From lists at tigertech.com Thu Mar 7 13:26:46 2013 From: lists at tigertech.com (Robert L Mathews) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:26:46 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <20130222154702.5794.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> References: <20130222154702.5794.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> Message-ID: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> On 2/22/13 3:47 PM, Alex Krohn wrote: > In the new pending fee structure here: > > https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html#isps > > ISP's that have up to and including a /20 (X-Small) and who were "early" > adopters and received a /32 IPv6 allocation which was the minimum > allocation size at the time, will see their fees double. > > This was discussed on the lists a lot in the past in this thread: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2012-March/002112.html > > and a lot of opposition against seeing the rates double or being forced > to get a /36 and re-number. > > What was the rational with going forward with this and not making a /32 > be in the X-Small (or XX-Small I suppose), as that was the minimum size > available for a lot of people? I'm in the same situation. We were allocated a /32 in early 2011 because that was the smallest allocation available under NRPM 2011.2 at the time. If a /36 had been available, it would certainly have met our needs forever. Since we only have (and probably only ever will have) /21 of total IPv4 space, the /32 from the IPv6 pushes us from "X-Small" to "Small" and doubles the fees from $1,000 a year to $2,000 a year. I asked ARIN's billing department last week if there was any solution for this, since John Curran's comments, referenced above and here: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2012-November/000446.html ... had seemed encouraging. But the reply was that the only way to return to X-Small status is to apply for a new /36, then renumber out of the /32 within 3 months and return it. Although it'll take at least a couple of days of my time to renumber, I'll probably do so. It'll save us thousands (tens of thousands?) of dollars in the long run. But this outcome seems perverse. If we'd waited two years to implement IPv6, we'd be charged $1,000 less a year by default. Because we didn't, we have to renumber into a smaller block to save that money -- not because renumbering provides any benefit to anyone, but because of a historical policy quirk. I suppose one could argue that we're being charged no more than the eventual post-fee-waiver rate listed when we were allocated the /32 in 2011. That's true, but it doesn't lessen the frustration that other organizations in the X-Small IPv4 category who now apply for the same thing -- "the smallest available IPv6 allocation" -- pay half what we'll pay if we don't renumber. -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies From msalim at localweb.com Thu Mar 7 13:35:06 2013 From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:35:06 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure References: <20130222154702.5794.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> Message-ID: I agree. I had also commented on the earlier thread with the same comment. We are in the same boat. We did not insist on a /32, we were given a /32 because that was the smallest allocation at the time. While I do not expect to be rewarded financially for being an early adopter, I do not expect to be penalized either. Renumbering is not a simple option for us. We have live customers using IPv6 with stringent and time consuming change control processes. It is a major ordeal to make IP address changes for us. 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 Robert L Mathews Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:27 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure On 2/22/13 3:47 PM, Alex Krohn wrote: > In the new pending fee structure here: > > https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html#isps > > ISP's that have up to and including a /20 (X-Small) and who were "early" > adopters and received a /32 IPv6 allocation which was the minimum > allocation size at the time, will see their fees double. > > This was discussed on the lists a lot in the past in this thread: > > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2012-March/002112.html > > and a lot of opposition against seeing the rates double or being > forced to get a /36 and re-number. > > What was the rational with going forward with this and not making a > /32 be in the X-Small (or XX-Small I suppose), as that was the minimum > size available for a lot of people? I'm in the same situation. We were allocated a /32 in early 2011 because that was the smallest allocation available under NRPM 2011.2 at the time. If a /36 had been available, it would certainly have met our needs forever. Since we only have (and probably only ever will have) /21 of total IPv4 space, the /32 from the IPv6 pushes us from "X-Small" to "Small" and doubles the fees from $1,000 a year to $2,000 a year. I asked ARIN's billing department last week if there was any solution for this, since John Curran's comments, referenced above and here: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2012-November/000446.html ... had seemed encouraging. But the reply was that the only way to return to X-Small status is to apply for a new /36, then renumber out of the /32 within 3 months and return it. Although it'll take at least a couple of days of my time to renumber, I'll probably do so. It'll save us thousands (tens of thousands?) of dollars in the long run. But this outcome seems perverse. If we'd waited two years to implement IPv6, we'd be charged $1,000 less a year by default. Because we didn't, we have to renumber into a smaller block to save that money -- not because renumbering provides any benefit to anyone, but because of a historical policy quirk. I suppose one could argue that we're being charged no more than the eventual post-fee-waiver rate listed when we were allocated the /32 in 2011. That's true, but it doesn't lessen the frustration that other organizations in the X-Small IPv4 category who now apply for the same thing -- "the smallest available IPv6 allocation" -- pay half what we'll pay if we don't renumber. -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies _______________________________________________ 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 alex-arin at gossamer-threads.com Thu Mar 7 13:43:38 2013 From: alex-arin at gossamer-threads.com (Alex Krohn) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:43:38 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> Message-ID: <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> > I agree. I had also commented on the earlier thread with the same > comment. We are in the same boat. We did not insist on a /32, we were > given a /32 because that was the smallest allocation at the time. While > I do not expect to be rewarded financially for being an early adopter, I > do not expect to be penalized either. From: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2012-March/002160.html it seems like 234 members who have x-small v4 and small v6 are faced with being charged under small when they (probably) would have been just as happy if their initial allocation was a /36 and thus stayed in x-small. The options to these members now are to either see the fees double or return their /32 and get a new /36 (can't take the /36 out of your existing /32 either). This doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the original post of the "strong desire to minimize fees for the smallest members". Since /32 was the smallest allocation you could get for many members, it seems like a /32 should be considered x-small. Thoughts? Alex From gnicholas at nwnc.net Thu Mar 7 13:42:26 2013 From: gnicholas at nwnc.net (G. Nicholas) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:42:26 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure Message-ID: <37798f9f337e4034abcc00321c3eada4.gnicholas@nwnc.net> John, I see that you are listed as a keynote speaker at the upcoming WISPA conference in April. There will be hundreds of small ISPs in the audience that are concerned about issues like this with the new fee structure. Also, one related question is: Will the new fee structure be pro-rated on your renewal billing? For example our bill is due in June, but the new fee struture is effective July 1. So will we have to pay the higher rate for another additional year? or will we be charged 1 month June at the old rate and then 11 months at the new rate? Thanks Garth New Wave Net Corp ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike A. Salim Sent: 3/7/2013 12:35:06 PM To: lists at tigertech.com;arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure > I agree. I had also commented on the earlier thread with the same comment. We are in the same boat. We did not insist on a /32, we were given a /32 because that was the smallest allocation at the time. While I do not expect to be rewarded financially for being an early adopter, I do not expect to be penalized either. > > Renumbering is not a simple option for us. We have live customers using IPv6 with stringent and time consuming change control processes. It is a major ordeal to make IP address changes for us. > > 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 Robert L Mathews > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:27 