From info at arin.net  Thu Oct 18 10:59:56 2012
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:59:56 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Open Suggestion
Message-ID: <5080196C.1040201@arin.net>

For the next week leading up to ARIN XXX, we are asking you to review 
the active suggestion received since the last ARIN meeting in Vancouver 
regarding DNSSEC enhancements and comment on the merits - (eg. Worth 
doing, not worth the effort, must have, etc.).  We note this 
functionality is available through ARIN's RESTful Services but not 
through ARIN Online directly.  The suggestion is to provide a user 
interface within ARIN Online to enable this functionality.  The 
suggestion can be viewed here:
https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/suggestions/2012-11.html

There will be a brief discussion period about this suggestion during the 
ARIN XXX Public Policy and Members Meeting regarding the inclusion of 
this functionality in the 2013 development plan.

Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net.

Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 30 November 2012.

If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net.

Regards,


Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)





From weiler at tislabs.com  Thu Oct 18 14:48:36 2012
From: weiler at tislabs.com (Samuel Weiler)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:48:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Open Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <5080196C.1040201@arin.net>
References: <5080196C.1040201@arin.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1210181445530.3413@nova.tislabs.com>

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, ARIN wrote:

> We note this functionality is available 
> through ARIN's RESTful Services but not through ARIN Online directly.  The 
> suggestion is to provide a user interface within ARIN Online to enable this 
> functionality.  The suggestion can be viewed here:

I don't understand the above note in the context of Randy's suggestion. 
Clarification would be welcome.

> https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/suggestions/2012-11.html

And... I see two parts to Randy's suggestion, the first implicitly being 
"permit us to pick our own TTL".

My general impression: both of Randy's ideas are worthwhile, though I 
don't see them as urgent needs.

-- Samuel Weiler



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 18 16:24:44 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:24:44 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Open Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1210181445530.3413@nova.tislabs.com>
References: <5080196C.1040201@arin.net>
	<alpine.LRH.2.02.1210181445530.3413@nova.tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <EE08FF31-B393-4767-B483-FB785782626A@corp.arin.net>

On Oct 18, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Samuel Weiler <weiler at tislabs.com> wrote:

>> https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/suggestions/2012-11.html
> 
> And... I see two parts to Randy's suggestion, the first implicitly being "permit us to pick our own TTL".

Agreed; there are two parts (one being allowed to set TTLs, the other being
to accept bulk upload of DS RRs); we'd like input on both parts of the
suggestion.

> My general impression: both of Randy's ideas are worthwhile, though I don't see them as urgent needs.

Good to know.

Thanks for the feedback!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From bill at herrin.us  Thu Oct 18 17:23:55 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:23:55 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Open Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1210181445530.3413@nova.tislabs.com>
References: <5080196C.1040201@arin.net>
	<alpine.LRH.2.02.1210181445530.3413@nova.tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVd+miS7E_KJCOWkCxPEhSPUt5QMeYDXs5LswQOQb4mNg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Samuel Weiler <weiler at tislabs.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, ARIN wrote:
>> We note this functionality is available through ARIN's RESTful Services
>> but not through ARIN Online directly.
>
> I don't understand the above note in the context of Randy's suggestion.
> Clarification would be welcome.

Making bulk changes is implicit in the having an API.

What about the TTL? Can that be set via the API?

) Instead of my having to tick the resources for which i want
) to upload DS and then upload each DS, how about i
) upload the set of DS RRs and you figure it out?

I read this to be a complaint about interface clumsiness. Randy wants
something like what the SSL certificate folks do where you copy and
paste the CSR into a box, it pulls out the domain and related
information and then prompts you: "You meant this, right?" Presumably
anybody updating DS records already has them in the standard notation.
Why make him pull out bits and pieces to poke them in special boxes?
That's the part computers are good at.

On the other hand, interface improvements are a cycle that stops only
when the customer isn't willing to pay more. I gather Randy isn't
offering to gather a group of folks to front the money for this.

Since ARIN has built a webapi, I wonder if the community wouldn't be
better served by leaving the impetus in place for folks who want
particular functionality to build it. I'll bet Randy can find someone
to script up API calls from a list of DS records a whole lot more
cheaply than ARIN can build and test a hardened interface.

So put me down as a definite maybe.

-Bill


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 18 17:31:46 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:31:46 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Open Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVd+miS7E_KJCOWkCxPEhSPUt5QMeYDXs5LswQOQb4mNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5080196C.1040201@arin.net>
	<alpine.LRH.2.02.1210181445530.3413@nova.tislabs.com>,
	<CAP-guGVd+miS7E_KJCOWkCxPEhSPUt5QMeYDXs5LswQOQb4mNg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C0EF03DE-7EFE-43A3-8410-7E24E4D22978@corp.arin.net>

On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:24 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> Making bulk changes is implicit in the having an API.
> 
> What about the TTL? Can that be set via the API?

No, it is not presently available in the API; ergo, there is 
no way to workaround this lack in the user interface.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

 


From bill at herrin.us  Thu Oct 18 17:49:44 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:49:44 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Open Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <C0EF03DE-7EFE-43A3-8410-7E24E4D22978@corp.arin.net>
References: <5080196C.1040201@arin.net>
	<alpine.LRH.2.02.1210181445530.3413@nova.tislabs.com>
	<CAP-guGVd+miS7E_KJCOWkCxPEhSPUt5QMeYDXs5LswQOQb4mNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<C0EF03DE-7EFE-43A3-8410-7E24E4D22978@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVDXj9f=dxSaJYDg4BCQ9thO5s_AVmGBpfXnq==ZfcAgg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 5:31 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:24 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> What about the TTL? Can that be set via the API?
>
> No, it is not presently available in the API; ergo, there is
> no way to workaround this lack in the user interface.

I wonder if it wouldn't be good for the API to simply accept standard
formatted lines for a bind configuration, validate the lines for
correctness in a zone file, validate the name as something the user is
authorized to set and then accept it as sent without trying to break
out the bits. With flexibility in the API, one might do all sorts of
nifty things. For example, I could install a glue record,
"ns.224.33.199.in-addr.arpa IN A 70.184.240.82", then install
"224.33.199.in-addr.arpa IN NS ns.224.33.199.in-addr.arpa" and gain
myself a slight efficiency boost on the reverse lookups.

