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

[Jesse D. Geddis]

John,

Actually, what I've suggested (and many others have suggested in various forms) wouldn't increase fees exponentially. It should reduce them. There's no reason fees can't be reduced year over year as more orgs are paying into it. In other words ARIN can keep the revenue the same year over year by reducing fees year over year.

As far as penalising organisations with non-contiguous blocks the fact that they are non-contiguous is not a factor in a model that is directly tied to the total resources assigned. In other words whether you have 1 /16 or its equivalent in /22's the fee is the same. The difference, of course, is you wouldn't have organisations with tens of millions of IPs paying the same annual rate as an organisation with 250k. I think this is absurd.

The rest of your email was based on the same misreading I addressed above so I'll leave them alone.

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC


On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:10 PM, "John Comfort" <john at comfortconsulting.com<mailto:john at comfortconsulting.com>> wrote:

It seems to me that Jesse is the only one considering the smaller organizations and the exponential increase in fees over time. With the additional costs per year, does ARIN intend on providing more services in addition to IP allocation assistance? Or will ARIN continue with the status-quo? In other words, how will ARIN really add *benefit* to the SMB market by instituting this new fee structure?

I see three items with this fee schedule: force the reduction of IPv4 space allocation requests; penalize organizations with a large number of smaller IPv4 blocks; encourage organizations to request larger IPv6 blocks to reduce the number of purchased blocks thus reducing the price-per-year costs. Why should I order a /40? I might as well order a /32!

Unless ARIN provides some kind of benefit, only the large ISPs seem to benefit by locking customers into the ISP's own IP blocks due to cost. I was under the impression that the IPv6 space gave "unlimited" number of address space, and thus it would be "cheaper" (supply and demand ring a bell??). But this looks like a monopolistic move to increase prices with no apparent change in real customer-driven services. How does this encourage the move to IPv6?

John



On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com<mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com>> wrote:
John,

I'm confused. How could paying almost 300x more per IP be construed as benefiting smaller organisations?

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
ASN 16602

On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:45 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:27 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>
>> Be very carefully what you wish for...
>
> (and apparently one should also be very careful using spell checkers... :-)
>
>> As it turns out, the actual effort related to providing those services is
>> _not_ proportional to the number of IP addresses, but rather to the address
>> block entry itself.  (Folks should be very thankful for such, since if there
>> 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... :-)
>
> FYI - For folks interested in ARIN's costs based on a functional (as opposed
> to the typical departmental budget model), I presented a breakdown at the ARIN
> Philly meeting -
> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/curran_cost_breakdown.pdf>
>
>> So, the reality is that each issued IPv4 and IPv6 block (and to some
>> extent each issued AS number) imputes very similar costs on ARIN as an
>> organization.  Note also that if we really wanted to be fair regarding
>> costs, we should treat ISPs via the same model as end-users, and the
>> annual maintenance fees per block would be higher due to the lack of
>> the indirect subsidy of these costs by the ISP members, and the costs
>> for a typical ISP would drop significantly.
>
> One reason that having disproportionate costs on the ISPs (to the benefit
> of end-users) is that ISPs are more likely to obtain some benefit from our
> significant registry development efforts (consisting of both the policy
> development process as well as the software changes to support same) and
> our Internet governance outreach activities.  While it is not a direct
> alignment of fees to costs/benefits, it is a reasonable correlation and
> avoids the introduction of numerous fees that would be necessary if we
> tried to directly align the fees with the costs/benefits received.
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Consult
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
List (ARIN-consult at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Consult
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
List (ARIN-consult at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto: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/20121114/cc65d03c/attachment.html>