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure > > On 2/22/13 3:47 PM, Alex Krohn wrote: > > > In the new pending fee structure here: > > > > https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html#isps > > > > ISP's that have up to and including a /20 (X-Small) and who were "early" > > adopters and received a /32 IPv6 allocation which was the minimum > > allocation size at the time, will see their fees double. > > > > This was discussed on the lists a lot in the past in this thread: > > > > > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2012-March/002112.html > > > > and a lot of opposition against seeing the rates double or being > > forced to get a /36 and re-number. > > > > What was the rational with going forward with this and not making a > > /32 be in the X-Small (or XX-Small I suppose), as that was the minimum > > size available for a lot of people? > > I'm in the same situation. We were allocated a /32 in early 2011 because that was the smallest allocation available under NRPM 2011.2 at the time. If a /36 had been available, it would certainly have met our needs forever. > > Since we only have (and probably only ever will have) /21 of total IPv4 space, the /32 from the IPv6 pushes us from "X-Small" to "Small" and doubles the fees from $1,000 a year to $2,000 a year. > > I asked ARIN's billing department last week if there was any solution for this, since John Curran's comments, referenced above and here: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2012-November/000446.html > > ... had seemed encouraging. But the reply was that the only way to return to X-Small status is to apply for a new /36, then renumber out of the /32 within 3 months and return it. > > Although it'll take at least a couple of days of my time to renumber, I'll probably do so. It'll save us thousands (tens of thousands?) of dollars in the long run. > > But this outcome seems perverse. If we'd waited two years to implement IPv6, we'd be charged $1,000 less a year by default. Because we didn't, we have to renumber into a smaller block to save that money -- not because renumbering provides any benefit to anyone, but because of a historical policy quirk. > > I suppose one could argue that we're being charged no more than the eventual post-fee-waiver rate listed when we were allocated the /32 in 2011. That's true, but it doesn't lessen the frustration that other organizations in the X-Small IPv4 category who now apply for the same thing -- "the smallest available IPv6 allocation" -- pay half what we'll pay if we don't renumber. > > -- > Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies > _______________________________________________ > 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 ian at platinum.net Thu Mar 7 13:47:59 2013 From: ian at platinum.net (Ian McLaughlin) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:47:59 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> Message-ID: <71BDF01C-B3DA-4213-B64F-E4EDE3468CC1@platinum.net> On 2013-03-07, at 10:43 AM, Alex Krohn wrote: > it seems like 234 members who have x-small v4 and small v6 are faced > with being charged under small when they (probably) would have been just > as happy if their initial allocation was a /36 and thus stayed in > x-small. Looked at another way, this is an additional $234K in revenue per year for ARIN per year. Not insignificant. (Yes, we're one of the affected early-adopters.) Ian McLaughlin Director of Technology Dargal Interline Worldwide 250-979-1161 From joseph at media-hosts.com Thu Mar 7 13:48:22 2013 From: joseph at media-hosts.com (Joseph Conti) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:48:22 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> Message-ID: <5138E0F6.1010004@media-hosts.com> Also in the same boat. This was the official reply from ARIN when I opened a ticket regarding the issue. In fact, I had originally requested an initial IPv6 allocation smaller than a /32 and was denied at the time. Hello Joseph, Currently there are no policies that would adjust the fee schedules based on being an early adopter, and as far as I know, there are no proposed policies to do so. If you're interested, you can keep an eye on the policy proposals here: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ I should first clarify that your organization is a Small under current policy, $2250, however your annual fee due in June will be $1687.50 with the IPv6 fee waiver still in effect. Adjusting from a /32 to a /36 will not affect your invoice due in June since the new fee schedule does not take effect until July. If you return the /32 for a /36, it will reduce your annual maintenance fee to X-small for your 2014 annual fee (assuming your organization doesn't request additional resources that would increase your fees.) In continuing ARIN's efforts to conserve resources, allocations of /36 will be issued from a separate block than /32 IP address blocks. So you may return the entire /32 so that ARIN can issue a new /36. ARIN will allow your organization to retain the /32 for 3 months to allow time for your renumbering, with the understanding that additional time can be allotted if needed. If you wish to go this route, please submit an IPv6 request stating your request to return the /32 to reduce your fees to a size X-small /36. If your request has not been resolved to your satisfaction, please click the Reply button below. If you are satisfied with this resolution, please click the Close Ticket button below. The ticket will automatically close on 03-18-2013 if no action is taken. Regards, *Joseph Conti* *Media-Hosts Inc.* *Cell:* 1.613.864.0084 *Toll Free:* 1.877.352.7310 x: 200 http://www.media-hosts.com http://www.openvz.ca On 13-03-07 01:43 PM, Alex Krohn wrote: >> I agree. I had also commented on the earlier thread with the same >> comment. We are in the same boat. We did not insist on a /32, we were >> given a /32 because that was the smallest allocation at the time. While >> I do not expect to be rewarded financially for being an early adopter, I >> do not expect to be penalized either. > From: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2012-March/002160.html > > it seems like 234 members who have x-small v4 and small v6 are faced > with being charged under small when they (probably) would have been just > as happy if their initial allocation was a /36 and thus stayed in > x-small. > > The options to these members now are to either see the fees double or > return their /32 and get a new /36 (can't take the /36 out of your > existing /32 either). > > This doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the original post of the > "strong desire to minimize fees for the smallest members". > > Since /32 was the smallest allocation you could get for many members, it > seems like a /32 should be considered x-small. > > Thoughts? > > Alex > _______________________________________________ > 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 greg at rhservices.us Thu Mar 7 13:42:15 2013 From: greg at rhservices.us (Greg Martin) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:42:15 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: References: <20130222154702.5794.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> Message-ID: <19fc01ce1b63$7d8dcb80$78a96280$@us> I find this a bit troubling as well and our bill does not seem to match up to the demand for IPv6. I would reckon that just about every small provider who got a direct allocation has the same complaint. Our ARIN bill will double and we have a /21 and /22 of IPv4 resources... It will double specifically for the reason that we were only able to be assigned a /32 of IPv6 space while only having two low revenue customers that utilize it. Regards, Greg Martin -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike A. Salim Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:35 PM To: Robert L Mathews; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure I agree. I had also commented on the earlier thread with the same comment. We are in the same boat. We did not insist on a /32, we were given a /32 because that was the smallest allocation at the time. While I do not expect to be rewarded financially for being an early adopter, I do not expect to be penalized either. Renumbering is not a simple option for us. We have live customers using IPv6 with stringent and time consuming change control processes. It is a major ordeal to make IP address changes for us. 