It's not particularly urgent that I squeeze out more efficiency from
my reverse lookups, but if the API was flexible enough, I *could*.

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


From info at arin.net  Thu Oct 25 16:17:59 2012
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:17:59 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
Message-ID: <50899E77.7010502@arin.net>

We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee
Schedule that are scheduled for implementation in January of 2013. The
changes to the fee schedule including an alignment of the IPv4 and IPv6
fee schedules for ISPs into single set of registration services plans
based on total resources held, introduction of with per address block and
per ASN maintenance fees for end-users, and addition of very low cost
category (e.g. XX-Small) for the smallest organizations.

Please view the proposed fee schedule at:

https://www.arin.net/fees/proposed_fee_schedule.html

In addition, a presentation was given on this proposed fee schedule today,
and the slides are available at:

PDF:
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/cur
ran_fee_schedule.pdf

PPTX:
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PPT/thursday/cur
ran_fee_schedule.pptx

Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net.

Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 26 November 2012 (30
days). ARIN seeks feedback through community input, so your comments are
important. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net.

Regards,

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




From woody at pch.net  Thu Oct 25 16:20:56 2012
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:20:56 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
Message-ID: <61F2BDC4-9152-498D-8AF7-D6078640CCFD@pch.net>

> END-USERS / ASSIGNEMENT INITIAL REGISTRATION FEES

The word "assignment" has only one E.

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121025/53e7196a/attachment.sig>

From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Thu Oct 25 17:10:12 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:10:12 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <50899E77.7010502@arin.net>
References: <50899E77.7010502@arin.net>
Message-ID: <43EF51DC-2C6E-4790-B0C8-9D24EC5D21A2@netconsonance.com>

For every situation that I've been involved with over the last few years, both ISPs and end users, this change would appear to reduce the fees paid. Is this the desired effect?

Note: not a single one of the companies I worked with considered the ARIN registration fees onerous or balked about them. I am not certain that a fee reduction is necessary. I'd rather see ARIN spend the budget on improving the services.

On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:17 PM, ARIN wrote:
> We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee
> Schedule that are scheduled for implementation in January of 2013. The
> changes to the fee schedule including an alignment of the IPv4 and IPv6
> fee schedules for ISPs into single set of registration services plans
> based on total resources held, introduction of with per address block and
> per ASN maintenance fees for end-users, and addition of very low cost
> category (e.g. XX-Small) for the smallest organizations.
> 
> Please view the proposed fee schedule at:
> 
> https://www.arin.net/fees/proposed_fee_schedule.html
> 
> In addition, a presentation was given on this proposed fee schedule today,
> and the slides are available at:
> 
> PDF:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/cur
> ran_fee_schedule.pdf
> 
> PPTX:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PPT/thursday/cur
> ran_fee_schedule.pptx
> 
> Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net.
> 
> Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 26 November 2012 (30
> days). ARIN seeks feedback through community input, so your comments are
> important. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121025/172eeeb1/attachment.html>

From owen at delong.com  Thu Oct 25 17:35:24 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:35:24 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
Message-ID: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>

This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly wrong direction.

1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:

IPv4 records and ASNs: $100/year per record
IPv6 records: $100/year per record, but subtract up to 2 IPv4 record fees from your annual invoice per IPv6 record.

This would create an incentive to adopt IPv6 instead of the currently proposed disincentive.

Additionally, end-users faced with this fee structure are faced with an incentive to do very bad things to the ARIN free pool. Consider, for example, an organization with multiple disparate small blocks. Perhaps these are 129 /24 blocks which would result in annual fees of $12,900. This user would be faced with a situation where it is in their extreme best interest to return those 129 blocks to ARIN and request a /16 which is fully supported under current amnesty policy, resulting in new fees of $100/year, even though 127 /24s of that new /16 will go unused vs. $12,900 for their current situation.

It is my considered opinion that these incentives as currently described in the proposed fee structure are ill-advised and potentially harmful to end-users, ARIN, and possibly even the internet in general.

Owen


Sent from my iPad

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 25 17:39:53 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:39:53 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
Message-ID: <C6AFB005-9853-4C72-8945-A4B89730AC93@corp.arin.net>

On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
 wrote:

> Additionally, end-users faced with this fee structure are faced with an incentive to do very bad things to the ARIN free pool. Consider, for example, an organization with multiple disparate small blocks. Perhaps these are 129 /24 blocks which would result in annual fees of $12,900. This user would be faced with a situation where it is in their extreme best interest to return those 129 blocks to ARIN and request a /16 which is fully supported under current amnesty policy, resulting in new fees of $100/year, even though 127 /24s of that new /16 will go unused vs. $12,900 for their current situation.

Owen - 
 
  This is only an option due to current Amnesty policy; it is not
  created by the Revised Fee Proposal.  

  If such amnesty returns and reissue of address space is no longer 
  desired, then that policy should should be retired.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From owen at delong.com  Thu Oct 25 17:46:55 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:46:55 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <C6AFB005-9853-4C72-8945-A4B89730AC93@corp.arin.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<C6AFB005-9853-4C72-8945-A4B89730AC93@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <0BCC2DF9-70B1-42DC-BE2C-07020029EF0E@delong.com>



Sent from my iPad

On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:39 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Additionally, end-users faced with this fee structure are faced with an incentive to do very bad things to the ARIN free pool. Consider, for example, an organization with multiple disparate small blocks. Perhaps these are 129 /24 blocks which would result in annual fees of $12,900. This user would be faced with a situation where it is in their extreme best interest to return those 129 blocks to ARIN and request a /16 which is fully supported under current amnesty policy, resulting in new fees of $100/year, even though 127 /24s of that new /16 will go unused vs. $12,900 for their current situation.
> 
> Owen - 
> 
>  This is only an option due to current Amnesty policy; it is not
>  created by the Revised Fee Proposal.  

Currently the amnesty policy makes sense in some circumstances and is desirable for purposes of aggregation or other optimizations. The policy is not currently skewed by a financial incentive to abuse the policy in ways it was not intended.

