN that would come even close to doing so. >>> >>> Let's assume, for a moment, that an ISP existed that held >> pay $256,000/year instead of $32,000/year. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such ISP and >>> there are probably fewer than 5 ISPs in the >> there is $480,000/year. Of the remaining 48 organizations in the XX-L category, I have no idea where the split would >>> fall between the $64,000 bracket you would establish at >> would be a ~50/50 split, so let's say 24 organizations. >>> >>> So, you would increase costs for top-end organizations as follows: >>> 5 * 96,000 >>> 24 * 32,000 >>> =============== >>> $1,248,000 >>> >>> If we were to spread that evenly across the X-S, S, and M registrants (total 3818->3306 organizations), you would save each of >>> those organizations less than $400 per year. >>> >>> I simply don't buy that it's somehow more fair to inflict 64k and 128k/year pricing on to a small number of organizations at the >>> top end to subsidize $400 discounts to 3300 other organizations. >> >> >> As a percentage of the involved organizations annual expenses, it >> could in fact be *more* fair. I don't know all the XX-Large orgs >> involved, other than an example of my own company paying $2000/year on >> the upcoming fee schedule with $60k in annual expenses and a /8 holder >> paying $32,000/year with $1 billion in expenses (quickly looking at a >> list of /8 holders, a significant portion have annual expenses way >> over $1 billion / year). > > Most of the /8 holders you're looking at are: > 1. Legacy and don't pay ARIN fees. > 2. Not ISPs. > >> >> XX-large: >> $32,000 is 0.0032% of $1 billion. > > Red herring. > >> My company: >> $2000 is ~3.3%of $60,000. >> >> As a percentage of operating expenses my small company pays 1031 >> (101,031%?) times more for IP address space (or registration services >> - depending on how you want to look at it). The number would be >> similar for net income, gross income, and virtually any other >> comparable. > > So far, ARIN doesn't base fees on gross revenues or annual expenses. If you > would like to see ARIN start collecting the information necessary to do so > and switch to a fee structure based on that, you should submit a suggestion > to the board. > >> I would not call this 'inflicting' fees upon on XX-Larges. I would >> call it paying a fair share that everyone else has been paying, but >> somehow XX-Larges have been avoiding. Adding $128,000 per year to a >> $1 billion dollar budget is more like a fly landing atop a mountain >> than an infliction. > > Again, I don't think this is an accurate reflection of the actual XX-L > organizations paying the actual fees. > >> Saving $400 per year would be significant to my company. I've been >> reading this ongoing debate with much interest and so far I have not >> heard any good arguments for not increasing the fees for holders of >> aggregates larger than /14 all the way to /8. >> >> The more I've watched this discussion the more I've noticed the fact >> that small and medium companies are subsidizing the large companies >> with free lunches via ARIN fees. > > Not when you consider how their activities impact ARIN's costs. > > 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 jesse at la-broadband.com Sat Apr 20 03:37:26 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:37:26 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Drake, Thanks so much for your insightful post. Although I think you may have meant what Jon Daniels said rather than Owen. What you pointed out, however, is very poignant. You are absolutely correct. By and large they do charge customers for extra IP's so we all get to pay for it double. Both in our subsidies of them via ARIN fees and them passing fictitious costs associated with them onto us as customers. Your analogy is an interesting one regarding the tractors. In and of itself it's very illustrative, however, you left out the real kicker. If that operator that is capped at 300k but selling the gasoline back to you at a higher price that would be the situation we have here today with how these fees are structured. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/20/13 12:20 AM, "Drake Pallister" wrote: >To any interested, > >What Owen says is true and has been the way forever. >Once an ISP grows beyond a certain size, everything else (resources) is >free, so to speak. > >That sort of reminds me of the USA Income tax System in many aspects. > >I've been a proponent the I.R.S. and States, having a Flat Tax, based >upon exactly what you earn (less deductons, of course). > >My analogy of tonight will be one of a fuel filling station and tractor >trailers. > >If I was a single owner-operator of my big rig Kenworth, I'd be paying >for every gallon of diesel fuel I filled up with. >Then as my truck fleet grows (or compare to a different, but larger >fleet), they also pay for the gallons of fuel they put in the >tank. > >However, once my truck fleet, or some other trucking fleet reaches the >purchase and consumption of (let's say 300K Gallons a >month)---- > >Imagine a dollar cap, where if they consume 300K gallons, 500K, or even a >Million gallons of fuel per month--- they are capped at >the 300K gallons "bought" regardless of how many gallons burned on the >roadways, charging whatever per mile for freight transport.. > > > >Now, back to the smaller fleets of 1, 3, or 5 tractor trailers are still >having to pay for the gallons they actually optain at the >truck stop / gas station. > >That's the end of the analogy. It may partially relate to our industry >and IP's resources, or it may get the smack-down by others >smarter and more experienced than me. > >However, I "won't" pass an opinion either way with my comparison of a >I.R.S. Flat tax idea, or the Diesel fuel analogy, as it might >relate to flat rate billing for IP numbers allocation. > >Well, maybe I will pass a a vague opinion, that the billing brackets gor >asset holders maybe ought to "not" have that point of >everything after X is no additional fee. I would bet you lunch that the >asset holders in those "big block clubs" are absolutely >billing every last stinking customer 10, 15, or 20 dollars per IP (v4 for >this conversatin) per month if the customer wants or needs >an additional IP number for whatever reason (if they will even allow >additional IPs onto the account) > >That is connectivity provideres, but compare to hosted services >providers, they also usually charge the customer for more IPs. It >takes extra configuration and might or --not mean the consumption of more >bandwidth and data transfer. A hosting customer msy simply >wish to have mail on a different IP from a web site, and still different >from some subdomains. I cou;dn't say because every scenario >in hosting can be different. > >I happen to know of big connectivity provider who will sell a business >connectivity package with a /29 for xxx per month. But >wait--- If the customer needed maybe 5 extra IPs for random independent >purposes, the provider could just increase the customer to a >/28 of IPv4 without adding any additional routers, cables, fibers, >cablemodems, bandwidth, monthly data transfer, etc. Yet,Yet,Yet, >the provider would outright refuse to just increase the size of the IP >net from a /29 to a /28 (ok even for a small fee)---- But >Nope--- they will make the customer purchase and pay monthly $xxx for a >complete second account of a second /29 which might not >even be in a contiguous block with the first /29. I'm asking myself if >that kind super-duper connectivity should keep getting more >IP numbers at no additional fee past the ARIN fees cutoff point. > >Something doesn't smell like fresh morning mountain air and blossoming >flowers with those kinds of business practices. > >I'm simply tossing my thoughts out there and not demanding one procedure >or another, as it will end up however it does anyhow. > >Aside from all that, I can not foresee the future when everything >electrical has a v6 IP number, even my toaster or refrigerator. >That will be an interesting ride to watch. Just think about a publicly >addressable microwave oven. > >~Drake > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Owen DeLong" >To: >Cc: >Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 3:20 AM >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > >> >> On Apr 18, 2013, at 08:52 , Jon Daniels wrote: >> >>>> Yes, the fee structure tops out at XXL. Once you reach a certain size >>>>and are paying $32,000/year, you don't have to pay more >>>> even as you get more addresses. >>>> >>>> In reality, extending that pricing linearly beyond XXL wouldn't >>>>change pricing at the lower tiers by much. Further, it is very >>>> unlikely that those organizations are actually creating costs for >>>>ARIN that would come even close to doing so. >>>> >>>> Let's assume, for a moment, that an ISP existed that held >>>By your argument, said ISP should, instead of $32,000/year, >>>> pay $256,000/year instead of $32,000/year. To the best of my >>>>knowledge, there is no such ISP and >>>> there are probably fewer than 5 ISPs in the >>>$128,000/year, so your maximum additional yield >>>> there is $480,000/year. Of the remaining 48 organizations in the XX-L >>>>category, I have no idea where the split would >>>> fall between the $64,000 bracket you would establish at >>>vs. the existing $32,000 bracket. My best guess >>>> would be a ~50/50 split, so let's say 24 organizations. >>>> >>>> So, you would increase costs for top-end organizations as follows: >>>> 5 * 96,000 >>>> 24 * 32,000 >>>> =============== >>>> $1,248,000 >>>> >>>> If we were to spread that evenly across the X-S, S, and M registrants >>>>(total 3818->3306 organizations), you would save each of >>>> those organizations less than $400 per year. >>>> >>>> I simply don't buy that it's somehow more fair to inflict 64k and >>>>128k/year pricing on to a small number of organizations at the >>>> top end to subsidize $400 discounts to 3300 other organizations. >>> >>> >>> As a percentage of the involved organizations annual expenses, it >>> could in fact be *more* fair. I don't know all the XX-Large orgs >>> involved, other than an example of my own company paying $2000/year on >>> the upcoming fee schedule with $60k in annual expenses and a /8 holder >>> paying $32,000/year with $1 billion in expenses (quickly looking at a >>> list of /8 holders, a significant portion have annual expenses way >>> over $1 billion / year). >> >> Most of the /8 holders you're looking at are: >> 1. Legacy and don't pay ARIN fees. >> 2. Not ISPs. >> >>> >>> XX-large: >>> $32,000 is 0.0032% of $1 billion. >> >> Red herring. >> >>> My company: >>> $2000 is ~3.3%of $60,000. >>> >>> As a percentage of operating expenses my small company pays 1031 >>> (101,031%?) times more for IP address space (or registration services >>> - depending on how you want to look at it). The number would be >>> similar for net income, gross income, and virtually any other >>> comparable. >> >> So far, ARIN doesn't base fees on gross revenues or annual expenses. If >>you >> would like to see ARIN start collecting the information necessary to do >>so >> and switch to a fee structure based on that, you should submit a >>suggestion >> to the board. >> >>> I would not call this 'inflicting' fees upon on XX-Larges. I would >>> call it paying a fair share that everyone else has been paying, but >>> somehow XX-Larges have been avoiding. Adding $128,000 per year to a >>> $1 billion dollar budget is more like a fly landing atop a mountain >>> than an infliction. >> >> Again, I don't think this is an accurate reflection of the actual XX-L >> organizations paying the actual fees. >> >>> Saving $400 per year would be significant to my company. I've been >>> reading this ongoing debate with much interest and so far I have not >>> heard any good arguments for not increasing the fees for holders of >>> aggregates larger than /14 all the way to /8. >>> >>> The more I've watched this discussion the more I've noticed the fact >>> that small and medium companies are subsidizing the large companies >>> with free lunches via ARIN fees. >> >> Not when you consider how their activities impact ARIN's costs. >> >> 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. >> > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Sat Apr 20 07:49:00 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:49:00 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: So I think it's been established that quite a few folks think the past, current, and proposed fee structure doesn't adequately deal with the /14 and larger organisations. The next question is what should that fee structure look like? How should it be scaled on IPv6? Is it better to substantially lower the fees for the smaller orgs or to instead plow the revenue into keeping initial /32 IPv6 allocations free until X threshold has been reached? Maybe it's possible to do both. A couple ideas have been suggested that include: 1. Doubling the fees for every 2 bits 2. Going based on the number of total /24's 3. Increasing fees for every /x you go up 4. Creating more tiers at the top I think #1 & #3 may be the two most interesting ones as they can be translated directly to the IPv6 fee schedule. What are some suggestions on what that fee structure would look like? My sense is that there should be a floor for costs but this isn't rooted in anything in particular other than $8 seems hardly worth billing. Should there be a ceiling? It seems like that's at the root of what several are unhappy with. John, can you please tell us what the current smallest/largest ISP allocation is so we can have an ideas as to what we are dealing with here? Suggestions? Thanks, Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 20, 2013, at 12:22 AM, "Drake Pallister" wrote: > To any interested, > > What Owen says is true and has been the way forever. > Once an ISP grows beyond a certain size, everything else (resources) is free, so to speak. > > That sort of reminds me of the USA Income tax System in many aspects. > > I've been a proponent the I.R.S. and States, having a Flat Tax, based upon exactly what you earn (less deductons, of course). > > My analogy of tonight will be one of a fuel filling station and tractor trailers. > > If I was a single owner-operator of my big rig Kenworth, I'd be paying for every gallon of diesel fuel I filled up with. > Then as my truck fleet grows (or compare to a different, but larger fleet), they also pay for the gallons of fuel they put in the tank. > > However, once my truck fleet, or some other trucking fleet reaches the purchase and consumption of (let's say 300K Gallons a month)---- > Imagine a dollar cap, where if they consume 300K gallons, 500K, or even a Million gallons of fuel per month--- they are capped at the 300K gallons "bought" regardless of how many gallons burned on the roadways, charging whatever per mile for freight transport.. > > > > Now, back to the smaller fleets of 1, 3, or 5 tractor trailers are still having to pay for the gallons they actually optain at the truck stop / gas station. > > That's the end of the analogy. It may partially relate to our industry and IP's resources, or it may get the smack-down by others smarter and more experienced than me. > > However, I "won't" pass an opinion either way with my comparison of a I.R.S. Flat tax idea, or the Diesel fuel analogy, as it might relate to flat rate billing for IP numbers allocation. > > Well, maybe I will pass a a vague opinion, that the billing brackets gor asset holders maybe ought to "not" have that point of everything after X is no additional fee. I would bet you lunch that the asset holders in those "big block clubs" are absolutely billing every last stinking customer 10, 15, or 20 dollars per IP (v4 for this conversatin) per month if the customer wants or needs an additional IP number for whatever reason (if they will even allow additional IPs onto the account) > > That is connectivity provideres, but compare to hosted services providers, they also usually charge the customer for more IPs. It takes extra configuration and might or --not mean the consumption of more bandwidth and data transfer. A hosting customer msy simply wish to have mail on a different IP from a web site, and still different from some subdomains. I cou;dn't say because every scenario in hosting can be different. > > I happen to know of big connectivity provider who will sell a business connectivity package with a /29 for xxx per month. But wait--- If the customer needed maybe 5 extra IPs for random independent purposes, the provider could just increase the customer to a /28 of IPv4 without adding any additional routers, cables, fibers, cablemodems, bandwidth, monthly data transfer, etc. Yet,Yet,Yet, the provider would outright refuse to just increase the size of the IP net from a /29 to a /28 (ok even for a small fee)---- But Nope--- they will make the customer purchase and pay monthly $xxx for a complete second account of a second /29 which might not even be in a contiguous block with the first /29. I'm asking myself if that kind super-duper connectivity should keep getting more IP numbers at no additional fee past the ARIN fees cutoff point. > > Something doesn't smell like fresh morning mountain air and blossoming flowers with those kinds of business practices. > > I'm simply tossing my thoughts out there and not demanding one procedure or another, as it will end up however it does anyhow. > > Aside from all that, I can not foresee the future when everything electrical has a v6 IP number, even my toaster or refrigerator. That will be an interesting ride to watch. Just think about a publicly addressable microwave oven. > > ~Drake > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 3:20 AM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > >> >> On Apr 18, 2013, at 08:52 , Jon Daniels wrote: >> >>>> Yes, the fee structure tops out at XXL. Once you reach a certain size and are paying $32,000/year, you don't have to pay more even as you get more addresses. >>>> >>>> In reality, extending that pricing linearly beyond XXL wouldn't change pricing at the lower tiers by much. Further, it is very unlikely that those organizations are actually creating costs for ARIN that would come even close to doing so. >>>> >>>> Let's assume, for a moment, that an ISP existed that held >>> there are probably fewer than 5 ISPs in the >>> there is $480,000/year. Of the remaining 48 organizations in the XX-L category, I have no idea where the split would >>>> fall between the $64,000 bracket you would establish at >>> would be a ~50/50 split, so let's say 24 organizations. >>>> >>>> So, you would increase