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 Robert L Mathews Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:27 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure On 2/22/13 3:47 PM, Alex Krohn wrote: > In the new pending fee structure here: > > https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html#isps > > ISP's that have up to and including a /20 (X-Small) and who were "early" > adopters and received a /32 IPv6 allocation which was the minimum > allocation size at the time, will see their fees double. > > This was discussed on the lists a lot in the past in this thread: > > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2012-March/002112.html > > and a lot of opposition against seeing the rates double or being > forced to get a /36 and re-number. > > What was the rational with going forward with this and not making a > /32 be in the X-Small (or XX-Small I suppose), as that was the minimum > size available for a lot of people? I'm in the same situation. We were allocated a /32 in early 2011 because that was the smallest allocation available under NRPM 2011.2 at the time. If a /36 had been available, it would certainly have met our needs forever. Since we only have (and probably only ever will have) /21 of total IPv4 space, the /32 from the IPv6 pushes us from "X-Small" to "Small" and doubles the fees from $1,000 a year to $2,000 a year. I asked ARIN's billing department last week if there was any solution for this, since John Curran's comments, referenced above and here: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2012-November/000446.html ... had seemed encouraging. But the reply was that the only way to return to X-Small status is to apply for a new /36, then renumber out of the /32 within 3 months and return it. Although it'll take at least a couple of days of my time to renumber, I'll probably do so. It'll save us thousands (tens of thousands?) of dollars in the long run. But this outcome seems perverse. If we'd waited two years to implement IPv6, we'd be charged $1,000 less a year by default. Because we didn't, we have to renumber into a smaller block to save that money -- not because renumbering provides any benefit to anyone, but because of a historical policy quirk. I suppose one could argue that we're being charged no more than the eventual post-fee-waiver rate listed when we were allocated the /32 in 2011. That's true, but it doesn't lessen the frustration that other organizations in the X-Small IPv4 category who now apply for the same thing -- "the smallest available IPv6 allocation" -- pay half what we'll pay if we don't renumber. -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies _______________________________________________ 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 joseph at media-hosts.com Thu Mar 7 14:14:40 2013 From: joseph at media-hosts.com (Joseph Conti) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:14:40 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <71BDF01C-B3DA-4213-B64F-E4EDE3468CC1@platinum.net> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <71BDF01C-B3DA-4213-B64F-E4EDE3468CC1@platinum.net> Message-ID: <5138E720.2010102@media-hosts.com> As long as organisations have the option of re-numbering the financial incentive on ARIN's side of the table would just result in inconveniencing smaller organisations. The ones who want to save money and have an easy opportunity to re-number now, will do so. 4,096 /48's in a /36 is still a lot of space. If/when we fill that properly, we can just get another /36 at that point and save money between now and then. Sorry IPv6 BGP table, policy got in the way again! *Joseph * On 13-03-07 01:47 PM, Ian McLaughlin wrote: > On 2013-03-07, at 10:43 AM, Alex Krohn wrote: > >> it seems like 234 members who have x-small v4 and small v6 are faced >> with being charged under small when they (probably) would have been just >> as happy if their initial allocation was a /36 and thus stayed in >> x-small. > Looked at another way, this is an additional $234K in revenue per year for ARIN per year. Not insignificant. (Yes, we're one of the affected early-adopters.) > > Ian McLaughlin > Director of Technology > Dargal Interline Worldwide > 250-979-1161 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 tdensmore at tarpit.cybermesa.com Thu Mar 7 14:12:12 2013 From: tdensmore at tarpit.cybermesa.com (Tim Densmore) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:12:12 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <71BDF01C-B3DA-4213-B64F-E4EDE3468CC1@platinum.net> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <71BDF01C-B3DA-4213-B64F-E4EDE3468CC1@platinum.net> Message-ID: <5138E68C.1010609@tarpit.cybermesa.com> On 3/7/2013 11:47 AM, Ian McLaughlin wrote: > On 2013-03-07, at 10:43 AM, Alex Krohn wrote: > >> it seems like 234 members who have x-small v4 and small v6 are faced >> with being charged under small when they (probably) would have been just >> as happy if their initial allocation was a /36 and thus stayed in >> x-small. > Looked at another way, this is an additional $234K in revenue per year for ARIN per year. Not insignificant. (Yes, we're one of the affected early-adopters.) > > Ian McLaughlin > Director of Technology > Dargal Interline Worldwide > 250-979-1161 > Strangely, it seems like we might actually end up paying less with the new schedule. Under the current schedule we're a medium sized ISP (/18) and we pay $4500/year. We were on the fence about whether we should ask for a small or large IPv6 allocation, but went with a /32 for all the usual reasons. If I'm reading the new schedule correctly, we'd be reclassified as a small ISP and our fees would actually go down to $2000/year. I'm sure I must be misunderstanding things, though, since that seems incredibly unlikely. TD From jcurran at arin.net Thu Mar 7 14:24:04 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:24:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <37798f9f337e4034abcc00321c3eada4.gnicholas@nwnc.net> References: <37798f9f337e4034abcc00321c3eada4.gnicholas@nwnc.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F92350C@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:42 PM, "G. Nicholas" wrote: > John, > > I see that you are listed as a keynote speaker at the upcoming WISPA conference in April. There will be hundreds of small ISPs in the audience that are concerned about issues like this with the new fee structure. Excellent to hear... It should make for an energetic session! > Also, one related question is: Will the new fee structure be pro-rated on your renewal billing? For example our bill is due in June, but the new fee struture is effective July 1. So will we have to pay the higher rate for another additional year? or will we be charged 1 month June at the old rate and then 11 months at the new rate? Yes, fees will be prorated effective July 1; this may result in either a credit or an additional amount due if you are renewing based on an earlier invoice. Hope this helps, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From scottleibrand at gmail.com Thu Mar 7 14:17:25 2013 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:17:25 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> References: <20130222154702.5794.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> Message-ID: <6C204A87-F65E-4F5F-82FD-010DFB2DEFAA@gmail.com> Is there any reason ARIN couldn't simply resize a /32 down to /36 rather than issuing a new one and requiring a full renumbering? If we assume that sparse allocation will mean that the rest of the /32 gets set aside for future growth, that should minimize the pain quite a bit... Scott On Mar 7, 2013, at 10:26 AM, Robert L Mathews wrote: > On 2/22/13 3:47 PM, Alex Krohn wrote: > >> In the new pending fee structure here: >> >> https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html#isps >> >> ISP's that have up to and including a /20 (X-Small) and who were "early" >> adopters and received a /32 IPv6 allocation which was the minimum >> allocation size at the time, will see their fees double. >> >> This was discussed on the lists a lot in the past in this thread: >> >> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2012-March/002112.html >> >> and a lot of opposition against seeing the rates double or being forced >> to get a /36 and re-number. >> >> What was the rational with going forward with this and not making a /32 >> be in the X-Small (or XX-Small I suppose), as that was the minimum size >> available for a lot of people? > > I'm in the same situation. We were allocated a /32 in early 2011 because > that was the smallest allocation available under NRPM 2011.2 at the > time. If a /36 had been available, it would certainly have met our needs > forever. > > Since we only have (and probably only ever will have) /21 of total IPv4 > space, the /32 from the IPv6 pushes us from "X-Small" to "Small" and > doubles the fees from $1,000 a year to $2,000 a year. > > I asked ARIN's billing department last week if there was any solution > for this, since John Curran's comments, referenced above and here: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2012-November/000446.html > > ... had seemed encouraging. But the reply was that the only way to > return to X-Small status is to apply for a new /36, then renumber out of > the /32 within 3 months and return it. > > Although it'll take at least a couple of days of my time to renumber, > I'll probably do so. It'll save us thousands (tens of thousands?) of > dollars in the long run. > > But this outcome seems perverse. If we'd waited two years to implement > IPv6, we'd be charged $1,000 less a year by default. Because we didn't, > we have to renumber into a smaller block to save that money -- not > because renumbering provides any benefit to anyone, but because of a > historical policy quirk. > > I suppose one could argue that we're being charged no more than the > eventual post-fee-waiver rate listed when we were allocated the /32 in > 2011. That's true, but it doesn't lessen the frustration that other > organizations in the X-Small IPv4 category who now apply for the same > thing -- "the smallest available IPv6 allocation" -- pay half what we'll > pay if we don't renumber. > > -- > Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Thu Mar 7 14:56:12 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:56:12 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9239EA@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Alex Krohn wrote: > > The options to these members now are to either see the fees double or > return their /32 and get a new /36 (can't take the /36 out of your > existing /32 either). Alex - This aspect (being able to take /36 from your existing block) has been corrected, i.e. you may return portions of your original IPv6 /32 such that you are left with a contiguous /36 and ARIN will recognize the new total IPv6 holdings and invoice accordingly (i.e. only for /36 of IPv6 space) Apologies for the earlier confusion on this point; we have been trying to avoid making "holes" in the IPv6 sparse allocation buckets but also realize the need to be flexible in circumstances such as these - thanks for raising the issue. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Thu Mar 7 15:25:18 2013 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:25:18 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9239EA@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9239EA@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <5138F7AE.5010000@umn.edu> On 3/7/13 13:56 , John Curran wrote: > This aspect (being able to take /36 from your existing block) has been corrected, > i.e. you may return portions of your original IPv6 /32 such that you are left with > a contiguous /36 and ARIN will recognize the new total IPv6 holdings and invoice > accordingly (i.e. only for /36 of IPv6 space) > > Apologies for the earlier confusion on this point; we have been trying to avoid making > "holes" in the IPv6 sparse allocation buckets but also realize the need to be flexible > in circumstances such as these - thanks for raising the issue. John, I think that is completely constant with the intent of ARIN-2011-3 that provided for /36 initial allocations. I assume the 3 month timetable still applies for the return of the other 15/16ths of the /32? I'm interested to know if the 3 month timetable is a problem for any of the 234 that this seems to effect? If necessary, I think a one-time policy could be put together quickly to extend the timetable for the return if this is real a problem for anyone. If its not a problem for anyone then we don't need to clutter the NRPM up with it. But, if this is a real problem that needs policy then we to get a proposal in ASAP. Thanks > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > -- ================================================ 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 Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net Thu Mar 7 16:39:39 2013 From: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:39:39 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <6C204A87-F65E-4F5F-82FD-010DFB2DEFAA@gmail.com> References: <20130222154702.5794.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <6C204A87-F65E-4F5F-82FD-010DFB2DEFAA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5139091B.9060900@forethought.net> This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard (this week, anyway). ARIN has a policy that says: The smallest block you can get is a /32, and it costs $2250. Then they have a stroke or something, and decide that the smallest block is now a /36, force a retroactive change on providers, insist that they return the block and re-number, or alternative, you can pay us boatloads of additional money just because we changed our mind. See what I mean? Ridiculous. The appropriate course is to make a policy change, grandfather those already issued both as to price and allocation, and not make people jump through hoops, set themselves on fire, and go through an unreasonable amount of busy-work for absolutely no reason. Totally, utterly brain-damaged. I don't think any of us should kowtow to this nonsense. This is just the big boys bullying around the little guys. I mean, really, we can't make IPv6 work with 4 billion networks for service providers? Really? On 03/07/2013 12:17 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > Is there any reason ARIN couldn't simply resize a /32 down to /36 rather than issuing a new one and requiring a full renumbering? If we assume that sparse allocation will mean that the rest of the /32 gets set aside for future growth, that should minimize the pain quite a bit... > > Scott > > On Mar 7, 2013, at 10:26 AM, Robert L Mathews wrote: > >> On 2/22/13 3:47 PM, Alex Krohn wrote: >> >>> In the new pending fee structure here: >>> >>> https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html#isps >>> >>> ISP's that have up to and including a /20 (X-Small) and who were "early" >>> adopters and received a /32 IPv6 allocation which was the minimum >>> allocation size at the time, will see their fees double. >>> >>> This was discussed on the lists a lot in the past in this thread: >>> >>> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2012-March/002112.html >>> >>> and a lot of opposition against seeing the rates double or being forced >>> to get a /36 and re-number. >>> >>> What was the rational with going forward with this and not making a /32 >>> be in the X-Small (or XX-Small I suppose), as that was the minimum size >>> available for a lot of people? >> I'm in the same situation. We were allocated a /32 in early 2011 because >> that was the smallest allocation available under NRPM 2011.2 at the >> time. If a /36 had been available, it would certainly have met our needs >> forever. >> >> Since we only have (and probably only ever will have) /21 of total IPv4 >> space, the /32 from the IPv6 pushes us from "X-Small" to "Small" and >> doubles the fees from $1,000 a year to $2,000 a year. >> >> I asked ARIN's billing department last week if there was any solution >> for this, since John Curran's comments, referenced above and here: >> >> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2012-November/000446.html >> >> ... had seemed encouraging. But the reply was that the only way to >> return to X-Small status is to apply for a new /36, then renumber out of >> the /32 within 3 months and return it. >> >> Although it'll take at least a couple of days of my time to renumber, >> I'll probably do so. It'll save us thousands (tens of thousands?) of >> dollars in the long run. >> >> But this outcome seems perverse. If we'd waited two years to implement >> IPv6, we'd be charged $1,000 less a year by default. Because we didn't, >> we have to renumber into a smaller block to save that money -- not >> because renumbering provides any benefit to anyone, but because of a >> historical policy quirk. >> >> I suppose one could argue that we're being charged no more than the >> eventual post-fee-waiver rate listed when we were allocated the /32 in >> 2011. That's true, but it doesn't lessen the frustration that other >> organizations in the X-Small IPv4 category who now apply for the same >> thing -- "the smallest available IPv6 allocation" -- pay half what we'll >> pay if we don't renumber. >> >> -- >> Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. -- 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 jcurran at arin.net Thu Mar 7 17:26:34 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:26:34 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <5139091B.9060900@forethought.net> References: <20130222154702.5794.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <6C204A87-F65E-4F5F-82FD-010DFB2DEFAA@gmail.com> <5139091B.9060900@forethought.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F925275@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Mar 7, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard (this week, anyway). > > ARIN has a policy that says: The smallest block you can get is a /32, and it costs $2250. > > Then they have a stroke or something, and decide that the smallest block is now a /36, force a retroactive change on providers, insist that they return the block and re-number, or alternative, you can pay us boatloads of additional money just because we changed our mind. Jawaid - The ability for providers to get a smaller block (e.g. /36) happened more than a year ago (via implementation of Draft Policy ARIN-2011-3) and is independent of the revised fee schedule. The revised fee schedule for someone with /32 of IPv6 is actually lower under the new fees ($2000/year vs $2250), or it would be if not for the fact that the prior $2250 annual fee has benefitted from 25% discount that has been effect for several years (i.e., net result was $1688/yr). The revised fee schedule does result in some members seeing higher fees, but it results in lower fees for the majority and _consistent_ fees for everyone. A presentation to the members covering this in detail was made at the last member's meeting and is available here: Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Thu Mar 7 17:31:08 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:31:08 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> References: <20130222154702.5794.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9253FA@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Robert L Mathews wrote: > I asked ARIN's billing department last week if there was any solution > for this, since John Curran's comments, referenced above and here: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2012-November/000446.html > > ... had seemed encouraging. But the reply was that the only way to > return to X-Small status is to apply for a new /36, then renumber out of > the /32 within 3 months and return it. > > Although it'll take at least a couple of days of my time to renumber, > I'll probably do so. It'll save us thousands (tens of thousands?) of > dollars in the long run. Robert - This has been corrected; you can return all but a single /36 from your existing allocation and be billed accordingly. So, some renumbering may be involved (depending on your initial numbering plan) but it should be far less than renumbering into an entire new allocation. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Thu Mar 7 17:28:20 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:28:20 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <5138E720.2010102@media-hosts.com> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <71BDF01C-B3DA-4213-B64F-E4EDE3468CC1@platinum.net> <5138E720.2010102@media-hosts.com> Message-ID: I will point out that these are fees, not policy. The AC has no role in fees and they are set by fiat of the board rather than through the public policy process. I am not thrilled with the new fee structure, either, especially since it does an end-run on expectations created in the early days of the LRSA. Owen On Mar 7, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Joseph Conti wrote: > As long as organisations have the option of re-numbering the financial incentive on ARIN's side of the table would just result in inconveniencing smaller organisations. The ones who want to save money and have an easy opportunity to re-number now, will do so. > > 4,096 /48's in a /36 is still a lot of space. If/when we fill that properly, we can just get another /36 at that point and save money between now and then. > > Sorry IPv6 BGP table, policy got in the way again! > > Joseph > > On 13-03-07 01:47 PM, Ian McLaughlin wrote: >> On 2013-03-07, at 10:43 AM, Alex Krohn wrote: >> >>> it seems like 234 members who have x-small v4 and small v6 are faced >>> with being charged under small when they (probably) would have been just >>> as happy if their initial allocation was a /36 and thus stayed in >>> x-small. >> Looked at another way, this is an additional $234K in revenue per year for ARIN per year. Not insignificant. (Yes, we're one of the affected early-adopters.) >> >> Ian McLaughlin >> Director of Technology >> Dargal Interline Worldwide >> 250-979-1161 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu Mar 7 17:46:02 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:46:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <71BDF01C-B3DA-4213-B64F-E4EDE3468CC1@platinum.net> <5138E720.2010102@media-hosts.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9254FC@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I am not thrilled with the new fee structure, either, especially since it does an end-run on expectations created in the early days of the LRSA. Owen - You are certainly correct with respect to one aspect of expectations by those under LRSA - parties who expected unlimited services for unlimited resource records for a single $100/year fee are now facing fees of $100 _per resource_ per year. This creates some limited equity (at least compared to end-users who pay fees from the same schedule.) Note that these fees are still remarkably advantageous when compared to those paid by ISPs for similar services. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From Chris.Norman at mainlandtelecom.com Thu Mar 7 17:43:09 2013 From: Chris.Norman at mainlandtelecom.com (Chris J. Norman) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:43:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F925275@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <20130222154702.5794.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <6C204A87-F65E-4F5F-82FD-010DFB2DEFAA@gmail.com> <5139091B.9060900@forethought.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F925275@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <883F93CA602F554DAF0E40ED799118AE5C0142E5@exchange.corp.mainlandtelecom.com> I would just like to through my opinion into the mix, We are a very small ISP, with a limited budget, however I find ARIN's fees to be more than reasonable, during our setup the assistance from ARIN and services ARIN supplied were invaluable, prices rise, that is an inevitable fact. I whole heartedly support ARIN fee structure, we are really not talking about a massive increase here. The amount of hours discussing this subject are have probably cost 'us' more than the price increase. Kindest Regards, Chris J. Norman Chief Technology Officer Tel??(902) 365-3132??Fax ?(902) 365-3121 ARIN:CJN-ARIN -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: March 7, 2013 6:27 PM To: Jawaid Bazyar Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure On Mar 7, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard (this week, anyway). > > ARIN has a policy that says: The smallest block you can get is a /32, and it costs $2250. > > Then they have a stroke or something, and decide that the smallest block is now a /36, force a retroactive change on providers, insist that they return the block and re-number, or alternative, you can pay us boatloads of additional money just because we changed our mind. Jawaid - The ability for providers to get a smaller block (e.g. /36) happened more than a year ago (via implementation of Draft Policy ARIN-2011-3) and is independent of the revised fee schedule. The revised fee schedule for someone with /32 of IPv6 is actually lower under the new fees ($2000/year vs $2250), or it would be if not for the fact that the prior $2250 annual fee has benefitted from 25% discount that has been effect for several years (i.e., net result was $1688/yr). The revised fee schedule does result in some members seeing higher fees, but it results in lower fees for the majority and _consistent_ fees for everyone. A presentation to the members covering this in detail was made at the last member's meeting and is available here: 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 alec at ionity.com Thu Mar 7 17:39:18 2013 From: alec at ionity.com (Alec Ginsberg) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:39:18 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <71BDF01C-B3DA-4213-B64F-E4EDE3468CC1@platinum.net> <5138E720.2010102@media-hosts.com>, Message-ID: <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60505918F0D6E@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> I'd like to echo this point. >>Sorry IPv6 BGP table, policy got in the way again! We already have enough table bloat with the fragmentation of IPv4. This is horrible that we have to make it worse, especially right now when it could be done the right way going into it. ________________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong [owen at delong.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:28 PM To: Joseph Conti Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure I will point out that these are fees, not policy. The AC has no role in fees and they are set by fiat of the board rather than through the public policy process. I am not thrilled with the new fee structure, either, especially since it does an end-run on expectations created in the early days of the LRSA. Owen On Mar 7, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Joseph Conti > wrote: As long as organisations have the option of re-numbering the financial incentive on ARIN's side of the table would just result in inconveniencing smaller organisations. The ones who want to save money and have an easy opportunity to re-number now, will do so. 4,096 /48's in a /36 is still a lot of space. If/when we fill that properly, we can just get another /36 at that point and save money between now and then. Sorry IPv6 BGP table, policy got in the way again! Joseph On 13-03-07 01:47 PM, Ian McLaughlin wrote: On 2013-03-07, at 10:43 AM, Alex Krohn wrote: it seems like 234 members who have x-small v4 and small v6 are faced with being charged under small when they (probably) would have been just as happy if their initial allocation was a /36 and thus stayed in x-small. Looked at another way, this is an additional $234K in revenue per year for ARIN per year. Not insignificant. (Yes, we're one of the affected early-adopters.) Ian McLaughlin Director of Technology Dargal Interline Worldwide 250-979-1161 _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 7 17:49:33 2013 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:49:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <524438748.169914.1362696573408.JavaMail.root@network1.net> To add a counterpoint, the new fee schedule is better in every way for me and all of my customers, and makes much more sense. I have several customers who have ~/17 of IPv4 space ($4,500/year), and currently have /32 of IPv6, but really need the next step (/28. $9,000/year). Under the new schedule, it would be $4,000 rather than $9,000 Making the /36 cost less than the /32 was an issue that needed to be fixed as well, and I think John Curran's clarification that you can shrink a current /32 to a /36 if desired is a good compromise. thanks, -Randy ----- Original Message ----- > > I will point out that these are fees, not policy. The AC has no role > in fees and they are set by fiat of the board rather than through > the public policy process. > > > I am not thrilled with the new fee structure, either, especially > since it does an end-run on expectations created in the early days > of the LRSA. > > > Owen > > > > > On Mar 7, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Joseph Conti < joseph at media-hosts.com > > wrote: > > > > > As long as organisations have the option