> 
>  If such amnesty returns and reissue of address space is no longer 
>  desired, then that policy should should be retired.
> 

Some amnesty returns and reissues are desirable. However, what is new here is that the proposed fee structure creates a financial incentive to misuse the policy for purposes of fee reduction. Currently, the only motivation to use the amnesty policy is to optimize your network resources for better aggregation or some other beneficial (to the internet) purpose.

Owen



From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Thu Oct 25 17:59:29 2012
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:59:29 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <43EF51DC-2C6E-4790-B0C8-9D24EC5D21A2@netconsonance.com>
References: <50899E77.7010502@arin.net>
	<43EF51DC-2C6E-4790-B0C8-9D24EC5D21A2@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <CAGkMwz7yv_A+tEGrqHgEZj8DKMBh4mXsdh+z6v4Uzhz7KE7n4A@mail.gmail.com>

On John's slides, it outlines that the vast majority of organizations will
have fees reduced, and that the change will be largely revenue neutral to
ARIN.  So I wouldn't consider this an overall fee reduction, but I do
believe it makes the fee structure more fair, and better aligns the
self-interest of ARIN members with the various interests of the community.

Overall, I support the new fee structure.

-Scott

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:

> For every situation that I've been involved with over the last few years,
> both ISPs and end users, this change would appear to reduce the fees paid.
> Is this the desired effect?
>
> Note: not a single one of the companies I worked with considered the ARIN
> registration fees onerous or balked about them. I am not certain that a fee
> reduction is necessary. I'd rather see ARIN spend the budget on improving
> the services.
>
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:17 PM, ARIN wrote:
>
> We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee
> Schedule that are scheduled for implementation in January of 2013. The
> changes to the fee schedule including an alignment of the IPv4 and IPv6
> fee schedules for ISPs into single set of registration services plans
> based on total resources held, introduction of with per address block and
> per ASN maintenance fees for end-users, and addition of very low cost
> category (e.g. XX-Small) for the smallest organizations.
>
> Please view the proposed fee schedule at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/fees/proposed_fee_schedule.html
>
> In addition, a presentation was given on this proposed fee schedule today,
> and the slides are available at:
>
> PDF:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/cur
> ran_fee_schedule.pdf
>
> PPTX:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PPT/thursday/cur
> ran_fee_schedule.pptx
>
> Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net.
>
> Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 26 November 2012 (30
> days). ARIN seeks feedback through community input, so your comments are
> important. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> --
> Jo Rhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet
> projects.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121025/79716078/attachment.html>

From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Thu Oct 25 18:31:41 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:31:41 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAGkMwz7yv_A+tEGrqHgEZj8DKMBh4mXsdh+z6v4Uzhz7KE7n4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E77.7010502@arin.net>
	<43EF51DC-2C6E-4790-B0C8-9D24EC5D21A2@netconsonance.com>
	<CAGkMwz7yv_A+tEGrqHgEZj8DKMBh4mXsdh+z6v4Uzhz7KE7n4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3EFE03E6-85C5-43E5-8B8F-ECA54DDD7D6C@netconsonance.com>

I would actively support a new change which makes the fee structure more fair, but keeps the fee changes neutral for any organization which wasn't targeted for fixing 'unfairness' before.

In short, I believe that most organizations do not require a fee decrease, and that additional revenue could be used to help ARIN finish/start projects which have been on the to-do list for many, many years.

On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On John's slides, it outlines that the vast majority of organizations will have fees reduced, and that the change will be largely revenue neutral to ARIN.  So I wouldn't consider this an overall fee reduction, but I do believe it makes the fee structure more fair, and better aligns the self-interest of ARIN members with the various interests of the community.
> 
> Overall, I support the new fee structure.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
> For every situation that I've been involved with over the last few years, both ISPs and end users, this change would appear to reduce the fees paid. Is this the desired effect?
> 
> Note: not a single one of the companies I worked with considered the ARIN registration fees onerous or balked about them. I am not certain that a fee reduction is necessary. I'd rather see ARIN spend the budget on improving the services.
> 
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:17 PM, ARIN wrote:
>> We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee
>> Schedule that are scheduled for implementation in January of 2013. The
>> changes to the fee schedule including an alignment of the IPv4 and IPv6
>> fee schedules for ISPs into single set of registration services plans
>> based on total resources held, introduction of with per address block and
>> per ASN maintenance fees for end-users, and addition of very low cost
>> category (e.g. XX-Small) for the smallest organizations.
>> 
>> Please view the proposed fee schedule at:
>> 
>> https://www.arin.net/fees/proposed_fee_schedule.html
>> 
>> In addition, a presentation was given on this proposed fee schedule today,
>> and the slides are available at:
>> 
>> PDF:
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/cur
>> ran_fee_schedule.pdf
>> 
>> PPTX:
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PPT/thursday/cur
>> ran_fee_schedule.pptx
>> 
>> Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net.
>> 
>> Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 26 November 2012 (30
>> days). ARIN seeks feedback through community input, so your comments are
>> important. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> 
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121025/474edff1/attachment.html>

From arizonagull at gmail.com  Thu Oct 25 18:43:52 2012
From: arizonagull at gmail.com (David Siegel)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:43:52 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAGkMwz7yv_A+tEGrqHgEZj8DKMBh4mXsdh+z6v4Uzhz7KE7n4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E77.7010502@arin.net>
	<43EF51DC-2C6E-4790-B0C8-9D24EC5D21A2@netconsonance.com>
	<CAGkMwz7yv_A+tEGrqHgEZj8DKMBh4mXsdh+z6v4Uzhz7KE7n4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-XZrKkYAeuj6x+jJ8mnnAPhUHXQ-8vLVmyx4+02045BTY-MQ@mail.gmail.com>

While there is nothing wrong with creating a pricing structure that is
perceived as being more fair, you can also use price structure to create
incentives to influence buying behavior in a way that allows you to achieve
multiple goals, and as Owen suggests, you can accidentally create
incentives that are contrary to some goals you may have.

Are we missing an opportunity to assist our North American networks in
creating a positive business case for migrating to IPv6?

I wonder if any studies have been conducted that would look at how pricing
strategy for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses might aide in the speed at which the
migration is completed (which is also more "fair" for everyone).