costs for top-end organizations as follows: >>>> 5 * 96,000 >>>> 24 * 32,000 >>>> =============== >>>> $1,248,000 >>>> >>>> If we were to spread that evenly across the X-S, S, and M registrants (total 3818->3306 organizations), you would save each of those organizations less than $400 per year. >>>> >>>> I simply don't buy that it's somehow more fair to inflict 64k and 128k/year pricing on to a small number of organizations at the top end to subsidize $400 discounts to 3300 other organizations. >>> >>> >>> As a percentage of the involved organizations annual expenses, it >>> could in fact be *more* fair. I don't know all the XX-Large orgs >>> involved, other than an example of my own company paying $2000/year on >>> the upcoming fee schedule with $60k in annual expenses and a /8 holder >>> paying $32,000/year with $1 billion in expenses (quickly looking at a >>> list of /8 holders, a significant portion have annual expenses way >>> over $1 billion / year). >> >> Most of the /8 holders you're looking at are: >> 1. Legacy and don't pay ARIN fees. >> 2. Not ISPs. >> >>> >>> XX-large: >>> $32,000 is 0.0032% of $1 billion. >> >> Red herring. >> >>> My company: >>> $2000 is ~3.3%of $60,000. >>> >>> As a percentage of operating expenses my small company pays 1031 >>> (101,031%?) times more for IP address space (or registration services >>> - depending on how you want to look at it). The number would be >>> similar for net income, gross income, and virtually any other >>> comparable. >> >> So far, ARIN doesn't base fees on gross revenues or annual expenses. If you >> would like to see ARIN start collecting the information necessary to do so >> and switch to a fee structure based on that, you should submit a suggestion >> to the board. >> >>> I would not call this 'inflicting' fees upon on XX-Larges. I would >>> call it paying a fair share that everyone else has been paying, but >>> somehow XX-Larges have been avoiding. Adding $128,000 per year to a >>> $1 billion dollar budget is more like a fly landing atop a mountain >>> than an infliction. >> >> Again, I don't think this is an accurate reflection of the actual XX-L >> organizations paying the actual fees. >> >>> Saving $400 per year would be significant to my company. I've been >>> reading this ongoing debate with much interest and so far I have not >>> heard any good arguments for not increasing the fees for holders of >>> aggregates larger than /14 all the way to /8. >>> >>> The more I've watched this discussion the more I've noticed the fact >>> that small and medium companies are subsidizing the large companies >>> with free lunches via ARIN fees. >> >> Not when you consider how their activities impact ARIN's costs. >> >> 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Apr 20 10:05:12 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:05:12 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBDE989@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 20, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > So I think it's been established that quite a few folks think the past, current, and proposed fee structure doesn't adequately deal with the /14 and larger organisations. The next question is what should that fee structure look like? How should it be scaled on IPv6? Is it better to substantially lower the fees for the smaller orgs or to instead plow the revenue into keeping initial /32 IPv6 allocations free until X threshold has been reached? Maybe it's possible to do both. > > A couple ideas have been suggested that include: > 1. Doubling the fees for every 2 bits > 2. Going based on the number of total /24's > 3. Increasing fees for every /x you go up > 4. Creating more tiers at the top > > I think #1 & #3 may be the two most interesting ones as they can be translated directly to the IPv6 fee schedule. > > What are some suggestions on what that fee structure would look like? Jesse - Could you first describe the philosophy of the fees that you are trying to advance? In particular, are you seeking fees that represent costs, fees that represent "value", or fees that represent ability to pay? > My sense is that there should be a floor for costs but this isn't rooted in anything in particular other than $8 seems hardly worth billing. Note that there are aspects to ARIN other than the registry, for example, ARIN is active in Internet Governance discussions globally to educate and further protect the ability of this community to manage Internet resources. ARIN members also have the ability to participate in organization governance of ARIN (through elections and Member's Meetings). Are you proposing that these costs be considered as part of the overall registry fee structure or separately? > Should there be a ceiling? It seems like that's at the root of what several are unhappy with. John, can you please tell us what the current smallest/largest ISP allocation is so we can have an ideas as to what we are dealing with here? The smallest is /24, largest is /8. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From drake.pallister at duraserver.com Sat Apr 20 22:49:07 2013 From: drake.pallister at duraserver.com (Drake Pallister) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 22:49:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBDE989@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <5FB07665DFBA409F8538E348EF867C87@dp9100> Hello Folks, Since v6 is coming along more and more as needed, so much talk had been devoted to IPv6. But... I just would like to reinforce a reminder that there is a heck of a lot of v4 out there, and it's not going to go away in my lifetime. Therefore my reminder in all this price structuring, end what-not, that the v4 resources not be forgotten and be kept right up there in the front of the ARIN decision makers' minds. That suggestion about billing v4's on a "per /24" holding sounded like it has merit. A /24 is something that everyone can relate to and I would bet there are more v4 numbers out there in the environment using a /24 as a cut-point (the phrase "reference size") might be a good phrase to use when making judgments, because "cut points" are where network operators would have chopped their resources up by the most, for distribution, reallocation, (assignment, but not so often much often smaller like /26/28/29 for individual commercial end user customers), and of course the /32 being a lone soldier network. Speaking of that /32 assignment, it takes a few IPs to give someone one IP, right? Back to the famous v4 /24 division size, to save having to have a network number and a bcast number for each Static IP DSL customer, in my on-site tech.repair work I had noticed alot of typical Static IP DSL lines where the very end user 's settings would be-- 1) his DSL single IP, 2.) A gateway IP reflecting /24, and 3) a 255.255.255.0 Wan side netmask . That further instills in me that even nameless big telco providers chop up their distribution by the /24 as far ad v4's go. Dynamic assignement of v4 IPs on DSL are a shole different animal, but I'm just mentioning long time observations of Static IPv4 DSl lines. We can't forget about v6: A sister policy would need to be created for v6 IP's. What would the "refence size" be for v6's ? /40, nah too small, maybe /36, possibly /32. I don't have enough hands-on to recommend a "reference size" and certainly not the time and expaeience with end users to make an observation like I can with Static, telco DSL, DS1, DS3 IPv4 field work. Again, above I rever to IP distribution via connectivity companies. There is the whole other world of IP that stays within datacenters, serveer farms, and is used for hosting of services. That suggestion about needing more "tiers" at the top sounds like it has merits too. But then, if a "per /24" was instituted acrossed the board with v4 (and /xx with v6), would that do away with the need for tiers? Back to the comparison of the "I.R.S. proposal of a Flat Tax for income tax" Should everyone pay equally for their resources? Buy in bulk, get product cheaper? . (But never able to reach a quantity tier of getting more for free) And the analogy: I would believe that a Big Box home improvement store can buy light bulbs, nuts, bolts, and lawn mowers from their prospective manufacturers a whole lot cheaper than "Henry's mom-and-pop corner Hardware Store" I doubt if there would ever be a point in quantity where the manufacturer just gave the Big Box Store the merchandise for free. However, I can also debunk some of the bulk buying discounts here in the same paragraph, because I really think the various manufacturers have a special cheaper made version of the same product for selling at the Big Box style Stores. For some strange reason, I think that if I buy my outdoor lighting fixtures from the big Box Store I am getting something that's made cheaper and more flimsy than the similar looking one I bought at an industrial electrical supply house and paid a whole lot more for, but you can run it over with a bulldozer and it will survive. You all have to be the judges within your own minds. For whatever it's worth, or not, I just offer up my observations. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" To: "Jesse D. Geddis" Cc: Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 10:05 AM Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) > On Apr 20, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > >> So I think it's been established that quite a few folks think the past, current, and proposed fee structure doesn't adequately >> deal with the /14 and larger organisations. The next question is what should that fee structure look like? How should it be >> scaled on IPv6? Is it better to substantially lower the fees for the smaller orgs or to instead plow the revenue into keeping >> initial /32 IPv6 allocations free until X threshold has been reached? Maybe it's possible to do both. >> >> A couple ideas have been suggested that include: >> 1. Doubling the fees for every 2 bits >> 2. Going based on the number of total /24's >> 3. Increasing fees for every /x you go up >> 4. Creating more tiers at the top >> >> I think #1 & #3 may be the two most interesting ones as they can be translated directly to the IPv6 fee schedule. >> >> What are some suggestions on what that fee structure would look like? > > Jesse - > > Could you first describe the philosophy of the fees that you are trying to > advance? In particular, are you seeking fees that represent costs, fees that > represent "value", or fees that represent ability to pay? > >> My sense is that there should be a floor for costs but this isn't rooted in anything in particular other than $8 seems hardly >> worth billing. > > Note that there are aspects to ARIN other than the registry, for example, > ARIN is active in Internet Governance discussions globally to educate and > further protect the ability of this community to manage Internet resources. > ARIN members also have the ability to participate in organization governance > of ARIN (through elections and Member's Meetings). Are you proposing that > these costs be considered as part of the overall registry fee structure or > separately? > >> Should there be a ceiling? It seems like that's at the root of what several are unhappy with. John, can you please tell us what >> the current smallest/largest ISP allocation is so we can have an ideas as to what we are dealing with here? > > The smallest is /24, largest is /8. > > FYI, > /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 Cameron.Byrne at T-Mobile.com Sat Apr 20 23:08:44 2013 From: Cameron.Byrne at T-Mobile.com (Byrne, Cameron) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 20:08:44 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: <5FB07665DFBA409F8538E348EF867C87@dp9100> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBDE989@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net>, <5FB07665DFBA409F8538E348EF867C87@dp9100> Message-ID: <1F4ED938D73A4242BBBB1E7DD492EA0C17CC90E75C@PMBX03.gsm1900.org> If we moved away from need-based assignments, could we cut enough paper-work and process to lower fees for all? Who could argue with lower fees for all? If the problem is fees, then the problem is certainly in part expenditures and not just revenues. It's my understand ARIN is now meeting Barbados. It would be a good time for self reflection. CB From jesse at la-broadband.com Sat Apr 20 23:57:18 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 03:57:18 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBDE989@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: John, I will confer with some of the posters off list and work towards a consensus. If you could please clarify the aggregate sizes though I would appreciate it. It is my understanding that several providers hold greater than a /8 in total holdings. I think my question may have been poorly worded when I asked about allocations. I should have asked about range in total holdings by any single provider. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 4/20/13 7:05 AM, "John Curran" wrote: >On Apr 20, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Jesse D. Geddis >wrote: > >> So I think it's been established that quite a few folks think the past, >>current, and proposed fee structure doesn't adequately deal with the /14 >>and larger organisations. The next question is what should that fee >>structure look like? How should it be scaled on IPv6? Is it better to >>substantially lower the fees for the smaller orgs or to instead plow the >>revenue into keeping initial /32 IPv6 allocations free until X threshold >>has been reached? Maybe it's possible to do both. >> >> A couple ideas have been suggested that include: >> 1. Doubling the fees for every 2 bits >> 2. Going based on the number of total /24's >> 3. Increasing fees for every /x you go up >> 4. Creating more tiers at the top >> >> I think #1 & #3 may be the two most interesting ones as they can be >>translated directly to the IPv6 fee schedule. >> >> What are some suggestions on what that fee structure would look like? > >Jesse - > > Could you first describe the philosophy of the fees that you are trying >to > advance? In particular, are you seeking fees that represent costs, >fees that > represent "value", or fees that represent ability to pay? > >> My sense is that there should be a floor for costs but this isn't >>rooted in anything in particular other than $8 seems hardly worth >>billing. > > Note that there are aspects to ARIN other than the registry, for >example, > ARIN is active in Internet Governance discussions globally to educate >and > further protect the ability of this community to manage Internet >resources. > ARIN members also have the ability to participate in organization >governance > of ARIN (through elections and Member's Meetings). Are you proposing >that > these costs be considered as part of the overall registry fee structure >or > separately? > >> Should there be a ceiling? It seems like that's at the root of what >>several are unhappy with. John, can you please tell us what the current >>smallest/largest ISP allocation is so we can have an ideas as to what we >>are dealing with here? > > The smallest is /24, largest is /8. > >FYI, >/John > >John Curran >President and CEO >ARIN > From jcurran at arin.net Sun Apr 21 01:25:39 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 05:25:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBE695D@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > John, > > I will confer with some of the posters off list and work towards a > consensus. If you could please clarify the aggregate sizes though I would > appreciate it. It is my understanding that several providers hold greater > than a /8 in total holdings. I think my question may have been poorly > worded when I asked about allocations. I should have asked about range in > total holdings by any single provider. All resources (including those not under RSA), or all resources held under LRSA or RSA, or just all resources held under RSA? (Note that there are contractual limits on the ability to increase rates to legacy address holders under LRSA, and that legacy holders under no form of the RSA are not paying anything for registration services at this time.) Thanks for clarifying! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Sun Apr 21 13:28:58 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:28:58 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBF407B@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > John, > > I will confer with some of the posters off list and work towards a > consensus. If you could please clarify the aggregate sizes though I would > appreciate it. It is my understanding that several providers hold greater > than a /8 in total holdings. I think my question may have been poorly > worded when I asked about allocations. I should have asked about range in > total holdings by any single provider. As requested - please find attached a histogram of total IPv4 ISP address holdings. These are resources covered by standard RSA; as discussed, we omitted legacy registrations not under any agreement and legacy resources under LRSA as it is not apparent that they would be valid to consider in your proposal for alternative fee structures. Please let me know if this addresses your question or if any additional information is needed. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IPv4 ISP Holdings.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 65047 bytes Desc: IPv4 ISP Holdings.pdf URL: From drake.pallister at duraserver.com Sun Apr 21 16:12:39 2013 From: drake.pallister at duraserver.com (Drake Pallister) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:12:39 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Graph fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBF407B@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Hello Mr. Curran, In the graph of v4 ISP holdings you posted please tell me what the grey sections vs. the blue represents. I have a couple of ideas of the grey, but want to be sure. I looked but did not see a legend. This graph is fairly up to date? Respectfully, Drake Pallister ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" To: "Jesse D. Geddis" Cc: Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > John, > > I will confer with some of the posters off list and work towards a > consensus. If you could please clarify the aggregate sizes though I would > appreciate it. It is my understanding that several providers hold greater > than a /8 in total holdings. I think my question may have been poorly > worded when I asked about allocations. I should have asked about range in > total holdings by any single provider. As requested - please find attached a histogram of total IPv4 ISP address holdings. These are resources covered by standard RSA; as discussed, we omitted legacy registrations not under any agreement and legacy resources under LRSA as it is not apparent that they would be valid to consider in your proposal for alternative fee structures. Please let me know if this addresses your question or if any additional information is needed. 