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

Jesse D. Geddis jesse at la-broadband.com
Wed Nov 14 15:01:33 EST 2012


	While these assertions may be true I haven't seen any supporting data
published as I've asked specifically what does it cost to serve X customer
on average vs X customer. As far as what an IPv6 allocation would cost and
whether or not it would be affordable I think this may be a misnomer. What
I've asked is if you were to take the total projected revenue generated
for IPv6 next year based on current and projected allocations what would
that fee be if it were broken up into blocks of /48 or /32 or whatever.
You indicated that would make the /48 fee effectively zero for most end
users. I think this brings up an interesting point.

1. The argument I'm hearing over and over here is that folks want to
reduce the cost of entry level ipv6 allocations for end users and non
profits etc etc etc. This would achieve that according to you.
2. Another argument I'm hearing over and over here is that these fees both
current and proposed disproportionately favor a small number large
organizations at the expense of everyone else. This would address that.

I have a feeling it can be done cost neutral for ARIN given ARIN can use
their revenue for 2011 and divide it up based on untiered. Or 2 tiered
(small and everyone else, since it does cost something to bill and spam
people billing and spamming could be removed for the small/tiny and it be
made free or close to free) resource allocation rather then the current
arbitrary model. I'm very interested in what those fees would look like.

Jesse D. Geddis

LA Broadband LLC
AS 16602

On 11/14/12 11:49 AM, "Jeremy Anthony Kinsey" <jer at mia.net> wrote:

On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2012, at 11:27 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey <jer at mia.net>
>> wrote:
>>> "Fees I think should be more directly related to resources consumed."
>> Be very carefully what you wish for...
>> The vast majority of organizations (end-user or ISP) making use of ARIN
>> services do not need to contact the registration services helpdesk nor
>> the financial team in any given year, they don't attend the twice annual
>> meetings, and they may not even participate in the number resource
>> development process.
>> They simply wish to make use of their number resources, to be shown as
>> the listed resource holder in the registry, and to have reverse DNS
>> As it turns out, the actual effort related to providing those services
>> _not_ proportional to the number of IP addresses, but rather to the
>> block entry itself.  (Folks should be very thankful for such, since if
>> ever were any costs actual proportional to number of addresses, no one
>> would ever be able to afford to be issued an IPv6 address block... :-)
> Permit me to rephrase Mr. Kinsey's suggestionŠ
> Perhaps they should be proportional to the fraction of total address pool
> consumed.
> Owen
I do not recall making such a suggestion.

Note the QUOTES.... And the context.

There's obviously more than one reason I never feel compelled to enter a
discussion here. 

More information about the ARIN-consult mailing list