Dave



On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>wrote:

> On John's slides, it outlines that the vast majority of organizations will
> have fees reduced, and that the change will be largely revenue neutral to
> ARIN.  So I wouldn't consider this an overall fee reduction, but I do
> believe it makes the fee structure more fair, and better aligns the
> self-interest of ARIN members with the various interests of the community.
>
> Overall, I support the new fee structure.
>
> -Scott
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com>wrote:
>
>> For every situation that I've been involved with over the last few years,
>> both ISPs and end users, this change would appear to reduce the fees paid.
>> Is this the desired effect?
>>
>> Note: not a single one of the companies I worked with considered the ARIN
>> registration fees onerous or balked about them. I am not certain that a fee
>> reduction is necessary. I'd rather see ARIN spend the budget on improving
>> the services.
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:17 PM, ARIN wrote:
>>
>> We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee
>> Schedule that are scheduled for implementation in January of 2013. The
>> changes to the fee schedule including an alignment of the IPv4 and IPv6
>> fee schedules for ISPs into single set of registration services plans
>> based on total resources held, introduction of with per address block and
>> per ASN maintenance fees for end-users, and addition of very low cost
>> category (e.g. XX-Small) for the smallest organizations.
>>
>> Please view the proposed fee schedule at:
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/fees/proposed_fee_schedule.html
>>
>> In addition, a presentation was given on this proposed fee schedule today,
>> and the slides are available at:
>>
>> PDF:
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/cur
>> ran_fee_schedule.pdf
>>
>> PPTX:
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PPT/thursday/cur
>> ran_fee_schedule.pptx
>>
>> Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net.
>>
>> Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 26 November 2012 (30
>> days). ARIN seeks feedback through community input, so your comments are
>> important. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Jo Rhett
>> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet
>> projects.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121025/e8b64081/attachment.html>

From bill at herrin.us  Thu Oct 25 22:25:51 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:25:51 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <43EF51DC-2C6E-4790-B0C8-9D24EC5D21A2@netconsonance.com>
References: <50899E77.7010502@arin.net>
	<43EF51DC-2C6E-4790-B0C8-9D24EC5D21A2@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWnPvdfR07_uoVM0Wabs4uFPTo2hUbGK1GL2Vc4_BXQaA@mail.gmail.com>

As I read it, the nutshell version is that

1. The very largest ISPs' fees (more than 1,000,000 IPv4 addresses)
nearly double and everybody else's major fees go down.

2. The end user annual fee for a small end user attempting to deploy
IPv6 triples from $100 to $300.

Over the years there have been occasional suggestions that the very
largest ISPs are getting an unreasonably good bargain. Under the new
plan, the smallest of end users still pays almost $2 per address while
the largest ISP pays less than 3 cents each. To the extent it shifts
the balance, it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Increasing the cost to deploy IPv6 seems counterproductive. Real bad policy.

Increasing the cost for end users to play around with large numbers of
discontiguous IPv4 blocks seems more or less consistent with ARIN's
secondary mission of supporting operator efforts to suppress the BGP
route count. I'd prefer to see it done in a way that's cost-neutral
for the end user with exactly one AS and exactly one IPv4 block.



On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
> Note: not a single one of the companies I worked with considered the ARIN
> registration fees onerous or balked about them. I am not certain that a fee
> reduction is necessary. I'd rather see ARIN spend the budget on improving
> the services.

Speaking with my end-user hat on, for IPv6 assignments, it isn't about
the amount, it's about the fact that there is an amount.


If I want to install IPv6 in my organization, I don't have to justify
that to my boss. If the network keeps running, the discretion for how
to spend staff hours is mine. I can make the decision to configure
IPv6 today with a very long-term focus.

On the other hand, if I want the organization to write a check to ARIN
for $20, I have to justify a purchase order. That purchase order will
be countersigned by six different people before it's paid. The first
question I'm asked: can it wait. The second question I'm asked: do we
lose anything by waiting. The honest answers: it can and directly
speaking, we don't.

In a small business, it's even simpler: "Boss, I want some money."
"What for?" "IPv6." "No."

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


From jesse at la-broadband.com  Thu Oct 25 16:35:05 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:35:05 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
Message-ID: <CCAEF0AB.1CA8A%jesse@la-broadband.com>

This is in regards to the fee schedule change.

I think this looks good, however, I think there may perhaps be an unintended consequence.

https://www.arin.net/fees/proposed_fee_schedule.html

For companies who are XX-Small and X-Small with IPv4 all likely had free IPv6 allocations of a /32 or larger. If my recollection serves me correctly, nothing smaller than a /32 was being offered for a considerable amount of time. Would this not inadvertently double or quadruple their fees?

I think this has been discussed on some level and the question was asked "how many fit in this category". I don't recall an answer being given. I think this is an appropriate standard overall, however, I think some leniency should be given to the early adoptors who could not receive any less than a /32. Say people who received IPv6 allocations up to X date are billed based on their IPv4 size rather than their IPv6 size until their IPv4 or IPv6 allocations grow. At which point their "grandfathering" would cease.

Thoughts?

--
Jesse D. Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121025/0b974a3a/attachment.html>

From jesse at la-broadband.com  Thu Oct 25 22:23:28 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 02:23:28 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CCAEF0AB.1CA8A%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <CCAF4232.1CAA0%jesse@la-broadband.com>

This is in regards to the fee schedule change.

I think this looks good, however, I think there may perhaps be an unintended consequence.

https://www.arin.net/fees/proposed_fee_schedule.html

For companies who are XX-Small and X-Small with IPv4 all likely had free IPv6 allocations of a /32 or larger. If my recollection serves me correctly, nothing smaller than a /32 was being offered for a considerable amount of time. Would this not inadvertently double or quadruple their fees?

I think this has been discussed on some level and the question was asked "how many fit in this category". I don't recall an answer being given. I think this is an appropriate standard overall, however, I think some leniency should be given to the early adoptors who could not receive any less than a /32. Say people who received IPv6 allocations up to X date are billed based on their IPv4 size rather than their IPv6 size until their IPv4 or IPv6 allocations grow. At which point their "grandfathering" would cease.

Thoughts?