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 Sun Apr 21 16:34:54 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:34:54 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Graph fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBF407B@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBF62C7@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 21, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Drake Pallister wrote: > Hello Mr. Curran, (or simply "John", as you prefer...) > In the graph of v4 ISP holdings you posted please tell me what the grey sections vs. the blue represents. I have a couple of ideas of the grey, but want to be sure. I looked but did not see a legend. This graph is fairly up to date? Each column on the histogram represents the number of ISPs who has that amount of total IPv4 address space holdings. The columns start at dark blue and becoming lighter at higher total counts of ISPs. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Sun Apr 21 18:38:20 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:38:20 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: <1F4ED938D73A4242BBBB1E7DD492EA0C17CC90E75C@PMBX03.gsm1900.org> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBDE989@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <5FB07665DFBA409F8538E348EF867C87@dp9100> <1F4ED938D73A4242BBBB1E7DD492EA0C17CC90E75C@PMBX03.gsm1900.org> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBF8857@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:08 PM, "Byrne, Cameron" wrote: > If we moved away from need-based assignments, could we cut enough paper-work and process to lower fees for all? Who could argue with lower fees for all? Cameron - If you both removed needs-assessment and also had very few policy changes, we should be able to focus ARIN on what remains to be done with corresponding savings in the cost structure. This is, by the way, potentially similar to the long-term model with successful IPv6 adoption, and I provided some insight into the potential costs in the attached email send to this list last week. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN Begin forwarded message: > From: John Curran > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > Date: April 16, 2013 11:03:50 PM AST > To: John Von Essen > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:32 AM, John Von Essen wrote: > >> Just for thought.... >> >> Lets say in the future (5 years from now), the entire world has switched over to IPv6 and IPv4 is completely dead in the public space. > > A reasonable milestone to consider... I'll note that it is unlikely that > folks will immediately reprovision existing working IPv4 customers, so the > earlier milestone of when the vast majority of content is reachable via > IPv6 is also of interest, since it is when businesses can stop worrying > about IPv4 (i.e. they can provision new customers using IPv6, either w/o > IPv4 or with access only to central IPv4 gateway services for access for > any straggling IPv4-only content) > >> Since v6 space is so huge and abundant, the fees by Arin, Apnic, etc.,. should be almost nothing compared to what they are now since the effort to manage and give it out will be minimal. The blocks are so large, that 99% of Orgs would request one block, and never ever need to make another request again. So the number of support tickets by Arin for resource requests would be a fraction of what they are now. Not to mention, there wont be as many small multi-homed ISP's applying since getting IP space from upstreams will no longer be "difficult". > > Agreed. There's still a need for the registry, including various forms > of access such as Whois, RESTul whois, and then related services such > as reverse DNS and RPKI, but the amount of development should drop > down, particularly if the policy base is stable. With less requests > for changes, our development workload should be a lot shorter than > today > >> This means in the future that bodies like Arin will get smaller, with less staff, and a much smaller operating budget. > > Correct. Amazingly, the ARIN Board discusses this possibility quite a > bit, thinking about that long-term milestones and their implications for > ARIN's structure and costs. ARIN's core registry costs still include > servers, backup, and related system administration tasks even at that > milestone, but as noted in a previous post, this is only about 1/3 of > our ongoing budget today. Even if you add in the ARIN governance and > same level of activity in Internet Governance, you've only got 50% of > the costs of today. From a practical perspective, it's unlikely that > changes in policy and system development will ever truly drop to zero, > but it certainly could be a lot less than today, with corresponding > savings in operating budget. > > I gave an related estimate on the ARIN ppml mailing list a few weeks back > , that > it's conceivable that in a steady state that ARIN's costs on a per ISP basis > (presently about $2800) could be significantly lower (approximately $1500) > if one presumes IPv6 success leading to very stable policy and system > requirements. > >> Hmmm, maybe this is why IPv4 is still around, and will remain for a very very long time. > > Not ARIN's fault... We've done our share, in that ARIN's services have all > been IPv6 reachable for years. Get the vast majority of content reachable > via IPv6, and then your described nirvana is indeed within reach. > >> Heck, if we can upgrade every computers OS for Y2K, we can switch the world over to IPv6 and kill v4 once and for all. > > Having lived through that comparison for a decade, I'll note that Y2K was > an issue whereby you could test your own systems in advance, and could see > the breakage and fix it in preparation for your next test. Incentives were > well-aligned with the problem and required steps for solution. With IPv4 > depletion, the problem is that ISPs depend on being able to provision new > customers, but the rest of the Internet doesn't even realize there is an > issue. That is a very, very different situation with respect to incentives. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN From drake.pallister at duraserver.com Sun Apr 21 22:28:34 2013 From: drake.pallister at duraserver.com (Drake Pallister) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:28:34 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) References: <5BF097E654394BBE815E669E0E4E7693@dp9100> Message-ID: <6E1CE8ED9F574C7695018964BCEFE335@dp9100> Gentlemen, With all due respect--- going away from need-based allocation? If we (the Internet supplier community, via ARIN) moves away from "need-based assignments"--- That chops the head off of something called "Justification" and then MegaTegaCellTellaFlopolis, Inc. throws down a billion dollars on the table and owns all IP addresses available now, and those that may be come re-available (v4's) through atrition of companies closing down, moving to v6, or using more "private sapce" within their own fiber, cable, or tower-to-tower IP based communications. Yes, I am certain the justification process costs ARIN money to perform; just like a police department has costs to investigate a crime; or an employer to do background checks on potential new hires. Without the Justification element, the procurement is simply a matter of paying money. Stewardship must once again wake up from it's afternoon nap, and protect the welfare of all aspects of the Internet including the Citizens, the Small, Medium, and Big service provideres, and by doing that we even have the trickle down effect to equipment makers, service technicians, installers, and you ge the picture. BUT-- OK, I would say I'd go along with a "reduced justification" for V6, but no way for V4. We sat on our thumbs knowing v4 was running out but stuck out collective head in the sand like an Ostrich hoping it was just a bad dream to soon wake up from. Since there are enough v6 IP numbers for pebble on Pebble Beach, such a plan as yours might be ok, but has to be watched. That was a component in the hemorrhage of ipv4's for so long (not being a tight enough Steward) (no blame to anyone, it was the trend and there was an open faucet); until ---Oops, we're going to run out. There won't likely be a run-out of v6's unless the stewardship's men allow the v6 space to be practically bought up in mega "ranges" not even using the words networks or blocks. Sorry, (actually not sorry), that I would ask ARIN to hold the line on releasing Justification. That's something the FCC should have done instead of squandering a few big handy dandy spectrums by "auction" which is no more than a purchase to the highest bidder that automatically precludes Drake's cellular, or the Jones Family Cellular startup company from getting a couple of megahertz to "start slow and build up". So-- ARIN, look how the FCC butchered the potential for cellular competition; and sit back and think that one over. Two examples of things: Inside a closed private loop like a cable or a fiber, the owner can use whatever they want for frequencies or IPs. CableCo's used to utilize some overelapping frequencies inside the Coax that would have interfered with air traffic control if they became airborn, so they had to "sniff out" leaks to keep the overlapped frequencies inside the cables and fix a leakage quickly. Inside a private fiber run, ring, or loop, the operator could easily utilize overlapped public IP space as long as it doesn't get intermingled with public Internet. Oh, and in that cable co. sniffing maintenance on their old analog systems, they often found lots of cable tv theives who tapped in somewhere using substandard materials and poor methods of connecting. (Unrelated, but interesting) A local cable tv employee told me years ago, about a cable thief, a sports bar no less, who was flooding the neighborhood for a half mile with those overlapped aviation frequencies because he hooked up his A/B switch equipment wrong and was also broadcasting the cable out of his roof-top antenna. Back to the subject. Justification has to stay. Relax it for v6, but in good stewardship, such a deciision has to be monitored and watched for those "what if's" which always happen in every line of work. Respectfully, Drake Pallister --------------------------------------------------------------- >> On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:08 PM, "Byrne, Cameron" wrote: >> >>> If we moved away from need-based assignments, could we cut enough paper-work and process to lower fees for all? Who could argue >>> with lower fees for all? >> >> Cameron - > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Curran" > To: "Byrne, Cameron" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:38 PM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) > > >> On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:08 PM, "Byrne, Cameron" wrote: >> >>> If we moved away from need-based assignments, could we cut enough paper-work and process to lower fees for all? Who could argue >>> with lower fees for all? >> >> Cameron - >> >> If you both removed needs-assessment and also had very few policy >> changes, we should be able to focus ARIN on what remains to be done >> with corresponding savings in the cost structure. This is, by the >> way, potentially similar to the long-term model with successful IPv6 >> adoption, and I provided some insight into the potential costs in the >> attached email send to this list last week. >> >> Thanks! >> /John >> >> John Curran >> President and CEO >> ARIN >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: John Curran >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >>> Date: April 16, 2013 11:03:50 PM AST >>> To: John Von Essen >>> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >>> >>> On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:32 AM, John Von Essen wrote: >>> >>>> Just for thought.... >>>> >>>> Lets say in the future (5 years from now), the entire world has switched over to IPv6 and IPv4 is completely dead in the public >>>> space. >>> >>> A reasonable milestone to consider... I'll note that it is unlikely that >>> folks will immediately reprovision existing working IPv4 customers, so the >>> earlier milestone of when the vast majority of content is reachable via >>> IPv6 is also of interest, since it is when businesses can stop worrying >>> about IPv4 (i.e. they can provision new customers using IPv6, either w/o >>> IPv4 or with access only to central IPv4 gateway services for access for >>> any straggling IPv4-only content) >>> >>>> Since v6 space is so huge and abundant, the fees by Arin, Apnic, etc.,. should be almost nothing compared to what they are now >>>> since the effort to manage and give it out will be minimal. The blocks are so large, that 99% of Orgs would request one block, >>>> and never ever need to make another request again. So the number of support tickets by Arin for resource requests would be a >>>> fraction of what they are now. Not to mention, there wont be as many small multi-homed ISP's applying since getting IP space >>>> from upstreams will no longer be "difficult". >>> >>> Agreed. There's still a need for the registry, including various forms >>> of access such as Whois, RESTul whois, and then related services such >>> as reverse DNS and RPKI, but the amount of development should drop >>> down, particularly if the policy base is stable. With less requests >>> for changes, our development workload should be a lot shorter than >>> today >>> >>>> This means in the future that bodies like Arin will get smaller, with less staff, and a much smaller operating budget. >>> >>> Correct. Amazingly, the ARIN Board discusses this possibility quite a >>> bit, thinking about that long-term milestones and their implications for >>> ARIN's structure and costs. ARIN's core registry costs still include >>> servers, backup, and related system administration tasks even at that >>> milestone, but as noted in a previous post, this is only about 1/3 of >>> our ongoing budget today. Even if you add in the ARIN governance and >>> same level of activity in Internet Governance, you've only got 50% of >>> the costs of today. From a practical perspective, it's unlikely that >>> changes in policy and system development will ever truly drop to zero, >>> but it certainly could be a lot less than today, with corresponding >>> savings in operating budget. >>> >>> I gave an related estimate on the ARIN ppml mailing list a few weeks back >>> , that >>> it's conceivable that in a steady state that ARIN's costs on a per ISP basis >>> (presently about $2800) could be significantly lower (approximately $1500) >>> if one presumes IPv6 success leading to very stable policy and system >>> requirements. >>> >>>> Hmmm, maybe this is why IPv4 is still around, and will remain for a very very long time. >>> >>> Not ARIN's fault... We've done our share, in that ARIN's services have all >>> been IPv6 reachable for years. Get the vast majority of content reachable >>> via IPv6, and then your described nirvana is indeed within reach. >>> >>>> Heck, if we can upgrade every computers OS for Y2K, we can switch the world over to IPv6 and kill v4 once and for all. >>> >>> Having lived through that comparison for a decade, I'll note that Y2K was >>> an issue whereby you could test your own systems in advance, and could see >>> the breakage and fix it in preparation for your next test. Incentives were >>> well-aligned with the problem and required steps for solution. With IPv4 >>> depletion, the problem is that ISPs depend on being able to provision new >>> customers, but the rest of the Internet doesn't even realize there is an >>> issue. That is a very, very different situation with respect to incentives. >>> >>> FYI, >>> /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 Sun Apr 21 22:39:06 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 02:39:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: <6E1CE8ED9F574C7695018964BCEFE335@dp9100> References: <5BF097E654394BBE815E669E0E4E7693@dp9100> <6E1CE8ED9F574C7695018964BCEFE335@dp9100> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBFDCCB@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Drake - To be clear, I was not advocating any policy change, simply answering Cameron's question regarding costs. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Apr 21, 2013, at 10:28 PM, Drake Pallister wrote: > Gentlemen, > With all due respect--- going away from need-based allocation? > > If we (the Internet supplier community, via ARIN) moves away from "need-based assignments"--- That chops the head off of something called "Justification" and then MegaTegaCellTellaFlopolis, Inc. throws down a billion dollars on the table and owns all IP addresses available now, and those that may be come re-available (v4's) through atrition of companies closing down, moving to v6, or using more "private sapce" within their own fiber, cable, or tower-to-tower IP based communications. > > Yes, I am certain the justification process costs ARIN money to perform; just like a police department has costs to investigate a crime; or an employer to do background checks on potential new hires. > > Without the Justification element, the procurement is simply a matter of paying money. Stewardship must once again wake up from it's afternoon nap, and protect the welfare of all aspects of the Internet including the Citizens, the Small, Medium, and Big service provideres, and by doing that we even have the trickle down effect to equipment makers, service technicians, installers, and you ge the picture. > > BUT-- OK, I would say I'd go along with a "reduced justification" for V6, but no way for V4. We sat on our thumbs knowing v4 was running out but stuck out collective head in the sand like an Ostrich hoping it was just a bad dream to soon wake up from. > > Since there are enough v6 IP numbers for pebble on Pebble Beach, such a plan as yours might be ok, but has to be watched. That was a component in the hemorrhage of ipv4's for so long (not being a tight enough Steward) (no blame to anyone, it was the trend and there was an open faucet); until ---Oops, we're going to run out. > > There won't likely be a run-out of v6's unless the stewardship's men allow the v6 space to be practically bought up in mega "ranges" not even using the words networks or blocks. > > Sorry, (actually not sorry), that I would ask ARIN to hold the line on releasing Justification. That's something the FCC should have done instead of squandering a few big handy dandy spectrums by "auction" which is no more than a purchase to the highest bidder that automatically precludes Drake's cellular, or the Jones Family Cellular startup company from getting a couple of megahertz to "start slow and build up". > > So-- ARIN, look how the FCC butchered the potential for cellular competition; and sit back and think that one over. > > Two examples of things: Inside a closed private loop like a cable or a fiber, the owner can use whatever they want for frequencies or IPs. CableCo's used to utilize some overelapping frequencies inside the Coax that would have interfered with air traffic control if they became airborn, so they had to "sniff out" leaks to keep the overlapped frequencies inside the cables and fix a leakage quickly. Inside a private fiber run, ring, or loop, the operator could easily utilize overlapped public IP space as long as it doesn't get intermingled with public Internet. Oh, and in that cable co. sniffing maintenance on their old analog systems, they often found lots of cable tv theives who tapped in somewhere using substandard materials and poor methods of connecting. (Unrelated, but interesting) A local cable tv employee told me years ago, about a cable thief, a sports bar no less, who was flooding the neighborhood for a half mile with those overlapped aviation frequencies because he hooked up his A/B switch equipment wrong and was also broadcasting the cable out of his roof-top antenna. > > Back to the subject. Justification has to stay. Relax it for v6, but in good stewardship, such a deciision has to be monitored and watched for those "what if's" which always happen in every line of work. > > Respectfully, > Drake Pallister > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:08 PM, "Byrne, Cameron" wrote: >>> >>>> If we moved away from need-based assignments, could we cut enough paper-work and process to lower fees for all? Who could argue with lower fees for all? >>> >>> Cameron - > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" >> To: "Byrne, Cameron" >> Cc: >> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:38 PM >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:08 PM, "Byrne, Cameron" wrote: >>> >>>> If we moved away from need-based assignments, could we cut enough paper-work and process to lower fees for all? Who could argue with lower fees for all? >>> >>> Cameron - >>> >>> If you both removed needs-assessment and also had very few policy >>> changes, we should be able to focus ARIN on what remains to be done >>> with corresponding savings in the cost structure. This is, by the >>> way, potentially similar to the long-term model with successful IPv6 >>> adoption, and I provided some insight into the potential costs in the >>> attached email send to this list last week. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> /John >>> >>> John Curran >>> President and CEO >>> ARIN >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: John Curran >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >>>> Date: April 16, 2013 11:03:50 PM AST >>>> To: John Von Essen >>>> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >>>> >>>> On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:32 AM, John Von Essen wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just for thought.... >>>>> >>>>> Lets say in the future (5 years from now), the entire world has switched over to IPv6 and IPv4 is completely dead in the public space. >>>> >>>> A reasonable milestone to consider... I'll note that it is unlikely that >>>> folks will immediately reprovision existing working IPv4 customers, so the >>>> earlier milestone of when the vast majority of content is reachable via >>>> IPv6 is also of interest, since it is when businesses can stop worrying >>>> about IPv4 (i.e. they can provision new customers using IPv6, either w/o >>>> IPv4 or with access only to central IPv4 gateway services for access for >>>> any straggling IPv4-only content) >>>> >>>>> Since v6 space is so huge and abundant, the fees by Arin, Apnic, etc.,. should be almost nothing compared to what they are now since the effort to manage and give it out will be minimal. The blocks are so large, that 99% of Orgs would request one block, and never ever need to make another request again. So the number of support tickets by Arin for resource requests would be a fraction of what they are now. Not to mention, there wont be as many small multi-homed ISP's applying since getting IP space from upstreams will no longer be "difficult". >>>> >>>> Agreed. There's still a need for the registry, including various forms >>>> of access such as Whois, RESTul whois, and then related services such >>>> as reverse DNS and RPKI, but the amount of development should drop >>>> down, particularly if the policy base is stable. With less requests >>>> for changes, our development workload should be a lot shorter than >>>> today >>>> >>>>> This means in the future that bodies like Arin will get smaller, with less staff, and a much smaller operating budget. >>>> >>>> Correct. Amazingly, the ARIN Board discusses this possibility quite a >>>> bit, thinking about that long-term milestones and their implications for >>>> ARIN's structure and costs. ARIN's core registry costs still include >>>> servers, backup, and related system administration tasks even at that >>>> milestone, but as noted in a previous post, this is only about 1/3 of >>>> our ongoing budget today. Even if you add in the ARIN governance and >>>> same level of activity in Internet Governance, you've only got 50% of >>>> the costs of today. From a practical perspective, it's unlikely that >>>> changes in policy and system development will ever truly drop to zero, >>>> but it certainly could be a lot less than today, with corresponding >>>> savings in operating budget. >>>> >>>> I gave an related estimate on the ARIN ppml mailing list a few weeks back >>>> , that >>>> it's conceivable that in a steady state that ARIN's costs on a per ISP basis >>>> (presently about $2800) could be significantly lower (approximately $1500) >>>> if one presumes IPv6 success leading to very stable policy and system >>>> requirements. >>>> >>>>> Hmmm, maybe this is why IPv4 is still around, and will remain for a very very long time. >>>> >>>> Not ARIN's fault... We've done our share, in that ARIN's services have all >>>> been IPv6 reachable for years. Get the vast majority of content reachable >>>> via IPv6, and then your described nirvana is indeed within reach. >>>> >>>>> Heck, if we can upgrade every computers OS for Y2K, we can switch the world over to IPv6 and kill v4 once and for all. >>>> >>>> Having lived through that comparison for a decade, I'll note that Y2K was >>>> an issue whereby you could test your own systems in advance, and could see >>>> the breakage and fix it in preparation for your next test. Incentives were >>>> well-aligned with the problem and required steps for solution. With IPv4 >>>> depletion, the problem is that ISPs depend on being able to provision new >>>> customers, but the rest of the Internet doesn't even realize there is an >>>> issue. That is a very, very different situation with respect to incentives. >>>> >>>> FYI, >>>> /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 drake.pallister at duraserver.com Sun Apr 21 22:56:00 2013 From: drake.pallister at duraserver.com (Drake Pallister) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:56:00 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) References: <5BF097E654394BBE815E669E0E4E7693@dp9100><6E1CE8ED9F574C7695018964BCEFE335@dp9100> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBFDCCB@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Mr.Curran, Similarly, I didn't presume that, but when that subject was brought up, I figured it best to speak up loudly about some of the potential hazards of such a methodology. Respectfully, Drake Pallister ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" To: "Drake Pallister" Cc: Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) > Drake - > > To be clear, I was not advocating any policy change, > simply answering Cameron's question regarding costs. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > On Apr 21, 2013, at 10:28 PM, Drake Pallister wrote: > >> Gentlemen, >> With all due respect--- going away from need-based allocation? >> >> If we (the Internet supplier community, via ARIN) moves away from "need-based assignments"--- That chops the head off of >> something called "Justification" and then MegaTegaCellTellaFlopolis, Inc. throws down a billion dollars on the table and owns all >> IP addresses available now, and those that may be come re-available (v4's) through atrition of companies closing down, moving to >> v6, or using more "private sapce" within their own fiber, cable, or tower-to-tower IP based communications. >> >> Yes, I am certain the justification process costs ARIN money to perform; just like a police department has costs to investigate a >> crime; or an employer to do background checks on potential new hires. >> >> Without the Justification element, the procurement is simply a matter of paying money. Stewardship must once again wake up from >> it's afternoon nap, and protect the welfare of all aspects of the Internet including the Citizens, the Small, Medium, and Big >> service provideres, and by doing that we even have the trickle down effect to equipment makers, service technicians, installers, >> and you ge the picture. >> >> BUT-- OK, I would say I'd go along with a "reduced justification" for V6, but no way for V4. We sat on our thumbs knowing v4 was >> running out but stuck out collective head in the sand like an Ostrich hoping it was just a bad dream to soon wake up from. >> >> Since there are enough v6 IP numbers for pebble on Pebble Beach, such a plan as yours might be ok, but has to be watched. That >> was a component in the hemorrhage of ipv4's for so long (not being a tight enough Steward) (no blame to anyone, it was the trend >> and there was an open faucet); until ---Oops, we're going to run out. >> >> There won't likely be a run-out of v6's unless the stewardship's men allow the v6 space to be practically bought up in mega >> "ranges" not even using the words networks or blocks. >> >> Sorry, (actually not sorry), that I would ask ARIN to hold the line on releasing Justification. That's something the FCC should >> have done instead of squandering a few big handy dandy spectrums by "auction" which is no more than a purchase to the highest >> bidder that automatically precludes Drake's cellular, or the Jones Family Cellular startup company from getting a couple of >> megahertz to "start slow and build up". >> >> So-- ARIN, look how the FCC butchered the potential for cellular competition; and sit back and think that one over. >> >> Two examples of things: Inside a closed private loop like a cable or a fiber, the owner can use whatever they want for >> frequencies or IPs. CableCo's used to utilize some overelapping frequencies inside the Coax that would have interfered with air >> traffic control if they became airborn, so they had to "sniff out" leaks to keep the overlapped frequencies inside the cables and >> fix a leakage quickly. Inside a private fiber run, ring, or loop, the operator could easily utilize overlapped public IP space as >> long as it doesn't get intermingled with public Internet. Oh, and in that cable co. sniffing maintenance on their old analog >> systems, they often found lots of cable tv theives who tapped in somewhere using substandard materials and poor methods of >> connecting. (Unrelated, but interesting) A local cable tv employee told me years ago, about a cable thief, a sports bar no less, >> who was flooding the neighborhood for a half mile with those overlapped aviation frequencies because h > e hooked up his A/B switch equipment wrong and was also broadcasting the cable out of his roof-top antenna. >> >> Back to the subject. Justification has to stay. Relax it for v6, but in good stewardship, such a deciision has to be monitored >> and watched for those "what if's" which always happen in every line of work. >> >> Respectfully, >> Drake Pallister >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>>> On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:08 PM, "Byrne, Cameron" wrote: >>>> >>>>> If we moved away from need-based assignments, could we cut enough paper-work and process to lower fees for all? Who could >>>>> argue with lower fees for all? >>>> >>>> Cameron - >> >> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" >>> To: "Byrne, Cameron" >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:38 PM >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:08 PM, "Byrne, Cameron" wrote: >>>> >>>>> If we moved away from need-based assignments, could we cut enough paper-work and process to lower fees for all? Who could >>>>> argue with lower fees for all? >>>> >>>> Cameron - >>>> >>>> If you both removed needs-assessment and also had very few policy >>>> changes, we should be able to focus ARIN on what remains to be done >>>> with corresponding savings in the cost structure. This is, by the >>>> way, potentially similar to the long-term model with successful IPv6 >>>> adoption, and I provided some insight into the potential costs in the >>>> attached email send to this list last week. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> /John >>>> >>>> John Curran >>>> President and CEO >>>> ARIN >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: John Curran >>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >>>>> Date: April 16, 2013 11:03:50 PM AST >>>>> To: John Von Essen >>>>> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:32 AM, John Von Essen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Just for thought.... >>>>>> >>>>>> Lets say in the future (5 years from now), the entire world has switched over to IPv6 and IPv4 is completely dead in the >>>>>> public space. >>>>> >>>>> A reasonable milestone to consider... I'll note that it is unlikely that >>>>> folks will immediately reprovision existing working IPv4 customers, so the >>>>> earlier milestone of when the vast majority of content is reachable via >>>>> IPv6 is also of interest, since it is when businesses can stop worrying >>>>> about IPv4 (i.e. they can provision new customers using IPv6, either w/o >>>>> IPv4 or with access only to central IPv4 gateway services for access for >>>>> any straggling IPv4-only content) >>>>> >>>>>> Since v6 space is so huge and abundant, the fees by Arin, Apnic, etc.,. should be almost nothing compared to what they are >>>>>> now since the effort to manage and give it out will be minimal. The blocks are so large, that 99% of Orgs would request one >>>>>> block, and never ever need to make another request again. So the number of support tickets by Arin for resource requests >>>>>> would be a fraction of what they are now. Not to mention, there wont be as many small multi-homed ISP's applying since >>>>>> getting IP space from upstreams will no longer be "difficult". >>>>> >>>>> Agreed. There's still a need for the registry, including various forms >>>>> of access such as Whois, RESTul whois, and then related services such >>>>> as reverse DNS and RPKI, but the amount of development should drop >>>>> down, particularly if the policy base is stable. With less requests >>>>> for changes, our development workload should be a lot shorter than >>>>> today >>>>> >>>>>> This means in the future that bodies like Arin will get smaller, with less staff, and a much smaller operating budget. >>>>> >>>>> Correct. Amazingly, the ARIN Board discusses this possibility quite a >>>>> bit, thinking about that long-term milestones and their implications for >>>>> ARIN's structure and costs. ARIN's core registry costs still include >>>>> servers, backup, and related system administration tasks even at that >>>>> milestone, but as noted in a previous post, this is only about 1/3 of >>>>> our ongoing budget today. Even if you add in the ARIN governance and >>>>> same level of activity in Internet Governance, you've only got 50% of >>>>> the costs of today. From a practical perspective, it's unlikely that >>>>> changes in policy and system development will ever truly drop to zero, >>>>> but it certainly could be a lot less than today, with corresponding >>>>> savings in operating budget. >>>>> >>>>> I gave an related estimate on the ARIN ppml mailing list a few weeks back >>>>> , that >>>>> it's conceivable that in a steady state that ARIN's costs on a per ISP basis >>>>> (presently about $2800) could be significantly lower (approximately $1500) >>>>> if one presumes IPv6 success leading to very stable policy and system >>>>> requirements. >>>>> >>>>>> Hmmm, maybe this is why IPv4 is still around, and will remain for a very very long time. >>>>> >>>>> Not ARIN's fault... We've done our share, in that ARIN's services have all >>>>> been IPv6 reachable for years. Get the vast majority of content reachable >>>>> via IPv6, and then your described nirvana is indeed within reach. >>>>> >>>>>> Heck, if we can upgrade every computers OS for Y2K, we can switch the world over to IPv6 and kill v4 once and for all. >>>>> >>>>> Having lived through that comparison for a decade, I'll note that Y2K was >>>>> an issue whereby you could test your own systems in advance, and could see >>>>> the breakage and fix it in preparation for your next test. Incentives were >>>>> well-aligned with the problem and required steps for solution. With IPv4 >>>>> depletion, the problem is that ISPs depend on being able to provision new >>>>> customers, but the rest of the Internet doesn't even realize there is an >>>>> issue. That is a very, very different situation with respect to incentives. >>>>> >>>>> FYI, >>>>> /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. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Apr 21 23:43:41 2013 From: david at cloudflare.com (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:43:41 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: <6E1CE8ED9F574C7695018964BCEFE335@dp9100> References: <5BF097E654394BBE815E669E0E4E7693@dp9100> <6E1CE8ED9F574C7695018964BCEFE335@dp9100> Message-ID: I have avoided this conversation largely because I see it primarily as rearranging deck chairs, however, Drake's note prompted me to comment. On Apr 21, 2013, at 7:28 PM, Drake Pallister wrote: > That chops the head off of something called "Justification" and then MegaTegaCellTellaFlopolis, Inc. throws down a billion dollars on the table and owns all IP addresses available now, Which would accelerate the IPv4 end game by a small number of months. Your point is? If you are not already prepared for a post-IPv4 free pool world (moving to IPv6, CGN, and/or preparing to buy IPv4 address space off the market at whatever the market will bear), your life is going to get a bit more interesting in the near future. > Stewardship must once again wake up from it's afternoon nap, and protect the welfare of all aspects of the Internet including the Citizens, the Small, Medium, and Big service provideres, and by doing that we even have the trickle down effect to equipment makers, service technicians, installers, and you ge the picture. "Stewardship" means the responsible planning and management of resources. It does not mean "protect the welfare of all aspects of the Internet including the Citizens, the Small, Medium, and Big service providers". I predict any attempt to redefine "responsible management of IPv4 addresses" beyond "allocated efficiently so they can be used to provide Internet connectivity" is going to run into a bit of headwind. Despite recent amusing attempts to revise history, if the RIRs are able to act as "stewards" it is _only_ because the community gives them the power to do so. When the RIRs act against the self-interest of the community they serve, that power will vanish quite suddenly. If your view of "stewardship" is to forcefully redistribute address space to improve "welfare" (for whatever your definition of "welfare" might be), I suspect you'll find the larger members of the community might disagree and they have _far_ more money, lawyers, lobbyists, and political power than ARIN. If you're not thinking of forceful redistribution, you have a small number of months of IPv4 free pool left, so what are you worried about again? > That's something the FCC should have done instead of squandering a few big handy dandy spectrums by "auction" which is no more than a purchase to the highest bidder that automatically precludes Drake's cellular, or the Jones Family Cellular startup company from getting a couple of megahertz to "start slow and build up". And why do you think the FCC would have done that (and why would you think the Internet would be different)? By all means, keep needs-based justification in place -- I doubt it'll be possible to get consensus on removing it before it _simply does not matter_. Regards, -drc From ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net Mon Apr 22 12:40:08 2013 From: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:40:08 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: <6E1CE8ED9F574C7695018964BCEFE335@dp9100> References: <5BF097E654394BBE815E669E0E4E7693@dp9100> <6E1CE8ED9F574C7695018964BCEFE335@dp9100> Message-ID: <517567E8.5010701@abenaki.wabanaki.net> On 4/21/13 7:28 PM, Drake Pallister wrote: > > If we (the Internet supplier community, via ARIN) moves away from > "need-based assignments"--- That chops the head off of something > called "Justification" and then MegaTegaCellTellaFlopolis, Inc. throws > down a billion dollars on the table and owns all IP addresses > available now, and those that may be come re-available (v4's) through > atrition of companies closing down, moving to v6, or using more > "private sapce" within their own fiber, cable, or tower-to-tower IP > based communications. I recently had occasion to check the transfer market in the ARIN region. I could not discern the acquisition plan of MTCTF (supra) in the data available to me. Eric From tague at win.net Mon Apr 22 13:08:55 2013 From: tague at win.net (Michael Tague) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:08:55 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBF407B@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBF407B@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <055401ce3f7c$12a4fc20$37eef460$@net> John, Regarding the legacy holders. What is the justification for continuing the legacy program? Some of our IP space (I think) fits under the legacy program. When ARIN was organized they seemed to charge more for registration of new IP than for what you already had: but it was always a hybrid. We didn't pay anything until we registered new IP (after the legacy) and then what we paid stayed more or less constant even though we never got any more IP. Are there legal limitations in what ARIN can do regarding legacy holders? You seem to require them to sign agreements and pay something, so are you really limited? Can you send the same graph updated for legacy holders? Thanks, Michael -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:29 PM To: Jesse D. Geddis Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > John, > > I will confer with some of the posters off list and work towards a > consensus. If you could please clarify the aggregate sizes though I > would appreciate it. It is my understanding that several providers > hold greater than a /8 in total holdings. I think my question may have > been poorly worded when I asked about allocations. I should have asked > about range in total holdings by any single provider. As requested - please find attached a histogram of total IPv4 ISP address holdings. These are resources covered by standard RSA; as discussed, we omitted legacy registrations not under any agreement and legacy resources under LRSA as it is not apparent that they would be valid to consider in your proposal for alternative fee structures. Please let me know if this addresses your question or if any additional information is needed. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -- BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS ------------------------------------------------------ Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 02JqFtnye) is spam: Spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02JqFtnye&m=8e6c31834726&t=20130421&c=s Not spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02JqFtnye&m=8e6c31834726&t=20130421&c=n Forget vote: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02JqFtnye&m=8e6c31834726&t=20130421&c=f ------------------------------------------------------ END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS From Keith at jcc.com Mon Apr 22 14:40:34 2013 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:40:34 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) In-Reply-To: <055401ce3f7c$12a4fc20$37eef460$@net> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FBF407B@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <055401ce3f7c$12a4fc20$37eef460$@net> Message-ID: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF3869624DBD87E740@mercury.jcc.com> Michael, Since I've been participating in the ARIN Policy and ARIN Discuss e-mail lists, there have been multiple threads disparaging legacy holders because they were not paying their fair share. When we received our /24 in 1991, the documented agreement was pretty minimal -- we asked for a class C range and were granted a class C range. The entirety of the paperwork was less than two pages. When ARIN was formed in 1997 (or whatever year), it inherited the existing allocations. Before the LRSA was created, a membership was the only mechanism through which a legacy resource holder who did not need more resources could support ARIN. Before the LRSA, there was no way I ever found for a legacy resource holder to bring those resources under the ARIN umbrella. >From my point of view at least, the contractual obligations between ARIN and legacy resource holders is pretty ambiguous. Any attempt to revoke legacy resources or to unilaterally impose fees on legacy resource holders is likely to result in a non-productive legal battle. The LRSA has been a reasonable mechanism to allow legacy resource holders to voluntarily join the ARIN fold. I haven't seen the adoption rate for quite a while, but last I looked it seemed reasonable. Keith ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare???????????????????? JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com? ???????????????????600 Newark Granville Road Phone: +1 740-587-0157????????????P.O. Box 381 Fax: +1 740-587-0163????????????Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com??????????????? USA ______________________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Tague Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 1:09 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) John, Regarding the legacy holders. What is the justification for continuing the legacy program? Some of our IP space (I think) fits under the legacy program. When ARIN was organized they seemed to charge more for registration of new IP than for what you already had: but it was always a hybrid. We didn't pay anything until we registered new IP (after the legacy) and then what we paid stayed more or less constant even though we never got any more IP. Are there legal limitations in what ARIN can do regarding legacy holders? You seem to require them to sign agreements and pay something, so are you really limited? Can you send the same graph updated for legacy holders? Thanks, Michael -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:29 PM To: Jesse D. Geddis Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > John, > > I will confer with some of the posters off list and work towards a > consensus. If you could please clarify the aggregate sizes though I > would appreciate it. It is my understanding that several providers > hold greater than a /8 in total holdings. I think my question may have > been poorly worded when I asked about allocations. I should have asked > about range in total holdings by any single provider. As requested - please find attached a histogram of total IPv4 ISP address holdings. These are resources covered by standard RSA; as discussed, we omitted legacy registrations not under any agreement and legacy resources under LRSA as it is not apparent that they would be valid to consider in your proposal for alternative fee structures. Please let me know if this addresses your question or if any additional information is needed. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -- BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS ------------------------------------------------------ Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 02JqFtnye) is spam: Spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02JqFtnye&m=8e6c31834726&t=20130421&c=s Not spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02JqFtnye&m=8e6c31834726&t=20130421&c=n Forget vote: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02JqFtnye&m=8e6c31834726&t=20130421&c=f ------------------------------------------------------ END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS _______________________________________________ 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 tague at win.net Mon Apr 22 15:29:57 2013 From: tague at win.net (Michael Tague) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:29:57 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> In watching this conversation go on for some time, it seems to me the driving issue behind it is that the current and proposed ARIN fee schedules appear (especially to us little guys) to be rather strong weighted in favor of large resource holders in two ways (that is, unfair): 1. The scale is not linear: under the current scale a /21 holder pays 569 times as much per IP as a /8 holder. While the proposed scale is better, still under it, a /21 pays 256 times as much per IP as a /8 holder. That means a /8 holder is saving 99.6% over a /21 (proposed) per IP - that is a pretty steep discount! 2. The scale goes flat at the top making the difference in cost per IP even greater. A /8 holder pays the same as a /13 (current) or /11 (proposed). And, by John's PDF, there are even a couple of /7's out there who would be paying the same. 3. (I would add), though not much talked about, there is the entire category of legacy holders who pay next to nothing. How do other organizations do it? In the telephone world there is NPAC which handles number porting. They are an ARIN like group funded by the phone companies and most of their funding comes from a quarterly assessment that is based upon how many ported numbers a carrier has. NAPC literally takes the organization's cost, and divides it by the total ported numbers and figures each carrier's pro-rata share. NPAC only has one exception: small carriers with fewer than a few thousand number ports are not charged anything at all. So the question it seems to me is: what is fair? ARIN's proposed schedule has fees double every time the allocation quadruples (then it goes flat at the top). NPAC, by comparison, is strictly linear: Carriers who use twice as much pay twice as much. What should ARIN's be? Thanks, Michael -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:49 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? So I think it's been established that quite a few folks think the past, current, and proposed fee structure doesn't adequately deal with the /14 and larger organisations. The next question is what should that fee structure look like? How should it be scaled on IPv6? Is it better to substantially lower the fees for the smaller orgs or to instead plow the revenue into keeping initial /32 IPv6 allocations free until X threshold has been reached? Maybe it's possible to do both. A couple ideas have been suggested that include: 1. Doubling the fees for every 2 bits 2. Going based on the number of total /24's 3. Increasing fees for every /x you go up 4. Creating more tiers at the top I think #1 & #3 may be the two most interesting ones as they can be translated directly to the IPv6 fee schedule. What are some suggestions on what that fee structure would look like? My sense is that there should be a floor for costs but this isn't rooted in anything in particular other than $8 seems hardly worth billing. Should there be a ceiling? It seems like that's at the root of what several are unhappy with. John, can you please tell us what the current smallest/largest ISP allocation is so we can have an ideas as to what we are dealing with here? Suggestions? Thanks, Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 20, 2013, at 12:22 AM, "Drake Pallister" wrote: > To any interested, > > What Owen says is true and has been the way forever. > Once an ISP grows beyond a certain size, everything else (resources) is free, so to speak. > > That sort of reminds me of the USA Income tax System in many aspects. > > I've been a proponent the I.R.S. and States, having a Flat Tax, based upon exactly what you earn (less deductons, of course). > > My analogy of tonight will be one of a fuel filling station and tractor trailers. > > If I was a single owner-operator of my big rig Kenworth, I'd be paying for every gallon of diesel fuel I filled up with. > Then as my truck fleet grows (or compare to a different, but larger fleet), they also pay for the gallons of fuel they put in the tank. > > However, once my truck fleet, or some other trucking fleet reaches the > purchase and consumption of (let's say 300K Gallons a month)---- Imagine a dollar cap, where if they consume 300K gallons, 500K, or even a Million gallons of fuel per month--- they are capped at the 300K gallons "bought" regardless of how many gallons burned on the roadways, charging whatever per mile for freight transport.. > > > > Now, back to the smaller fleets of 1, 3, or 5 tractor trailers are still having to pay for the gallons they actually optain at the truck stop / gas station. > > That's the end of the analogy. It may partially relate to our industry and IP's resources, or it may get the smack-down by others smarter and more experienced than me. > > However, I "won't" pass an opinion either way with my comparison of a I.R.S. Flat tax idea, or the Diesel fuel analogy, as it might relate to flat rate billing for IP numbers allocation. > > Well, maybe I will pass a a vague opinion, that the billing brackets > gor asset holders maybe ought to "not" have that point of everything > after X is no additional fee. I would bet you lunch that the asset > holders in those "big block clubs" are absolutely billing every last > stinking customer 10, 15, or 20 dollars per IP (v4 for this > conversatin) per month if the customer wants or needs an additional IP > number for whatever reason (if they will even allow additional IPs > onto the account) > > That is connectivity provideres, but compare to hosted services providers, they also usually charge the customer for more IPs. It takes extra configuration and might or --not mean the consumption of more bandwidth and data transfer. A hosting customer msy simply wish to have mail on a different IP from a web site, and still different from some subdomains. I cou;dn't say because every scenario in hosting can be different. > > I happen to know of big connectivity provider who will sell a business connectivity package with a /29 for xxx per month. But wait--- If the customer needed maybe 5 extra IPs for random independent purposes, the provider could just increase the customer to a /28 of IPv4 without adding any additional routers, cables, fibers, cablemodems, bandwidth, monthly data transfer, etc. Yet,Yet,Yet, the provider would outright refuse to just increase the size of the IP net from a /29 to a /28 (ok even for a small fee)---- But Nope--- they will make the customer purchase and pay monthly $xxx for a complete second account of a second /29 which might not even be in a contiguous block with the first /29. I'm asking myself if that kind super-duper connectivity should keep getting more IP numbers at no additional fee past the ARIN fees cutoff point. > > Something doesn't smell like fresh morning mountain air and blossoming flowers with those kinds of business practices. > > I'm simply tossing my thoughts out there and not demanding one procedure or another, as it will end up however it does anyhow. > > Aside from all that, I can not foresee the future when everything electrical has a v6 IP number, even my toaster or refrigerator. That will be an interesting ride to watch. Just think about a publicly addressable microwave oven. > > ~Drake > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 3:20 AM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > >> >> On Apr 18, 2013, at 08:52 , Jon Daniels wrote: >> >>>> Yes, the fee structure tops out at XXL. Once you reach a certain size and are paying $32,000/year, you don't have to pay more even as you get more addresses. >>>> >>>> In reality, extending that