[ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation

[David Siegel]

I agree with much of what Bill has to say on this matter.

As of today, there is little to no value in deploying IPv6.  We deploy IPv6
because we know there will be a need to do it in the future and that
deploying it is the right thing to do, but the value we receive is largely
intangible.

I would love to see a discount for IPv6 that is based on a 3rd party
measure of IPv6 migration progress.  If the consensus estimate is that
traffic is at 5% of the total, then a discount of 95% should eliminate
concerns of having to pay to be an early adopter without receiving a
return.

I'm not so idealist as to believe that this alone will spur a renewed
interest in IPv6 deployment, but at least it will
not unnecessarily penalize those who have done that right thing as of today.

Dave




On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:59 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com>
> wrote:
> > I have no idea how this relates to the question. If they can
> > pay for several uplinks, then they can afford the proposed
> > maintenance fees. The proposed maintenance fees are
> > trivial in the face of the costs of maintaining those uplinks.
>
> Hi Jo,
>
> Respectfully, I really think you're looking at this the wrong way.
>
> Is it important to you that IPv6 be deployed sooner rather than later?
> Is it important that we reach a ubiquity in IPv6 deployment where we
> can begin to retire IPv4?
>
> If you don't care how long it takes to deploy IPv6, I respect that.
> Folks use a service, they pay a fee. They don't want to pay a fee,
> they don't use the service. For the moment, many have chosen not to
> use IPv6-related services. No problem; it'll happen when its ripe.
>
> If, on the other hand, you believe as I do that your IPv6 deployment
> gains value only in relation to everybody else's IPv6 deployment then
> the bottom line is: remove the blockers. Time enough to charge for
> IPv6 when it's the primary protocol on the public Internet. Today the
> fee is one of a number of deployment blockers, so axe it.
>
>
> I do agree that it shouldn't be free forever and as a long-term matter
> I'm not overly offended by the proposed fee structure. I do think,
> however, that the appropriate metric for when to instate fees for IPv6
> registrations should be based on the measurable level of use on the
> public Internet rather than some fixed guess about how long it should
> last or a string-along annual choice by the board.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121105/ee8dd39f/attachment.html>