--
Jesse D. Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121026/756c57a7/attachment.html>

From mysidia at gmail.com  Thu Oct 25 23:43:50 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:43:50 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWnPvdfR07_uoVM0Wabs4uFPTo2hUbGK1GL2Vc4_BXQaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E77.7010502@arin.net>
	<43EF51DC-2C6E-4790-B0C8-9D24EC5D21A2@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGWnPvdfR07_uoVM0Wabs4uFPTo2hUbGK1GL2Vc4_BXQaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbVgcMF-9N_2eX-jkMHEcgjMc0ErVLXhquqS2zhTBERE6Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/25/12, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> question I'm asked: can it wait. The second question I'm asked: do we
> lose anything by waiting. The honest answers: it can and directly
> speaking, we don't.

Well, you could cite RFC6540, and remind that the internet standards
say you can't wait.

A $20 reg fee is ridiculously small,  compared to the human cost of
planning and deploying, in terms of  person hours,  and new training
for technical staff that need to understand the network.  But
'waiting' or trying to not spend the cash, does not make the IPv6
future go away.

By  waiting  and not at least pre planning IPv6  you have a risk of
increased amount of work that will have to be done in the future;
reexamination  and reconfigurations of hosts and networks deployed
without IPv6,  possible requirements to replace equipment,  unless
your  IPv4 network will stay the same size the whole time you wait.

So yeah, there is something quantifiable lost,  and  some significant
risks created
by  just choosing to wait.



>

Rather than try to balance them out at this point;  I do say,  I
believe  the IPv6 initial allocation, transfer fees and maintenance
should be much lower than IPv4 fees, rather than unified.

A zero-cost for the end user option should be offered to receive an
initial allocation of IPv6 resources any time IPv4 resources are being
transferred, requested, by an org with no IPv6 block,  and a  low-cost
option to  pay for an IPv6 allocation at the same time as IPv4
resource renewal.

The work required for ARIN to manage each block of IPv6 resources
should be much lower,  especially with  ARIN's  "ipv4 countdown plan"
and   requirement  for  increased amounts of  review during initial
allocations.

Not to mention the many services which are really only of interest for
IPv4 resource holders: such as the  ARIN STLS.

And of course the opportunity  to  promote using one large block of
IPv6  for new initiatives when possible,  over   multiple disparate
IPv4 blocks which will have to be requested or obtained at separate
times, as the usage need increases.


> Bill Herrin
--
-JH


From owen at delong.com  Fri Oct 26 01:25:04 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:25:04 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAGkMwz7yv_A+tEGrqHgEZj8DKMBh4mXsdh+z6v4Uzhz7KE7n4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E77.7010502@arin.net>
	<43EF51DC-2C6E-4790-B0C8-9D24EC5D21A2@netconsonance.com>
	<CAGkMwz7yv_A+tEGrqHgEZj8DKMBh4mXsdh+z6v4Uzhz7KE7n4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <569A363B-CF3A-4E5D-8880-3A76A97423BB@delong.com>


On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:

> On John's slides, it outlines that the vast majority of organizations will have fees reduced, and that the change will be largely revenue neutral to ARIN.  So I wouldn't consider this an overall fee reduction, but I do believe it makes the fee structure more fair, and better aligns the self-interest of ARIN members with the various interests of the community.
> 

Put another way, most organizations receive a fee reduction at the expense of the few organizations that can be called "corner cases" by some definition of the term.

Since I am personally one such organization and also involved in about 5 others (vs. 1 organization I am involved in that benefits), and since the organization that benefits receives a 10% fee reduction (roughly) while the other 6 see a fee increase somewhere between 200 and 5000%, I'm not wild about it.

Certainly it changes my position on whether organizations should consider signing the LRSA.

Owen

> Overall, I support the new fee structure.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
> For every situation that I've been involved with over the last few years, both ISPs and end users, this change would appear to reduce the fees paid. Is this the desired effect?
> 
> Note: not a single one of the companies I worked with considered the ARIN registration fees onerous or balked about them. I am not certain that a fee reduction is necessary. I'd rather see ARIN spend the budget on improving the services.
> 
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:17 PM, ARIN wrote:
>> We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee
>> Schedule that are scheduled for implementation in January of 2013. The
>> changes to the fee schedule including an alignment of the IPv4 and IPv6
>> fee schedules for ISPs into single set of registration services plans
>> based on total resources held, introduction of with per address block and
>> per ASN maintenance fees for end-users, and addition of very low cost
>> category (e.g. XX-Small) for the smallest organizations.
>> 
>> Please view the proposed fee schedule at:
>> 
>> https://www.arin.net/fees/proposed_fee_schedule.html
>> 
>> In addition, a presentation was given on this proposed fee schedule today,
>> and the slides are available at:
>> 
>> PDF:
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/cur
>> ran_fee_schedule.pdf
>> 
>> PPTX:
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PPT/thursday/cur
>> ran_fee_schedule.pptx
>> 
>> Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net.
>> 
>> Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 26 November 2012 (30
>> days). ARIN seeks feedback through community input, so your comments are
>> important. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> 
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121025/8d3d16ad/attachment.html>

From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Fri Oct 26 03:06:24 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 00:06:24 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWnPvdfR07_uoVM0Wabs4uFPTo2hUbGK1GL2Vc4_BXQaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E77.7010502@arin.net>
	<43EF51DC-2C6E-4790-B0C8-9D24EC5D21A2@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGWnPvdfR07_uoVM0Wabs4uFPTo2hUbGK1GL2Vc4_BXQaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C03E6589-5304-440B-AA0F-B660361E3D32@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 25, 2012, at 7:25 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Increasing the cost to deploy IPv6 seems counterproductive. Real bad policy.

I totally agree.

> On the other hand, if I want the organization to write a check to ARIN
> for $20, I have to justify a purchase order.

Unfortunately, this is where you lost me. This isn't africa, nor some of the poorer parts of asia. In no part of ARIN's region except perhaps some of the caribbean islands is $100 a lot of money to a business. No business I am aware of will cut a purchase order for $20 or $100 or even $300. It's not worth their time to spend doing that much paperwork. At that amount level you put it on a credit card and expense it and they don't bother even asking what you spent it on.

Seriously, if I tried to get a PO# for an amount that small they would laugh at me. And I work for a company that pinches pennies.