pricing linearly beyond XXL wouldn't change pricing at the lower tiers by much. Further, it is very unlikely that those organizations are actually creating costs for ARIN that would come even close to doing so. >>>> >>>> Let's assume, for a moment, that an ISP existed that held >>> By your argument, said ISP should, instead of $32,000/year, pay >>>> $256,000/year instead of $32,000/year. To the best of my knowledge, >>>> there is no such ISP and there are probably fewer than 5 ISPs in >>>> the >>> >>>> So, you would increase costs for top-end organizations as follows: >>>> 5 * 96,000 >>>> 24 * 32,000 >>>> =============== >>>> $1,248,000 >>>> >>>> If we were to spread that evenly across the X-S, S, and M registrants (total 3818->3306 organizations), you would save each of those organizations less than $400 per year. >>>> >>>> I simply don't buy that it's somehow more fair to inflict 64k and 128k/year pricing on to a small number of organizations at the top end to subsidize $400 discounts to 3300 other organizations. >>> >>> >>> As a percentage of the involved organizations annual expenses, it >>> could in fact be *more* fair. I don't know all the XX-Large orgs >>> involved, other than an example of my own company paying $2000/year >>> on the upcoming fee schedule with $60k in annual expenses and a /8 >>> holder paying $32,000/year with $1 billion in expenses (quickly >>> looking at a list of /8 holders, a significant portion have annual >>> expenses way over $1 billion / year). >> >> Most of the /8 holders you're looking at are: >> 1. Legacy and don't pay ARIN fees. >> 2. Not ISPs. >> >>> >>> XX-large: >>> $32,000 is 0.0032% of $1 billion. >> >> Red herring. >> >>> My company: >>> $2000 is ~3.3%of $60,000. >>> >>> As a percentage of operating expenses my small company pays 1031 >>> (101,031%?) times more for IP address space (or registration services >>> - depending on how you want to look at it). The number would be >>> similar for net income, gross income, and virtually any other >>> comparable. >> >> So far, ARIN doesn't base fees on gross revenues or annual expenses. >> If you would like to see ARIN start collecting the information >> necessary to do so and switch to a fee structure based on that, you >> should submit a suggestion to the board. >> >>> I would not call this 'inflicting' fees upon on XX-Larges. I would >>> call it paying a fair share that everyone else has been paying, but >>> somehow XX-Larges have been avoiding. Adding $128,000 per year to a >>> $1 billion dollar budget is more like a fly landing atop a mountain >>> than an infliction. >> >> Again, I don't think this is an accurate reflection of the actual >> XX-L organizations paying the actual fees. >> >>> Saving $400 per year would be significant to my company. I've been >>> reading this ongoing debate with much interest and so far I have not >>> heard any good arguments for not increasing the fees for holders of >>> aggregates larger than /14 all the way to /8. >>> >>> The more I've watched this discussion the more I've noticed the fact >>> that small and medium companies are subsidizing the large companies >>> with free lunches via ARIN fees. >> >> Not when you consider how their activities impact ARIN's costs. >> >> 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS ------------------------------------------------------ Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 01JqdNRpD) is spam: Spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=01JqdNRpD&m=c2bcfe219369&t=20130420&c=s Not spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=01JqdNRpD&m=c2bcfe219369&t=20130420&c=n Forget vote: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=01JqdNRpD&m=c2bcfe219369&t=20130420&c=f ------------------------------------------------------ END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS From ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net Mon Apr 22 15:58:10 2013 From: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:58:10 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> References: , <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> Message-ID: <51759652.1040303@abenaki.wabanaki.net> On 4/22/13 12:29 PM, Michael Tague wrote: > How do other organizations do it? In the telephone world there is NPAC > which handles number porting. They are an ARIN like group ... Um. That's currently NeuStar dude. Not "ARIN like" for very large values of "like". Eric From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 22 16:42:11 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:42:11 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> References: <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC10892@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Michael Tague wrote: > So the question it seems to me is: what is fair? Michael - Fair as in "fair allocation of costs" or "fair fee for value?" With respect to costs, I will repeat that processing of larger requests is not significantly different that processing of smaller requests (and may actually be shorter due to experience) This would argue for a flat and/or block linear fee structure. Fair with respect to "value" is hard since the registry services are obligatory; there is not competitive market for which to shop for your registry services under the current structure of the system, so there is no clear way to known their actual value. Remember that we're discussing fees for registry services, not the issuance of address blocks. In a short time, there will no more address blocks issued, but parties still need ARIN's registration services even if they paid to obtain the rights to the IP addresses from another party. The fee schedule is supposed to cover the cost of the registry services, whether directly issued by ARIN from its free pool or received via transfer; burdening the fees based on some perceived "value" of the IP addresses is not appropriate as they may have been ARIN issued or been received via transfer. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From tague at win.net Mon Apr 22 17:10:22 2013 From: tague at win.net (Michael Tague) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:10:22 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <51759652.1040303@abenaki.wabanaki.net> References: , <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> <51759652.1040303@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Message-ID: <00f101ce3f9d$cd7dc470$68794d50$@net> Yes, NeuStar operates NPAC on a contract so that is a bit different than ARIN, but, on the other hand, it is a number resource like ARIN operated on behalf of its industry (and the public) like ARIN which needs to raise its operating funds from the industry it serves like ARIN. I suspect that many of the same arguments apply to NPAC as have been discussed here with ARIN such as the relative costs of large versus small carriers. In NPAC's case they opted for purely linear with an exemption for the small guys. The telephone industry has been around a lot longer than the Internet so perhaps there is something to learn there. So the question remains: is there really any justification for charging the largest ISPs hundreds of times less per IP than the small and medium size ISPs? Michael -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:58 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? On 4/22/13 12:29 PM, Michael Tague wrote: > How do other organizations do it? In the telephone world there is NPAC > which handles number porting. They are an ARIN like group ... Um. That's currently NeuStar dude. Not "ARIN like" for very large values of "like". Eric _______________________________________________ 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. -- BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS ------------------------------------------------------ Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 02Jr7WsBw) is spam: Spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=s Not spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=n Forget vote: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=f ------------------------------------------------------ END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon Apr 22 16:38:02 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:38:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <51759652.1040303@abenaki.wabanaki.net> References: , <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net>, <51759652.1040303@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Message-ID: Eric, I'm not sure what relevance this response has to do with what he was saying. I hope we can start focusing and responding to the relevant rather than the tangential and irrelevant. It would save us all a lot cycles. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 22, 2013, at 12:59 PM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" wrote: > On 4/22/13 12:29 PM, Michael Tague wrote: >> How do other organizations do it? In the telephone world there is NPAC >> which handles number porting. They are an ARIN like group ... > > Um. That's currently NeuStar dude. Not "ARIN like" for very large > values of "like". > > Eric > _______________________________________________ > 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 tague at win.net Mon Apr 22 17:33:59 2013 From: tague at win.net (Michael Tague) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:33:59 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC10892@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC10892@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <00f801ce3fa1$19bf1200$4d3d3600$@net> John, When you say "processing of larger requests" versus smaller requests, are you talking about requests for new IP space? If so, as you say, that portion of what ARIN does is drying up - not being much space to left (IPv4) to give out. But it seems that ARINs rates have long been based upon IP Address space (held) and they still are. We haven't come to ARIN for a new allocation in 15 years but we've been paying $4500/yr all along. I guess a question for you John is how much of ARIN's cost is of a general nature - to be applied to the industry as a whole - and how much is specific to particular request types? If it is mostly general, or mostly grows with address space used, then I would think that a linear - per IP - rate schedule would be most fair. What do you think is most fair? Thanks, Michael -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 4:42 PM To: Michael Tague Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Michael Tague wrote: > So the question it seems to me is: what is fair? Michael - Fair as in "fair allocation of costs" or "fair fee for value?" With respect to costs, I will repeat that processing of larger requests is not significantly different that processing of smaller requests (and may actually be shorter due to experience) This would argue for a flat and/or block linear fee structure. Fair with respect to "value" is hard since the registry services are obligatory; there is not competitive market for which to shop for your registry services under the current structure of the system, so there is no clear way to known their actual value. Remember that we're discussing fees for registry services, not the issuance of address blocks. In a short time, there will no more address blocks issued, but parties still need ARIN's registration services even if they paid to obtain the rights to the IP addresses from another party. The fee schedule is supposed to cover the cost of the registry services, whether directly issued by ARIN from its free pool or received via transfer; burdening the fees based on some perceived "value" of the IP addresses is not appropriate as they may have been ARIN issued or been received via transfer. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -- BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS ------------------------------------------------------ Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 01Jr8GekB) is spam: Spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=01Jr8GekB&m=b571fda09b29&t=20130422&c=s Not spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=01Jr8GekB&m=b571fda09b29&t=20130422&c=n Forget vote: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=01Jr8GekB&m=b571fda09b29&t=20130422&c=f ------------------------------------------------------ END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS From ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net Mon Apr 22 18:05:34 2013 From: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:05:34 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <00f101ce3f9d$cd7dc470$68794d50$@net> References: , <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> <51759652.1040303@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <00f101ce3f9d$cd7dc470$68794d50$@net> Message-ID: <5175B42E.7050901@abenaki.wabanaki.net> On 4/22/13 2:10 PM, Michael Tague wrote: > Yes, NeuStar operates NPAC on a contract so that is a bit different than > ARIN, but, on the other hand, it is a number resource like ARIN operated on > behalf of its industry (and the public) like ARIN which needs to raise its > operating funds from the industry it serves like ARIN. According to Jesse Geddis neither my observation nor your reply meet his threshold for relevance, however, the contractual relationships of ARIN and the USG, and NeuStar and the USG, related to the NPAC function, are quite different, as are the relationships between the v4, and v6 block allocatees and the allocators, and that of participants in the telephony numbering plan. If your point is that two resources exist, alike in dignity ... and then conclude that the allocations should be similar, fine, but please don't imply that the entities responsible for implementing allocation policies are therefore similar. The regulatory and lobbyist overheads of circuit side are, in my quite limited view, refreshingly absent when it comes to v{4|6} policy. Eric From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 22 21:00:01 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:00:01 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <00f801ce3fa1$19bf1200$4d3d3600$@net> References: <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC10892@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <00f801ce3fa1$19bf1200$4d3d3600$@net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC12BF1@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Michael Tague wrote: > I guess a question for you John is how much of ARIN's cost is of a general > nature - to be applied to the industry as a whole - and how much is specific > to particular request types? If it is mostly general, or mostly grows with > address space used, then I would think that a linear - per IP - rate > schedule would be most fair. The core registry costs grow with the number of records (IP address blocks) in the registry. The registry development costs relate to policy changes and new feature development requested by the community. See the attached message regarding ARIN's functional cost breakdown. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN === Begin forwarded message: > From: John Curran > Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Budget Size (was: Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?) > Date: April 16, 2013 7:38:31 PM AST > To: Alec Ginsberg > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Alec Ginsberg wrote: > >> I also would like to understand why this budget is so large, given what ARIN does. Are there details around this published? At face value it seems like $15 million / year is a lot of money, but maybe there is more to it than meets the eye? > > Alec - > > Several choices here in terms of getting the information that you seek... > > The annual report is online: > (that will give you a good idea of the tasks and activities that we handle...) > > You also have the budget: > > In the end, I believe that the most useful information for understanding ARIN's > costs is contained in the ARIN Function Cost model, which breaks down the core > registry services costs, the costs of registry development (including items such > as policy development and engineering development costs), ARIN corporate governance > (which includes the Board, election process, legal, etc.) and Internet Governance > (which has the costs of ARIN's participation in various Internet governance bodies) > > I gave the last presentation on this model at the ARIN Oct 2011 meeting in Philly, > and the slides are here: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/curran_cost_breakdown.pdf > (and in terms of percentages, it is 32%, 50%, 6%, and 12% respectively) > > I hope this helps answer question; please let me know if any additional information > is needed. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Tue Apr 23 09:18:13 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:18:13 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <00f101ce3f9d$cd7dc470$68794d50$@net> References: , <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> <51759652.1040303@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <00f101ce3f9d$cd7dc470$68794d50$@net> Message-ID: <078AAB72-5560-4C36-A739-48F9E24BE094@delong.com> NPACs costs are relatively linear per ported number. ARIN's costs are nowhere near linear per IP address. There ends the ability to apply the NPAC model to ARIN and call it "fair". Owen On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Michael Tague wrote: > Yes, NeuStar operates NPAC on a contract so that is a bit different than > ARIN, but, on the other hand, it is a number resource like ARIN operated on > behalf of its industry (and the public) like ARIN which needs to raise its > operating funds from the industry it serves like ARIN. > > I suspect that many of the same arguments apply to NPAC as have been > discussed here with ARIN such as the relative costs of large versus small > carriers. > > In NPAC's case they opted for purely linear with an exemption for the small > guys. The telephone industry has been around a lot longer than the > Internet so perhaps there is something to learn there. > > So the question remains: is there really any justification for charging the > largest ISPs hundreds of times less per IP than the small and medium size > ISPs? > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:58 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? > > On 4/22/13 12:29 PM, Michael Tague wrote: >> How do other organizations do it? In the telephone world there is NPAC >> which handles number porting. They are an ARIN like group ... > > Um. That's currently NeuStar dude. Not "ARIN like" for very large values of > "like". > > Eric > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > -- > BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 02Jr7WsBw) is > spam: > Spam: > http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=s > Not spam: > http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=n > Forget vote: > http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=f > ------------------------------------------------------ > END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS > > _______________________________________________ > 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 tague at win.net Tue Apr 23 12:42:56 2013 From: tague at win.net (Michael Tague) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:42:56 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC12BF1@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC10892@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <00f801ce3fa1$19bf1200$4d3d3600$@net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC12BF1@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <015201ce4041$9ba951e0$d2fbf5a0$@net> Thank you John. If I can recap from your PDF, the breakdown is: 32% Registry 50% Registry Development 6% ARIN Organization 12% Internet Governance ------------ 100% Total Budget ($9.3M - 2011) John would you say that the Registry cost is based mostly upon: 1. New Block registration costs 2. Cost of maintaining a block (a /8 or /20, no difference) 3. Cost related to the size of the block (total Address space) Thanks, Michael -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 9:00 PM To: Michael Tague Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Michael Tague wrote: > I guess a question for you John is how much of ARIN's cost is of a > general nature - to be applied to the industry as a whole - and how much is specific > to particular request types? If it is mostly general, or mostly grows with > address space used, then I would think that a linear - per IP - rate > schedule would be most fair. The core registry costs grow with the number of records (IP address blocks) in the registry. The registry development costs relate to policy changes and new feature development requested by the community. See the attached message regarding ARIN's functional cost breakdown. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN === Begin forwarded message: > From: John Curran > Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Budget Size (was: Re: IPv6 as > justification for IPv4?) > Date: April 16, 2013 7:38:31 PM AST > To: Alec Ginsberg > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Alec Ginsberg wrote: > >> I also would like to understand why this budget is so large, given what ARIN does. Are there details around this published? At face value it seems like $15 million / year is a lot of money, but maybe there is more to it than meets the eye? > > Alec - > > Several choices here in terms of getting the information that you seek... > > The annual report is online: > > (that will give you a good idea of the tasks and activities that we > handle...) > > You also have the budget: > > > In the end, I believe that the most useful information for > understanding ARIN's costs is contained in the ARIN Function Cost > model, which breaks down the core registry services costs, the costs > of registry development (including items such as policy development > and engineering development costs), ARIN corporate governance (which > includes the Board, election process, legal, etc.) and Internet > Governance (which has the costs of ARIN's participation in various > Internet governance bodies) > > I gave the last presentation on this model at the ARIN Oct 2011 > meeting in Philly, and the slides are here: > > > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/frid > ay/curran_cost_breakdown.pdf (and in terms of percentages, it is 32%, > 50%, 6%, and 12% respectively) > > I hope this helps answer question; please let me know if any > additional information is needed. > > 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. -- BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS ------------------------------------------------------ Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 02Jrd0c1W) is spam: Spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jrd0c1W&m=8c399160f5e0&t=20130422&c=s Not spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jrd0c1W&m=8c399160f5e0&t=20130422&c=n Forget vote: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jrd0c1W&m=8c399160f5e0&t=20130422&c=f ------------------------------------------------------ END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS From jcurran at arin.net Tue Apr 23 13:59:25 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:59:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <015201ce4041$9ba951e0$d2fbf5a0$@net> References: <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC10892@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <00f801ce3fa1$19bf1200$4d3d3600$@net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC12BF1@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <015201ce4041$9ba951e0$d2fbf5a0$@net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC29140@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Apr 23, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Michael Tague wrote: > Thank you John. If I can recap from your PDF, the breakdown is: > > 32% Registry > 50% Registry Development > 6% ARIN Organization > 12% Internet Governance > ------------ > 100% Total Budget ($9.3M - 2011) $9.3M was the costs January through August 2011. > John would you say that the Registry cost is based mostly upon: > > 1. New Block registration costs Registration services handles the requests for new blocks, but also provides the registration services help desk (7 AM to 7 PM) for all registry users, both new and existing. While the number of requests does impact workload, it is a secondary factor compared to the requirements for staff the helpdesks and helpdesks at ARIN and NANOG meetings. These are fairly fixed and included in core registry costs. > 2. Cost of maintaining a block (a /8 or /20, no difference) Registry costs are fairly fixed (engineering operations/sysadmin, software/hardware depreciation and maintenance), but our some our costs (for storage, licenses, bandwidth, etc.) do grow with number of registry records. > 3. Cost related to the size of the block (total Address space) No relation to costs. We couldn't afford to maintain a single IPv6 address block in the registry if there were any costs that were proportional to number of IP addresses in the registry. I hope this information is useful - please let me know if you need anything else... Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From cgrundemann at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 14:05:27 2013 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:05:27 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31 Message-ID: An idea from one of the participants here at ARIN 31: Can the Board/Staff use actual utilization to base fees on for IPv6? I.e. Give everyone a minimum of /32 but charge them xx-s if they use less than a /40 of that space (announcing the full aggregate) and charge them x-s if they use less than a /36 of that space (announcing the full aggregate). Thoughts? ~Chris -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com From rcarpen at network1.net Tue Apr 23 14:55:46 2013 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:55:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <932768166.249523.1366743346753.JavaMail.root@network1.net> I like the idea in general, but doesn't it open things up to encourage the ISP to lie about what they're using? thanks, -Randy ----- Original Message ----- > An idea from one of the participants here at ARIN 31: > > Can the Board/Staff use actual utilization to base fees on for IPv6? > I.e. Give everyone a minimum of /32 but charge them xx-s if they use > less than a /40 of that space (announcing the full aggregate) and > charge them x-s if they use less than a /36 of that space (announcing > the full aggregate). > > Thoughts? > ~Chris > > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > http://chrisgrundemann.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Tue Apr 23 14:40:14 2013 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:40:14 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5176D58E.1050407@wholesaleinternet.net> How would ARIN be able to track that? On 4/23/2013 1:05 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > An idea from one of the participants here at ARIN 31: > > Can the Board/Staff use actual utilization to base fees on for IPv6? > I.e. Give everyone a minimum of /32 but charge them xx-s if they use > less than a /40 of that space (announcing the full aggregate) and > charge them x-s if they use less than a /36 of that space (announcing > the full aggregate). > > Thoughts? > ~Chris > > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > http://chrisgrundemann.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Apr 23 15:47:07 2013 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:47:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31 In-Reply-To: <5176D58E.1050407@wholesaleinternet.net> References: <5176D58E.1050407@wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <1719229198.249723.1366746427845.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Maybe you could give them a /32 no matter what, but charge them only up to whatever their IPv4 holdings are. That way, anyone with a /18 or smaller, gets a /32 for no additional cost. That should be completely revenue-nuetral compared to allowing /36, /40, etc. If the ISP has no IPv4 holdings, then have a minimum default category for the IPv6. Since an IPv6-only ISP would not have the added allocation of IPv4, the "cost" piece would be less. For example, if you only have an IPv6 /32, you are in the x-small/$1,000 category by default. I think that would be reasonably fair. Obviously tying the fee to IPv4 space would have to be addressed again once IPv4 usage is waning, but so will many other policies. thanks, -Randy ----- Original Message ----- > How would ARIN be able to track that? > > > On 4/23/2013 1:05 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > > An idea from one of the participants here at ARIN 31: > > > > Can the Board/Staff use actual utilization to base fees on for IPv6? > > I.e. Give everyone a minimum of /32 but charge them xx-s if they use > > less than a /40 of that space (announcing the full aggregate) and > > charge them x-s if they use less than a /36 of that space (announcing > > the full aggregate). > > > > Thoughts? > > ~Chris > > > > > > -- > > @ChrisGrundemann > > http://chrisgrundemann.com > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 otis at ocosa.com Tue Apr 23 16:19:39 2013 From: otis at ocosa.com (Otis L. Surratt, Jr.) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:19:39 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31 In-Reply-To: <5176D58E.1050407@wholesaleinternet.net> References: <5176D58E.1050407@wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <5FE1FB6D43B8A647BBC821840C1AEA8B0185CE@ocsbs.ocosa.com> -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:40 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31 >How would ARIN be able to track that? This seems like it could be similar to Microsoft's SPLA Reporting. Build a Reporting tool all direct allocation holders could report to. -Otis On 4/23/2013 1:05 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > An idea from one of the participants here at ARIN 31: > > Can the Board/Staff use actual utilization to base fees on for IPv6? > I.e. Give everyone a minimum of /32 but charge them xx-s if they use > less than a /40 of that space (announcing the full aggregate) and > charge them x-s if they use less than a /36 of that space (announcing > the full aggregate). > > Thoughts? > ~Chris > > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > http://chrisgrundemann.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Apr 23 19:56:00 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:56:00 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] FYI - ARIN Fee Structure Review panel Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC2E978@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> ARIN Community - As part of the Fee Schedule Update presentation today at ARIN 31, it was announced that the ARIN Board of Trustees has directed the creation of a Fee Structure Review panel, a committee which shall include selected volunteers from the community, to consider various long-term fee structures, and report back to ARIN Board prior to the ARIN 32 meeting. Volunteers are needed for this panel - Please email me at jcurran at arin.net if you are interested in serving. The Fee Schedule Update presentation can be found here: FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From alec at ionity.com Tue Apr 23 20:04:15 2013 From: alec at ionity.com (Alec Ginsberg) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:04:15 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31 In-Reply-To: <5176D58E.1050407@wholesaleinternet.net> References: <5176D58E.1050407@wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60507D3E346FD@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> I don't know that I agree with this methodology or not for billing. >From a technical perspective you could start with monitoring advertised routes. Many issues with that method though. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:40 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31 How would ARIN be able to track that? On 4/23/2013 1:05 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > An idea from one of the participants here at ARIN 31: > > Can the Board/Staff use actual utilization to base fees on for IPv6? > I.e. Give everyone a minimum of /32 but charge them xx-s if they use > less than a /40 of that space (announcing the full aggregate) and > charge them x-s if they use less than a /36 of that space (announcing > the full aggregate). > > Thoughts? > ~Chris > > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > http://chrisgrundemann.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Apr 23 16:04:19 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:04:19 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hmm... I think that would create a disincentive for IPv6 rollouts :) Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 23, 2013, at 11:35 AM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote: > An idea from one of the participants here at ARIN 31: > > Can the Board/Staff use actual utilization to base fees on for IPv6? > I.e. Give everyone a minimum of /32 but charge them xx-s if they use > less than a /40 of that space (announcing the full aggregate) and > charge them x-s if they use less than a /36 of that space (announcing > the full aggregate). > > Thoughts? > ~Chris > > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > http://chrisgrundemann.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Apr 23 16:13:50 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:13:50 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <078AAB72-5560-4C36-A739-48F9E24BE094@delong.com> References: , <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> <51759652.1040303@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <00f101ce3f9d$cd7dc470$68794d50$@net>, <078AAB72-5560-4C36-A739-48F9E24BE094@delong.com> Message-ID: <72074064-5BB8-4215-B9E7-4EBF8F9272AD@la-broadband.com> Owen, Not really. It depends on the measure you're using of fair and what you're target is. If you're target is to charge exactly what you're costing ARIN I wouldn't call that fair by any stretch of the term. In that scenario ARIN becomes a barrier to entry for a startup because it may be cost prohibitive. If you charge everyone a flat yearly fee that could be better argued as fair but again creates a barrier to entry for small startups and many business. ARIN and internic both chose to charge based on holdings and ramp it based on assigned resources for the last 25 years. I think that's the best model. It just went off the rails when we ended up with a few folks holding 82% of the resources but paying only 17% of the revenue. A result of there being a fee ceiling that isn't tied to a holdings ceiling. If you have a costs based fee structure please propose it. I'm interested to see what it looks like. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On Apr 23, 2013, at 6:22 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > NPACs costs are relatively linear per ported number. > > ARIN's costs are nowhere near linear per IP address. > > There ends the ability to apply the NPAC model to ARIN and call it "fair". > > Owen > > On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Michael Tague wrote: > >> Yes, NeuStar operates NPAC on a contract so that is a bit different than >> ARIN, but, on the other hand, it is a number resource like ARIN operated on >> behalf of its industry (and the public) like ARIN which needs to raise its >> operating funds from the industry it serves like ARIN. >> >> I suspect that many of the same arguments apply to NPAC as have been >> discussed here with ARIN such as the relative costs of large versus small >> carriers. >> >> In NPAC's case they opted for purely linear with an exemption for the small >> guys. The telephone industry has been around a lot longer than the >> Internet so perhaps there is something to learn there. >> >> So the question remains: is there really any justification for charging the >> largest ISPs hundreds of times less per IP than the small and medium size >> ISPs? >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] >> On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams >> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:58 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >> >> On 4/22/13 12:29 PM, Michael Tague wrote: >>> How do other organizations do it? In the telephone world there is NPAC >>> which handles number porting. They are an ARIN like group ... >> >> Um. That's currently NeuStar dude. Not "ARIN like" for very large values of >> "like". >> >> Eric >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> >> >> -- >> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 02Jr7WsBw) is >> spam: >> Spam: >> http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=s >> Not spam: >> http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=n >> Forget vote: >> http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=f >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 agreene at webjogger.net Wed Apr 24 09:20:40 2013 From: agreene at webjogger.net (Adam Greene) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:20:40 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31 In-Reply-To: <1719229198.249723.1366746427845.JavaMail.root@network1.net> References: <5176D58E.1050407@wholesaleinternet.net> <1719229198.249723.1366746427845.