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

[Owen DeLong]

On Nov 20, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:

> 
> Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> writes:
> 
>> For those that have /32s only because /36s weren't an option in
>> policy when they obtained their space, the option does exist to
>> consolidate into a /36 of your /32 and return the remainder to ARIN
>> in order to become an X-Small IPv6 if the proposed fee structure is
>> implemented.
> 
> Considering this in $BRO_COLO's case.  It's annoying though
> particularly for those of us who have been doing sparse allocation
> internally in order to aggregate nicely.
> 
>> Personally, I would rather see the fee structure modified so that
>> /32s issued to X-small IPv4 providers prior to the policy change
>> that allowed for /36s were grandfathered as X-Small in the IPv6
>> category,
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> but, I wouldn't want to create a blanket exemption for all
>> /32 holders or even all X-small IPv4 holders.
> 
> Why not?  I should think that the ability to turn into a smaller ISP
> by handing back or otherwise divesting oneself of (legacy, IPv4)
> address space is something that you, of all people, would heartily
> support.
> 

Because there are a lot of ISPs that have /32s and are too large to be
considered X-Small. The difference between a /36 and a /32 is quite
significant and I'd hate to see all the truly X-Small providers suffering
a fee increase to subsidize the /32 holdings of a significant number of
small organizations that really shouldn't be X-Small.

Owen