Yes, there are places in the world that $100 USD is a lot of money and would require justification. I don't believe that any of them exist in ARIN's region.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.





From jesse at la-broadband.com  Thu Oct 25 23:59:01 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 03:59:01 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbVgcMF-9N_2eX-jkMHEcgjMc0ErVLXhquqS2zhTBERE6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CCAF556F.1CAFD%jesse@la-broadband.com>

Jimmy,

I think william is speaking to a more fundamental issue that I'll try to
paint more broadly. Getting PO's etc are practical issues and are
certainly significant hurdles in organizations where you have over 100,000
employees let alone 10,000.

I think William's observations are of interest because he is illustrating
a progressive scheme that appears almost punitive to small business while
rewarding the larger organizations and their vast waste of resources. I
would argue it even encourages that waste.

	Looking at this from a broader view I think it's important to take a look
at how were things handled in the past as well as the result. In the past
this same progressive scheme was used and one has to ask what have we
achieved in using it? You have organizations like Sony with a /8 that are
using it _entirely_ for internal addressing. I wish I could say this was
uncommon having worked at Sprint, WorldCom, Sony, and EarthLink I know
it's the norm. I think when you have a sliding scale like this it has an
inadvertent effect of favoring large allocations to organizations who are
extremely wasteful.

	What would happen if this progressive scale were turned upside down this
time around? I think the following would happen:

1. Organizations would be encouraged to use address space more efficiently
2. I think ARIN's revenues would be greatly increased

3. The one drawback is ARIN may possibly have to deal with more people
(i.e. greater ticket volume) but I think this would pay for itself

	Maybe I'm being overly skeptical but I was around when IPv4 was first
being issued and I remember the feeling that there was a limitless supply
of address space. As a result you have organizations like Apple 17/8, HP
15/8, Ford 19/8, Merck 54/8, halliburton 34/8, ely lilly 40/8. The list
goes on and on. Do we want this situation again? I just listed off
100,000,000 IP addresses allocated. Does anyone believe Ely Lilly needs
441.5 public IP addresses per employee to make Cialis?

	I would hate to see us start down the same path expecting a different
result. Are there a lot of IPv6 addresses? Sure, but what good does 4.8x10
to the 28th power do if the underlying allocation policy doesn't trickle
down to end users that way?


Jimmy, I think you and I may see things somewhat differently as to why
things are where they are with IPv4. To me, getting where we are today,
after only about 10 years is an issue of policy. I think at some point we
would have arrived here anyway but I think a large part of the reasons
we've arrived here with IPv4 so soon is because:

1. What I cited above regarding inappropriate allocations and the
assumption that it would never run out (seem familiar?)
2. The larger your allocation the easier it is to acquire additional (and
massive) space (this is backwards imho)

	I think it's easy to be tempted to look at this as a $$ issue and say
well these fees are small compared to enormous company X. That may be true
but I don't think it's the point. I think as organizations start getting
larger and larger allocations we should start taking a much closer look at
"what are you doing" and "why". I think when you have a fee structure that
reflects that rather that a fee structure that reflects the exact opposite
you may get a different result.

-- 
Jesse D. Geddis

LA Broadband LLC
AS 16602




On 10/25/12 8:43 PM, "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/25/12, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> question I'm asked: can it wait. The second question I'm asked: do we
> lose anything by waiting. The honest answers: it can and directly
> speaking, we don't.

Well, you could cite RFC6540, and remind that the internet standards
say you can't wait.

A $20 reg fee is ridiculously small,  compared to the human cost of
planning and deploying, in terms of  person hours,  and new training
for technical staff that need to understand the network.  But
'waiting' or trying to not spend the cash, does not make the IPv6
future go away.

By  waiting  and not at least pre planning IPv6  you have a risk of
increased amount of work that will have to be done in the future;
reexamination  and reconfigurations of hosts and networks deployed
without IPv6,  possible requirements to replace equipment,  unless
your  IPv4 network will stay the same size the whole time you wait.

So yeah, there is something quantifiable lost,  and  some significant
risks created
by  just choosing to wait.



>

Rather than try to balance them out at this point;  I do say,  I
believe  the IPv6 initial allocation, transfer fees and maintenance
should be much lower than IPv4 fees, rather than unified.

A zero-cost for the end user option should be offered to receive an
initial allocation of IPv6 resources any time IPv4 resources are being
transferred, requested, by an org with no IPv6 block,  and a  low-cost
option to  pay for an IPv6 allocation at the same time as IPv4
resource renewal.

The work required for ARIN to manage each block of IPv6 resources
should be much lower,  especially with  ARIN's  "ipv4 countdown plan"
and   requirement  for  increased amounts of  review during initial
allocations.

Not to mention the many services which are really only of interest for
IPv4 resource holders: such as the  ARIN STLS.

And of course the opportunity  to  promote using one large block of
IPv6  for new initiatives when possible,  over   multiple disparate
IPv4 blocks which will have to be requested or obtained at separate
times, as the usage need increases.


> Bill Herrin
--
-JH
_______________________________________________
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.



From owen at delong.com  Fri Oct 26 07:42:39 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:42:39 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CCAF556F.1CAFD%jesse@la-broadband.com>
References: <CCAF556F.1CAFD%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <E4D0EE52-7BC5-4193-B5FE-B70DF20D7375@delong.com>


On Oct 25, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:

> Jimmy,
> 
> I think william is speaking to a more fundamental issue that I'll try to
> paint more broadly. Getting PO's etc are practical issues and are
> certainly significant hurdles in organizations where you have over 100,000
> employees let alone 10,000.
> 
> I think William's observations are of interest because he is illustrating
> a progressive scheme that appears almost punitive to small business while
> rewarding the larger organizations and their vast waste of resources. I
> would argue it even encourages that waste.
> 
> 	Looking at this from a broader view I think it's important to take a look
> at how were things handled in the past as well as the result. In the past
> this same progressive scheme was used and one has to ask what have we
> achieved in using it? You have organizations like Sony with a /8 that are
> using it _entirely_ for internal addressing. I wish I could say this was
> uncommon having worked at Sprint, WorldCom, Sony, and EarthLink I know
> it's the norm. I think when you have a sliding scale like this it has an
> inadvertent effect of favoring large allocations to organizations who are
> extremely wasteful.