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Message-ID: <00ed01ce40ee$845b4090$8d11c1b0$@webjogger.net> I actually like this idea, though as a pretty small ISP, a /36 would probably be adequate for us. I think it depends on whether it is more convenient from an ARIN management / fee structure perspective, to make /32 the minimum allocation. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:47 PM To: Aaron Wendel Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31 Maybe you could give them a /32 no matter what, but charge them only up to whatever their IPv4 holdings are. That way, anyone with a /18 or smaller, gets a /32 for no additional cost. That should be completely revenue-nuetral compared to allowing /36, /40, etc. If the ISP has no IPv4 holdings, then have a minimum default category for the IPv6. Since an IPv6-only ISP would not have the added allocation of IPv4, the "cost" piece would be less. For example, if you only have an IPv6 /32, you are in the x-small/$1,000 category by default. I think that would be reasonably fair. Obviously tying the fee to IPv4 space would have to be addressed again once IPv4 usage is waning, but so will many other policies. thanks, -Randy ----- Original Message ----- > How would ARIN be able to track that? > > > On 4/23/2013 1:05 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > > An idea from one of the participants here at ARIN 31: > > > > Can the Board/Staff use actual utilization to base fees on for IPv6? > > I.e. Give everyone a minimum of /32 but charge them xx-s if they use > > less than a /40 of that space (announcing the full aggregate) and > > charge them x-s if they use less than a /36 of that space > > (announcing the full aggregate). > > > > Thoughts? > > ~Chris > > > > > > -- > > @ChrisGrundemann > > http://chrisgrundemann.com > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Apr 24 09:33:12 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:33:12 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <72074064-5BB8-4215-B9E7-4EBF8F9272AD@la-broadband.com> References: , <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> <51759652.1040303@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <00f101ce3f9d$cd7dc470$68794d50$@net>, <078AAB72-5560-4C36-A739-48F9E24BE094@delong.com> <72074064-5BB8-4215-B9E7-4EBF8F9272AD@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <855A6747-15EE-424B-B677-FB0900ACE941@delong.com> On Apr 23, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > Owen, > > Not really. It depends on the measure you're using of fair and what you're target is. If you're target is to charge exactly what you're costing ARIN I wouldn't call that fair by any stretch of the term. In that scenario ARIN becomes a barrier to entry for a startup because it may be cost prohibitive. > If the costs of starting up a business are prohibitive to doing so, how is it fair to inflict those costs on others already in the business? I can understand the perspective that new entrants should not be expected to subsidize incumbents. However, I cannot see any justification for an expectation that incumbents should be forced to subsidize new entrants. Charging exactly what an org costs ARIN is impractical, because the cost accounting would likely significantly increase the overall costs. However, approximating the costs of groups of organizations with similar service profiles by taking the aggregate sum of ARIN's costs across the entire group and dividing by the number of members in the group is a very reasonable starting point for a fee structure model. That seems to at least have been one of the inputs, if not the starting point in the current fee model. > If you charge everyone a flat yearly fee that could be better argued as fair but again creates a barrier to entry for small startups and many business. Again, you seem to be starting from the assumption that it is fair to force incumbents in the industry to subsidize new entrants. I don't subscribe to this belief and I am not sure where you get the idea that it is somehow more fair than simply expecting every organization to pay their own costs. > ARIN and internic both chose to charge based on holdings and ramp it based on assigned resources for the last 25 years. I think that's the best model. It just went off the rails when we ended up with a few folks holding 82% of the resources but paying only 17% of the revenue. A result of there being a fee ceiling that isn't tied to a holdings ceiling. I have no idea how the previous fee determinations were made. I know that the current one is based on the fact that a size-based model fit well with a cost-based model and provided a convenient metric which roughly approximated cost recovery for each category. However, since those costs do not actually scale entirely with size, and beyond a certain point, the disconnect between pricing and size means that continuing to escalate the pricing would be punitive and grossly unfair. IMHO, that makes topping out the fee structure where it does (/12) makes it entirely reasonable to do so. Now that John posted the histogram, I'll go back and refactor my earlier message when I get some time. Nonetheless, I do not think that linear pricing makes sense. > If you have a costs based fee structure please propose it. I'm interested to see what it looks like. The current fee structure comes very close to a cost-based structure and as such is a good approximation of one. That is why I consider the current structure mostly acceptable. Owen > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > On Apr 23, 2013, at 6:22 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > >> NPACs costs are relatively linear per ported number. >> >> ARIN's costs are nowhere near linear per IP address. >> >> There ends the ability to apply the NPAC model to ARIN and call it "fair". >> >> Owen >> >> On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Michael Tague wrote: >> >>> Yes, NeuStar operates NPAC on a contract so that is a bit different than >>> ARIN, but, on the other hand, it is a number resource like ARIN operated on >>> behalf of its industry (and the public) like ARIN which needs to raise its >>> operating funds from the industry it serves like ARIN. >>> >>> I suspect that many of the same arguments apply to NPAC as have been >>> discussed here with ARIN such as the relative costs of large versus small >>> carriers. >>> >>> In NPAC's case they opted for purely linear with an exemption for the small >>> guys. The telephone industry has been around a lot longer than the >>> Internet so perhaps there is something to learn there. >>> >>> So the question remains: is there really any justification for charging the >>> largest ISPs hundreds of times less per IP than the small and medium size >>> ISPs? >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] >>> On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams >>> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:58 PM >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? >>> >>> On 4/22/13 12:29 PM, Michael Tague wrote: >>>> How do other organizations do it? In the telephone world there is NPAC >>>> which handles number porting. They are an ARIN like group ... >>> >>> Um. That's currently NeuStar dude. Not "ARIN like" for very large values of >>> "like". >>> >>> Eric >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 02Jr7WsBw) is >>> spam: >>> Spam: >>> http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=s >>> Not spam: >>> http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=n >>> Forget vote: >>> http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=f >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 andrew.koch at tdstelecom.com Wed Apr 24 12:28:57 2013 From: andrew.koch at tdstelecom.com (Koch, Andrew) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:28:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31 In-Reply-To: <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60507D3E346FD@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> References: <5176D58E.1050407@wholesaleinternet.net> <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60507D3E346FD@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> Message-ID: <9FD362844B11AF4BBFE6DBFE0B5619511E5D3A13@cmailbox7> > On 4/23/2013 19:04, Alec Ginsberg wrote: > > I don't know that I agree with this methodology or not for billing. > > >From a technical perspective you could start with monitoring advertised > routes. Many issues with that method though. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:40 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table > topic at ARIN 31 > > How would ARIN be able to track that? > > > On 4/23/2013 1:05 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > > An idea from one of the participants here at ARIN 31: > > > > Can the Board/Staff use actual utilization to base fees on for IPv6? > > I.e. Give everyone a minimum of /32 but charge them xx-s if they use > > less than a /40 of that space (announcing the full aggregate) and > > charge them x-s if they use less than a /36 of that space (announcing > > the full aggregate). I think the issues may be too large to effectively use this. What constitutes in-use? Just because the address space is not advertised to the Internet that you see, does not mean that it is not routed, nor does it mean that it is not in-use. This also continues the game of trying to stuff yourself into the smallest box possible to save on fees, which I believe is a dangerous one. It may also lead to attempts to hide usage from the monitoring. Regards, Andrew Koch From ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net Wed Apr 24 14:18:02 2013 From: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:18:02 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <855A6747-15EE-424B-B677-FB0900ACE941@delong.com> References: , <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> <51759652.1040303@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <00f101ce3f9d$cd7dc470$68794d50$@net>, <078AAB72-5560-4C36-A739-48F9E24BE094@delong.com> <72074064-5BB8-4215-B9E7-4EBF8F9272AD@la-broadband.com> <855A6747-15EE-424B-B677-FB0900ACE941@delong.com> Message-ID: <517821DA.5010403@abenaki.wabanaki.net> On 4/24/13 6:33 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I cannot see any justification for an expectation that incumbents should be forced to subsidize new entrants. elsewhere, it is observed that "less than 1% (its closer to around 0.5%) individual allocations account for more than half of the number of allocated addresses." arin's fees could be based on expectations other than a naive notion of "subsidy", by the 1% or less, or of the 1% or less. it seems to me, and i don't intend to convince anyone, merely to express my thoughts, that here, as in another area of unique identifier allocation, the choice is not limited to "no cost to incumbent", as the resource exists for purposes other than providing profits to one or more parties exercising something approaching market power. eric From tague at win.net Wed Apr 24 14:53:58 2013 From: tague at win.net (Michael Tague) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:53:58 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <517821DA.5010403@abenaki.wabanaki.net> References: , <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> <51759652.1040303@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <00f101ce3f9d$cd7dc470$68794d50$@net>, <078AAB72-5560-4C36-A739-48F9E24BE094@delong.com> <72074064-5BB8-4215-B9E7-4EBF8F9272AD@la-broadband.com> <855A6747-15EE-424B-B677-FB0900ACE941@delong.com> <517821DA.5010403@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Message-ID: <009801ce411d$1446bbc0$3cd43340$@net> Another reason that a linear (or proportionate) fee schedule might make sense would be this. I suspect that a great deal of ARIN's cost has ultimately been because IPv4 was too small and IPv6 had to be developed and promoted while in the mean-time IPv4 had to be carefully managed. If IPv6 had been the standard from the beginning, I suspect ARIN would be a far sleepier and smaller organization than it has been. This means that much of ARIN's cost is really an overall industry issue. As such, the question is how best to tax the industry to pay for it. In fairness, something proportionate to the size of an organization and its involvement in the industry would make sense. Something based on IP allocation as a surrogate for size/involvement would seem to be a credible measure. According to the information John provided, only about 1/3 of ARINs cost are the registry services, almost 2/3s is everything else. Surely, the everything else should be proportionately charged to the industry participants? Michael -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:18 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? On 4/24/13 6:33 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I cannot see any justification for an expectation that incumbents should be forced to subsidize new entrants. elsewhere, it is observed that "less than 1% (its closer to around 0.5%) individual allocations account for more than half of the number of allocated addresses." arin's fees could be based on expectations other than a naive notion of "subsidy", by the 1% or less, or of the 1% or less. it seems to me, and i don't intend to convince anyone, merely to express my thoughts, that here, as in another area of unique identifier allocation, the choice is not limited to "no cost to incumbent", as the resource exists for purposes other than providing profits to one or more parties exercising something approaching market power. eric _______________________________________________ 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. -- BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS ------------------------------------------------------ Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 01JrSioaH) is spam: Spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=01JrSioaH&m=e9610f4f21f1&t=20130424&c=s Not spam: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=01JrSioaH&m=e9610f4f21f1&t=20130424&c=n Forget vote: http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=01JrSioaH&m=e9610f4f21f1&t=20130424&c=f ------------------------------------------------------ END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS From jcurran at arin.net Fri Apr 26 10:35:33 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:35:33 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] FYI - ARIN Fee Structure Review panel - closing shortly In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC2E978@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC2E978@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FC4C220@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> ARIN Community - If you are interested in being considered for the Fee Structure Review Panel and have not yet contacted me, please email me by close of business today (5 PM ET) We have more than a dozen volunteers so far; if you have already emailed me volunteering and have not received a confirmation that your name will be added to the list, please email again and call me (+1 617 512 8095) to insure timely confirmation. I do not believe have missed any volunteers, but email is known to be imperfect for this purpose. Thank you! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Apr 23, 2013, at 7:56 PM, John Curran wrote: > ARIN Community - > > As part of the Fee Schedule Update presentation today at ARIN 31, > it was announced that the ARIN Board of Trustees has directed the > creation of a Fee Structure Review panel, a committee which shall > include selected volunteers from the community, to consider various > long-term fee structures, and report back to ARIN Board prior to the > ARIN 32 meeting. > > Volunteers are needed for this panel - Please email me at jcurran at arin.net > if you are interested in serving. > > The Fee Schedule Update presentation can be found here: > > > FYI, > /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 owen at delong.com Sun Apr 28 11:14:19 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:14:19 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? In-Reply-To: <517821DA.5010403@abenaki.wabanaki.net> References: , <000001ce3f8f$c62a0980$527e1c80$@net> <51759652.1040303@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <00f101ce3f9d$cd7dc470$68794d50$@net>, <078AAB72-5560-4C36-A739-48F9E24BE094@delong.com> <72074064-5BB8-4215-B9E7-4EBF8F9272AD@la-broadband.com> <855A6747-15EE-424B-B677-FB0900ACE941@delong.com> <517821DA.5010403@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Message-ID: On Apr 24, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > On 4/24/13 6:33 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I cannot see any justification for an expectation that incumbents should be forced to subsidize new entrants. > > elsewhere, it is observed that "less than 1% (its closer to around > 0.5%) individual allocations account for more than half of the number > of allocated addresses." > As has been repeatedly pointed out, those numbers are based very largely on the legacy holders who are inherently irrelevant to fee discussions since they are not paying ARIN fees at all. > arin's fees could be based on expectations other than a naive notion > of "subsidy", by the 1% or less, or of the 1% or less. > I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. I was specifically responding to a statement made by Jesse Geddis above and my remarks taken out of context are not particularly helpful. > it seems to me, and i don't intend to convince anyone, merely to > express my thoughts, that here, as in another area of unique > identifier allocation, the choice is not limited to "no cost to > incumbent", as the resource exists for purposes other than providing > profits to one or more parties exercising something approaching market > power. I never said anything about "no cost to incumbent". What I said was that raising the fees on larger organizations to be incredibly disproportionate to their share of ARIN's cost in order to reduce barriers to entry for new organizations would amount to forcing those incumbent organizations to subsidize new competitors. Owen