of re-numbering the > financial incentive on ARIN's side of the table would just result in > inconveniencing smaller organisations. The ones who want to save > money and have an easy opportunity to re-number now, will do so. > > 4,096 /48's in a /36 is still a lot of space. If/when we fill that > properly, we can just get another /36 at that point and save money > between now and then. > > Sorry IPv6 BGP table, policy got in the way again! > > > Joseph > > On 13-03-07 01:47 PM, Ian McLaughlin wrote: > > > On 2013-03-07, at 10:43 AM, Alex Krohn > wrote: > > it seems like 234 members who have x-small v4 and small v6 are faced > with being charged under small when they (probably) would have been > just > as happy if their initial allocation was a /36 and thus stayed in > x-small. Looked at another way, this is an additional $234K in > revenue per year for ARIN per year. Not insignificant. (Yes, we're > one of the affected early-adopters.) > > Ian McLaughlin > Director of Technology > Dargal Interline Worldwide > 250-979-1161 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 kkriegel at cyberlynk.net Thu Mar 7 18:13:37 2013 From: kkriegel at cyberlynk.net (Kerry L. Kriegel) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:13:37 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9239EA@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9239EA@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <0a8601ce1b89$6610f560$3232e020$@cyberlynk.net> John, As an early adopter we received a /32. I would be happy to switch over to a contiguous /36 from inside my /32. Is there a "procedure" that I need to follow to ensure my "new" /36 comes out of the original /32? Thank you, ? Kerry L. Kriegel Network Operations Engineer Cyberlynk Network, Inc. Office: 414-858-9335 Fax:? 414-858-9336 -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:56 PM To: Alex Krohn Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Alex Krohn wrote: > > The options to these members now are to either see the fees double or > return their /32 and get a new /36 (can't take the /36 out of your > existing /32 either). Alex - This aspect (being able to take /36 from your existing block) has been corrected, i.e. you may return portions of your original IPv6 /32 such that you are left with a contiguous /36 and ARIN will recognize the new total IPv6 holdings and invoice accordingly (i.e. only for /36 of IPv6 space) Apologies for the earlier confusion on this point; we have been trying to avoid making "holes" in the IPv6 sparse allocation buckets but also realize the need to be flexible in circumstances such as these - thanks for raising the issue. 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 Thu Mar 7 18:13:51 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 23:13:51 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <07b201ce1b86$7f142f80$7d3c8e80$@wolfpaw.com> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <71BDF01C-B3DA-4213-B64F-E4EDE3468CC1@platinum.net> <5138E720.2010102@media-hosts.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9254FC@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <07b201ce1b86$7f142f80$7d3c8e80$@wolfpaw.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F925898@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Wolfpaw - Dale Corse wrote: > I usually lurk.. but I have to wonder about this new fee structure. Why > does ARIN require all these extra funds exactly? Dale - It's probably worth going through the presentation that I referenced but the short answer is that the revised fee schedule is actually revenue neutral, i.e. the total expected revenue is the same as today. The main reason for the change is to smooth out the fee schedule, introducing categories for smaller ISPs with even lower fees, and adding several large categories at the top for those holding the largest amount of number resources. So, no net increase in funds, but recovering the costs of operation more fairly across the entire community. Hope that helps! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net Thu Mar 7 18:15:46 2013 From: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:15:46 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F925275@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <20130222154702.5794.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <6C204A87-F65E-4F5F-82FD-010DFB2DEFAA@gmail.com> <5139091B.9060900@forethought.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F925275@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <51391FA2.5070406@forethought.net> I appear to have misinterpreted prior comments, and I appear to have violated one of my own rules: don't post to a forum on less than 6 hours sleep. Apologies! On 03/07/2013 03:26 PM, John Curran wrote: > Jawaid - > > The ability for providers to get a smaller block (e.g. /36) happened > more than a year ago (via implementation of Draft Policy ARIN-2011-3) > and is independent of the revised fee schedule. > > The revised fee schedule for someone with /32 of IPv6 is actually lower > under the new fees ($2000/year vs $2250), or it would be if not for the > fact that the prior $2250 annual fee has benefitted from 25% discount > that has been effect for several years (i.e., net result was $1688/yr). > > The revised fee schedule does result in some members seeing higher fees, > but it results in lower fees for the majority and _consistent_ fees for > everyone. A presentation to the members covering this in detail was > made at the last member's meeting and is available here: > > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > -- 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 jcurran at arin.net Thu Mar 7 18:22:01 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 23:22:01 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <0a8601ce1b89$6610f560$3232e020$@cyberlynk.net> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9239EA@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <0a8601ce1b89$6610f560$3232e020$@cyberlynk.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F92591A@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Mar 7, 2013, at 6:13 PM, "Kerry L. Kriegel" wrote: > John, > > As an early adopter we received a /32. I would be happy to switch over to a > contiguous /36 from inside my /32. > > Is there a "procedure" that I need to follow to ensure my "new" /36 comes > out of the original /32? No, simply indicate to us which /36 you wish to retain, and we'll update accordingly. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Thu Mar 7 18:24:45 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 23:24:45 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <51391FA2.5070406@forethought.net> References: <20130222154702.5794.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <6C204A87-F65E-4F5F-82FD-010DFB2DEFAA@gmail.com> <5139091B.9060900@forethought.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F925275@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <51391FA2.5070406@forethought.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F92593F@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Mar 7, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > I appear to have misinterpreted prior comments, and I appear to have violated one of my own rules: don't post to a forum on less than 6 hours sleep. Jawaid - No problem at all... we'd rather hear from you if something is amiss than have it go unsaid. Thanks again! (and get some sleep!) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From james.cornick at jchost.net Thu Mar 7 18:28:45 2013 From: james.cornick at jchost.net (James Cornick - Jchost.net) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:28:45 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F92591A@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9239EA@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <0a8601ce1b89$6610f560$3232e020$@cyberlynk.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F92591A@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <262CB1FA-AB4A-429D-A960-434B2C95F248@jchost.net> This here is really good news. Thanks all! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:22 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Mar 7, 2013, at 6:13 PM, "Kerry L. Kriegel" wrote: > >> John, >> >> As an early adopter we received a /32. I would be happy to switch over to a >> contiguous /36 from inside my /32. >> >> Is there a "procedure" that I need to follow to ensure my "new" /36 comes >> out of the original /32? > > No, simply indicate to us which /36 you wish to retain, and we'll update > accordingly. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Thu Mar 7 18:31:07 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 23:31:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60505918F0D6E@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <71BDF01C-B3DA-4213-B64F-E4EDE3468CC1@platinum.net> <5138E720.2010102@media-hosts.com> <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60505918F0D6E@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F925D8F@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Alec Ginsberg wrote: > > We already have enough table bloat with the fragmentation of IPv4. > > This is horrible that we have to make it worse, especially right now when it could be done the right way going into it. Alec - To be clear, IPv6 allocations are being made using a "sparse allocation" model (so there are adjacent blocks for each one which allows for contiguous growth and still only one covering prefix...) In this manner, we are doing it "the right way" with IPv6, and should not see fragmentation for follow-on requests for any ISPs which are so successful that they need additional IPv6 space. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Thu Mar 7 18:34:53 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 15:34:53 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F925898@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <71BDF01C-B3DA-4213-B64F-E4EDE3468CC1@platinum.net> <5138E720.2010102@media-hosts.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9254FC@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <07b201ce1b86$7f142f80$7d3c8e80$@wolfpaw.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F925898@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <431FF063-2F9D-4152-85ED-AD4E18C035EE@delong.com> Yes? Essentially it looks at the bell curve of entities paying fees, then subsidizes those in the middle of the curve by increasing fees for those closer to the edges. Owen On Mar 7, 2013, at 3:13 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Wolfpaw - Dale Corse > wrote: > >> I usually lurk.. but I have to wonder about this new fee structure. Why >> does ARIN require all these extra funds exactly? > > Dale - > > It's probably worth going through the presentation that I referenced > > but the short answer is that the revised fee schedule is actually > revenue neutral, i.e. the total expected revenue is the same as today. > > The main reason for the change is to smooth out the fee schedule, > introducing categories for smaller ISPs with even lower fees, and > adding several large categories at the top for those holding the > largest amount of number resources. > > So, no net increase in funds, but recovering the costs of operation > more fairly across the entire community. > > Hope that helps! > /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 andrew at ntplx.net Thu Mar 7 19:29:48 2013 From: andrew at ntplx.net (Andrew Lindh) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:29:48 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60505918F0D6E@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <71BDF01C-B3DA-4213-B64F-E4EDE3468CC1@platinum.net> <5138E720.2010102@media-hosts.com>, <928F9EF76967CE4A9E9524585CCDF60505918F0D6E@P1MBX05.HMC1.COMCAST.NET> Message-ID: <20130307192948.123816u55ncar2t8@webmail.netplex.net> It's not too late for the IPv6 BGP table. It's still small. There are some choices. One is a customer splits a /32 into 16 /36 networks and keeps one. ARIN does not assign the new /36 networks and the BGP table does not grow. If that customer needs more space later then a a larger block can be assigned from that space since there is room. Or... ARIN will assign the newly free /36 networks to new customers just as they would from another open range. The BGP table will grow anyway. I hope that customers have some idea of how much IPv6 space they need so lots of additional blocks are not assigned to a single customer. It's clear that some places need a /36 but were only able to get a /32, so now they need to split it for good reason. ARIN fees should allow customers to afford enough space so they do not need new allocations for a long time, if ever. IPv6 BGP tables now have over 10K routes. That will continue to grow as more places use IPv6. It's up to ARIN to make reasonable assignments so the table is not fragmented (too much) and become bloated like IPv4 which is over 430K routes now. -- Andrew Lindh andrew at netplex.net NETPLEX 860-233-1111 Quoting Alec Ginsberg : > I'd like to echo this point. > >>> Sorry IPv6 BGP table, policy got in the way again! > > We already have enough table bloat with the fragmentation of IPv4. > > This is horrible that we have to make it worse, especially right now > when it could be done the right way going into it. > > ________________________________________ > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Owen DeLong [owen at delong.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:28 PM > To: Joseph Conti > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure > > I will point out that these are fees, not policy. The AC has no role > in fees and they are set by fiat of the board rather than through > the public policy process. > > I am not thrilled with the new fee structure, either, especially > since it does an end-run on expectations created in the early days > of the LRSA. > > Owen > > On Mar 7, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Joseph Conti > > wrote: > > As long as organisations have the option of re-numbering the > financial incentive on ARIN's side of the table would just result in > inconveniencing smaller organisations. The ones who want to save > money and have an easy opportunity to re-number now, will do so. > > 4,096 /48's in a /36 is still a lot of space. If/when we fill that > properly, we can just get another /36 at that point and save money > between now and then. > > Sorry IPv6 BGP table, policy got in the way again! > > Joseph > > On 13-03-07 01:47 PM, Ian McLaughlin wrote: > > On 2013-03-07, at 10:43 AM, Alex Krohn > > wrote: > > > > it seems like 234 members who have x-small v4 and small v6 are faced > with being charged under small when they (probably) would have been just > as happy if their initial allocation was a /36 and thus stayed in > x-small. > > > Looked at another way, this is an additional $234K in revenue per > year for ARIN per year. Not insignificant. (Yes, we're one of the > affected early-adopters.) > > Ian McLaughlin > Director of Technology > Dargal Interline Worldwide > 250-979-1161 > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience > any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > From rcarpen at network1.net Thu Mar 7 23:21:52 2013 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 23:21:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <20130307192948.123816u55ncar2t8@webmail.netplex.net> Message-ID: <2085113159.170340.1362716512454.JavaMail.root@network1.net> With IPv4, I think there is as much of a concern for people splitting up perfectly aggregatable space into tiny pieces (which no amount of allocation policy can prevent) as there is for block fragmentation. As John said, ARIN is doing sparse allocation, so there should be very few, if any, networks that have more than 1 allocation, unless you grow from a /36 to a /24 or something. It is the wackos that take a /24 and announce it as a 4096 separate /36s that are going to be the problem for BGP. thanks, -Randy ----- Original Message ----- > > It's not too late for the IPv6 BGP table. It's still small. > > There are some choices. One is a customer splits a /32 into 16 /36 > networks > and keeps one. ARIN does not assign the new /36 networks and the BGP > table does not grow. If that customer needs more space later then a > a larger block can be assigned from that space since there is room. > > Or... ARIN will assign the newly free /36 networks to new customers > just as they would from another open range. The BGP table will grow > anyway. > > I hope that customers have some idea of how much IPv6 space they need > so lots of additional blocks are not assigned to a single customer. > It's clear that some places need a /36 but were only able to get a > /32, > so now they need to split it for good reason. > > ARIN fees should allow customers to afford enough space so they do > not > need new allocations for a long time, if ever. > > IPv6 BGP tables now have over 10K routes. That will continue to grow > as more places use IPv6. It's up to ARIN to make reasonable > assignments > so the table is not fragmented (too much) and become bloated like > IPv4 > which is over 430K routes now. > > -- > Andrew Lindh > andrew at netplex.net > NETPLEX 860-233-1111 > > > > Quoting Alec Ginsberg : > > > I'd like to echo this point. > > > >>> Sorry IPv6 BGP table, policy got in the way again! > > > > We already have enough table bloat with the fragmentation of IPv4. > > > > This is horrible that we have to make it worse, especially right > > now > > when it could be done the right way going into it. > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > > On Behalf Of Owen DeLong [owen at delong.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:28 PM > > To: Joseph Conti > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure > > > > I will point out that these are fees, not policy. The AC has no > > role > > in fees and they are set by fiat of the board rather than through > > the public policy process. > > > > I am not thrilled with the new fee structure, either, especially > > since it does an end-run on expectations created in the early days > > of the LRSA. > > > > Owen > > > > On Mar 7, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Joseph Conti > > > wrote: > > > > As long as organisations have the option of re-numbering the > > financial incentive on ARIN's side of the table would just result > > in > > inconveniencing smaller organisations. The ones who want to save > > money and have an easy opportunity to re-number now, will do so. > > > > 4,096 /48's in a /36 is still a lot of space. If/when we fill that > > properly, we can just get another /36 at that point and save money > > between now and then. > > > > Sorry IPv6 BGP table, policy got in the way again! > > > > Joseph > > > > On 13-03-07 01:47 PM, Ian McLaughlin wrote: > > > > On 2013-03-07, at 10:43 AM, Alex Krohn > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > it seems like 234 members who have x-small v4 and small v6 are > > faced > > with being charged under small when they (probably) would have been > > just > > as happy if their initial allocation was a /36 and thus stayed in > > x-small. > > > > > > Looked at another way, this is an additional $234K in revenue per > > year for ARIN per year. Not insignificant. (Yes, we're one of the > > affected early-adopters.) > > > > Ian McLaughlin > > Director of Technology > > Dargal Interline Worldwide > > 250-979-1161 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you > > experience > > any issues. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > From vivek at mailermailer.com Fri Mar 8 09:24:41 2013 From: vivek at mailermailer.com (Vick Khera) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 09:24:41 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F92591A@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9239EA@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <0a8601ce1b89$6610f560$3232e020$@cyberlynk.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F92591A@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <477028FB-4206-42D4-8CDA-BC1E9A7F57B0@mailermailer.com> On Mar 7, 2013, at 6:22 PM, John Curran wrote: >> Is there a "procedure" that I need to follow to ensure my "new" /36 comes >> out of the original /32? > > No, simply indicate to us which /36 you wish to retain, and we'll update > accordingly. > I'm planning to do this as well, but I'm unclear on the pricing page. It indicates that /40 and smaller are x-small for end-user allocations. I do not see where /36 comes into play. I'm looking here: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#end_users How will shrinking my /32 legacy allocation to /36 reduce my fee based on this published schedule? There is no published x-small for ISP allocation, either, on that page. Is that where the /36 cut-off should be published? From jcurran at arin.net Fri Mar 8 09:43:55 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 14:43:55 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure In-Reply-To: <477028FB-4206-42D4-8CDA-BC1E9A7F57B0@mailermailer.com> References: <5138DBE6.8060308@tigertech.com> <20130307104337.C93F.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9239EA@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <0a8601ce1b89$6610f560$3232e020$@cyberlynk.net> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F92591A@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <477028FB-4206-42D4-8CDA-BC1E9A7F57B0@mailermailer.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F933770@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Mar 8, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Vick Khera wrote: > On Mar 7, 2013, at 6:22 PM, John Curran wrote: > >>> Is there a "procedure" that I need to follow to ensure my "new" /36 comes >>> out of the original /32? >> >> No, simply indicate to us which /36 you wish to retain, and we'll update >> accordingly. >> > > I'm planning to do this as well, but I'm unclear on the pricing page. It indicates that /40 and smaller are x-small for end-user allocations. I do not see where /36 comes into play. > > I'm looking here: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#end_users > > How will shrinking my /32 legacy allocation to /36 reduce my fee based on this published schedule? There is no published x-small for ISP allocation, either, on that page. Is that where the /36 cut-off should be published? There is a new fee schedule planned for implementation in July - FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Tue Mar 19 15:00:21 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:00:21 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Fee changes and IPv6 address return Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9F0EC0@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> As recently announced, ARIN has adopted a new Fee Schedule that will be effective 1 July 2013. The changes help balance overall fees so that customers receiving comparable services are paying comparable fees where feasible, and to reduce, where possible, the costs for smaller ISPs. ARIN has received several inquires from organizations that received /32 IPv6 allocations which (due to policy at the time) may be significantly more than necessary for their networking needs. Recent changes to policy do allow for organizations to return IPv6 space down to a /36 allocation if desired, and this may result in lower annual registration service fees for some organizations. With the new fee schedule, organizations considering the return of IPv6 address space need to carefully keep in mind that their fee category is based on their address holdings. Specifically, the fee category for ISPs with both IPv4 resources and IPv6 resources is based on the service category that accommodates both their IPv6 and IPv4 address holdings, and hence each organization needs to review its individual circumstances. For organizations that reduce their resource holdings (e.g. by returning IPv6 resources), requests for invoice adjustments should be made directly to ARIN via hostmaster at arin.net or using ?Ask ARIN? in ARIN Online. Thank you, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Thu Mar 21 17:43:49 2013 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:43:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] De-funding the ITU (Apologies for overlap with the NANOG list) In-Reply-To: <3C4B8E41-F6A8-47E9-BB21-680E5A64CF18@pch.net> Message-ID: Hello Bill, I know this is an old thread, but it is an interesting topic. As I've been reading, I wonder how easily this petition could be implemented. During the last Plenipotentiary meeting, a clause was put into Article 28 regarding finances. It is included below. Does anyone know if a reservation was taken to give the US more flexibility in its funding choices? -Dan "CS/Art. 28 165 5 PP-98 PP-10 When choosing its class of contribution, a Member State shall not reduce it by more than 15 per cent of the number of units chosen by the Member State for the period preceding the reduction, rounding down to the nearest lower number of units in the scale, for contributions of three or more units; or by more than one class of contribution, for contributions below three units. The Council shall indicate to it the manner in which the reduction shall be gradually implemented over the period between plenipotentiary conferences. However, under exceptional circumstances such as natural disasters necessitating international aid programmes, the Plenipotentiary Conference may authorize a greater reduction in the number of contributory units when so requested by a Member State which has established that it can no longer maintain its contribution at the class originally chosen." -Collection of the basic texts of the International Telecommunication Union adopted by the Plenipotentiary Conference, 2011 Edition. On 1/12/13 10:04 PM, "Bill Woodcock" wrote: > >Please consider signing this petition: > >http://DeFundTheITU.org > >?so we can stop paying for both sides of this idiotic fight. Note that >if the U.S. pulls its funding from the ITU, that's 10%, and if all of the >countries that stood with us at the WCIT do so, that would be 74% of the >ITU's member revenue. Those of us who support the Internet are paying >for three-quarters of the fight against the Internet. As Smokey the Bear >would say, only WE can prevent stupidity. As Pogo Possum said, "We have >met the enemy, and the enemy is us!" Time to correct that. Redirect >$11M/year from the ITU to Internet governance organizations like the IETF. > > -Bill >_______________________________________________ >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 woody at pch.net Thu Mar 21 17:52:17 2013 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:52:17 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] De-funding the ITU (Apologies for overlap with the NANOG list) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10706F55-71BE-41F0-9944-49DDAD3DF63B@pch.net> On Mar 21, 2013, at 2:43 PM, "Alexander, Daniel" wrote: > Hello Bill, > > I know this is an old thread, but it is an interesting topic. As I've been > reading, I wonder how easily this petition could be implemented. During > the last Plenipotentiary meeting, a clause was put into Article 28 > regarding finances. It is included below. Does anyone know if a > reservation was taken to give the US more flexibility in its funding > choices? The U.S. included a general reservation, allowing the later definition of more specific reservations. So there's no way this could be used to _force_ the US to continue to contribute at current levels. However, in the many interesting conversations I had in the wake of the petition, the sense that I came to was that the R-sector satellite slot constituency finds the $11M/year to be a very low cost relative to the increased leverage they perceive they gain from it. I'm in no position to judge whether their perception is correct, and they're actually gaining leverage through the large contribution, or whether that leverage would be diminished if the contribution were reduced, but they (the _other_ NRO, for example) see this as a minor expenditure relative to the cost of building and lofting a satellite. The facts that there's no way to direct the funding to R-sector, and it's not coming out of their budget, notwithstanding. -Bill