You say this like it is somehow a bad thing. It is perfectly legitimate for Sony
to choose not to deploy NAT and suffer the degraded internet access that implies.
Any company that wants to can still apply for and obtain IPv4 addresses for
internal addressing so long as the supply lasts. Yes, they are encouraged to
help the community out by deploying NAT, but there is no such requirement
even in current policy. (nor should there be, IMHO).

> 
> 	What would happen if this progressive scale were turned upside down this
> time around? I think the following would happen:
> 
> 1. Organizations would be encouraged to use address space more efficiently
> 2. I think ARIN's revenues would be greatly increased
> 

It is impossible to evaluate these two claims absent some more detailed description
of exactly how you would turn this scheme upside down and what the fees would look
like.

The current proposal actually does nothing of the sort in the end-user case. In fact,
it encourages wastage from organizations of all sizes in that if you have disparate
blocks of space, you would now be monetarily incentivized to turn them in in trade
for an even larger block (essentially take the sum of what you have and trade it
in for an aggregate block which rounds up your current size to a bit boundary). In this
way, you could consolidate your multiple IPv4 blocks into a single block and reduce
your fees by n where n=(total blocks currently held - 1) * 100 per year.

> 3. The one drawback is ARIN may possibly have to deal with more people
> (i.e. greater ticket volume) but I think this would pay for itself

I also don't see how you draw this conclusion (either half of it).

> 
> 	Maybe I'm being overly skeptical but I was around when IPv4 was first
> being issued and I remember the feeling that there was a limitless supply
> of address space. As a result you have organizations like Apple 17/8, HP
> 15/8, Ford 19/8, Merck 54/8, halliburton 34/8, ely lilly 40/8. The list
> goes on and on. Do we want this situation again? I just listed off
> 100,000,000 IP addresses allocated. Does anyone believe Ely Lilly needs
> 441.5 public IP addresses per employee to make Cialis?
> 

All of the organizations you list are large enough that they very likely have
reasonably efficient utilization of their /8s.At max utilization as a flat /8,
you only get about 16.7 million addresses per /8. Is there any reason to believe
that any of those companies are unlikely to have at least 10 million nodes on
their networks?

> 	I would hate to see us start down the same path expecting a different
> result. Are there a lot of IPv6 addresses? Sure, but what good does 4.8x10
> to the 28th power do if the underlying allocation policy doesn't trickle
> down to end users that way?

Where did 4.8E28 come from? Total IPv6 is 3.4E38 and the current /3 being used
for unicast is 4.25E37. A /32 is 7.9E26 and a /48 is 1.2E23. (all numbers
rounded to 3 significant digits).

The current allocation policy does make it pretty easy to get PI /48s for each
of your end sites from ARIN. I don't, however, believe that it is so liberal
as to create any risk of runout. If, somehow, we manage to burn through the
current /3 while I am still alive, I will be the first to support using a
more restrictive policy for issuing the next chunk and suggest even moving
the total chunk size down to /4.


> Jimmy, I think you and I may see things somewhat differently as to why
> things are where they are with IPv4. To me, getting where we are today,
> after only about 10 years is an issue of policy. I think at some point we
> would have arrived here anyway but I think a large part of the reasons
> we've arrived here with IPv4 so soon is because:
> 

IPv4 has been issued since the early 1980s, so, 10 years is not exactly an
accurate statement. (Try 30+). ARIN has been around for 15 years. (currently
ARIN XXX meeting and 2 meetings per year).

> 1. What I cited above regarding inappropriate allocations and the
> assumption that it would never run out (seem familiar?)

This assumes that everyone buys into your premise that those assignments
were, in fact, inappropriate. I, for one, don't agree.

> 2. The larger your allocation the easier it is to acquire additional (and
> massive) space (this is backwards imho)

I also do not accept this premise entirely. Having done several large ARIN
applications, I can assure you that it is MUCH easier to get an additional
IPv4 /24 or IPv6 /48 than to get an IPv4 /16 or an IPv6 /24. Much easier to
get an IPv4 /16 than an IPv4 /12. Virtually impossible to get something larger
than a /12 unless you have massive amounts of documentation and got in under
the wire before things moved to three-months.

> 	I think it's easy to be tempted to look at this as a $$ issue and say
> well these fees are small compared to enormous company X. That may be true
> but I don't think it's the point. I think as organizations start getting
> larger and larger allocations we should start taking a much closer look at
> "what are you doing" and "why". I think when you have a fee structure that
> reflects that rather that a fee structure that reflects the exact opposite
> you may get a different result.
> 

Your assertion that it doesn't already work that way does not line up with
my experience or my observations of the ARIN process.

As a general rule, ARIN has taken the tact that Fees are not a mechanism
for incentivizing behavior and are instead intended as a cost-recovery
technique.

I certainly think within the realm of cost-recovery, we should seek to make
sure that the fees don't incentivize behavior contrary to the good of the
internet or the organization or the community to the extent possible, but,
I'm not so convinced that we should be looking to make fees punitive for
behaviors some subset of the community perceives to be inappropriate.

Owen

> -- 
> Jesse D. Geddis
> 
> LA Broadband LLC
> AS 16602
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/25/12 8:43 PM, "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 10/25/12, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
>> question I'm asked: can it wait. The second question I'm asked: do we
>> lose anything by waiting. The honest answers: it can and directly
>> speaking, we don't.
> 
> Well, you could cite RFC6540, and remind that the internet standards
> say you can't wait.
> 
> A $20 reg fee is ridiculously small,  compared to the human cost of
> planning and deploying, in terms of  person hours,  and new training
> for technical staff that need to understand the network.  But
> 'waiting' or trying to not spend the cash, does not make the IPv6
> future go away.
> 
> By  waiting  and not at least pre planning IPv6  you have a risk of
> increased amount of work that will have to be done in the future;
> reexamination  and reconfigurations of hosts and networks deployed
> without IPv6,  possible requirements to replace equipment,  unless
> your  IPv4 network will stay the same size the whole time you wait.
> 
> So yeah, there is something quantifiable lost,  and  some significant
> risks created
> by  just choosing to wait.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
> 
> Rather than try to balance them out at this point;  I do say,  I
> believe  the IPv6 initial allocation, transfer fees and maintenance
> should be much lower than IPv4 fees, rather than unified.
> 
> A zero-cost for the end user option should be offered to receive an
> initial allocation of IPv6 resources any time IPv4 resources are being
> transferred, requested, by an org with no IPv6 block,  and a  low-cost
> option to  pay for an IPv6 allocation at the same time as IPv4
> resource renewal.
> 
> The work required for ARIN to manage each block of IPv6 resources
> should be much lower,  especially with  ARIN's  "ipv4 countdown plan"
> and   requirement  for  increased amounts of  review during initial
> allocations.
> 
> Not to mention the many services which are really only of interest for
> IPv4 resource holders: such as the  ARIN STLS.
> 
> And of course the opportunity  to  promote using one large block of
> IPv6  for new initiatives when possible,  over   multiple disparate
> IPv4 blocks which will have to be requested or obtained at separate
> times, as the usage need increases.
> 
> 
>> Bill Herrin
> --
> -JH
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



From andrew.dul at quark.net  Fri Oct 26 10:18:40 2012
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul - andrew.dul)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:18:40 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
Message-ID: <7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>

On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
> wrong direction.
>
> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:


In general, I support the new fee schedule.  There is one area which I 
believe needs consideration.  For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN, 
1 IPv6) their registration fees are  going to triple from $100 to $300.  
I don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world 
at large and these smallest organizations.  I don't know the number of 
orgs that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is 
a significant number of end-user orgs.

My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are 
$100, then $100 for additional records.

Andrew




From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Fri Oct 26 10:42:39 2012
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:42:39 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
Message-ID: <CAGkMwz5jfd_g55xBx2sdtTpc5fqPFkw1v09UDL5Tbrk=B-OP1Q@mail.gmail.com>

+1

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Andrew Dul - andrew.dul <
andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
>> wrong direction.
>>
>> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
>> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
>> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
>> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:
>>
>
>
> In general, I support the new fee schedule.  There is one area which I
> believe needs consideration.  For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN, 1
> IPv6) their registration fees are  going to triple from $100 to $300.  I
> don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world at
> large and these smallest organizations.  I don't know the number of orgs
> that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is a
> significant number of end-user orgs.
>
> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are
> $100, then $100 for additional records.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> 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<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/20121026/86948da0/attachment.html>

From farmer at umn.edu  Fri Oct 26 10:52:31 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:52:31 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
Message-ID: <508AA3AF.30605@umn.edu>

On 10/26/12 09:18 , Andrew Dul - andrew.dul wrote:
> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
>> wrong direction.
>>
>> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
>> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
>> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
>> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:
>
>
> In general, I support the new fee schedule.  There is one area which I
> believe needs consideration.  For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN,
> 1 IPv6) their registration fees are  going to triple from $100 to $300.
> I don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world
> at large and these smallest organizations.  I don't know the number of
> orgs that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is
> a significant number of end-user orgs.
>
> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are
> $100, then $100 for additional records.

I would suggest a slight modification to this suggestion; one record of 
each type (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) be included per end-user ord-id and then 
$100 for each additional record.  Its still 3 records, but not 3 records 
of any type, one of each type that a typical organization would need. 
If some organizations need additional resources of particular types they 
pay more, but a typical organization gets what it needs for a flat fee.

Particularly, in the case of IPv6; This means that IPv6 is a one time 
fee only for any end-user organization that already has either an ASN, 
IPv4, or both resources, no change to the annual fee for most 
organizations to receive IPv6.

Furthermore, this would set the precedence that if there were additional 
new resource types created in the future, that are generally needed by 
most organization, they should be included with the base end-user Org-id 
annual fee.




From cblecker at gmail.com  Fri Oct 26 10:59:27 2012
From: cblecker at gmail.com (Christoph Blecker)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:59:27 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
Message-ID: <CADx2oGHDAvx3k5DXGNCOKf0ZzecpArR2uC_Y4+zaRYuuxXcxqw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Andrew Dul - andrew.dul
<andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
>> wrong direction.
>>
>> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
>> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
>> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
>> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:
>
>
>
> In general, I support the new fee schedule.  There is one area which I
> believe needs consideration.  For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN, 1
> IPv6) their registration fees are  going to triple from $100 to $300.  I
> don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world at
> large and these smallest organizations.  I don't know the number of orgs
> that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is a
> significant number of end-user orgs.
>
> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are
> $100, then $100 for additional records.
>
> Andrew

I agree with Andrew's views, although I would suggest perhaps 5
records per ORG. Think about it this way.. Small ORG, they instead
have 2 existing IPv4 blocks (which is common), and an ASN. We want
them to encourage them to *adopt* IPv6. In this case, the IPv6 block
would be record number 4, and therefor double the annual maintenance
that the ORG is responsible for.

Cheers,
Christoph


From amcmillen at sliqua.com  Fri Oct 26 11:08:32 2012
From: amcmillen at sliqua.com (Alexander McMillen)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:08:32 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <CADx2oGHDAvx3k5DXGNCOKf0ZzecpArR2uC_Y4+zaRYuuxXcxqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<CADx2oGHDAvx3k5DXGNCOKf0ZzecpArR2uC_Y4+zaRYuuxXcxqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <508AA770.4080604@sliqua.com>

In terms of the ISP initial allocations and annual fees section, I think
there needs to be more consideration to smaller providers that are
adopting IPv6.

In my case, we have a /21 of IPv4 resources, and the *default* IPv6
allocation of /32. In looking at the proposed fee schedule, it's not the
IPv4 resources that end up costing me, it's the IPv6 resources; even
though I'm just taking the default allocation to start adopting IPv6
within our organization.

Per the fee schedule, if I had no IPv6 allocation - my fee would be $1000.
With the default IPv6 allocation - my fee is double that at $2000.

This will really turn off the rate of adoption especially in smaller ISP
environments that aren't seeing much of an IPv6 demand at this time,
such as ours.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks,

--
Alexander McMillen < amcmillen(at)sliqua.com >
President and CEO - Sliqua Enterprise Hosting, Inc.
1.877.SLIQUA4 - 1.703.621.4813 x201 - http://www.sliqua.com/



On 10/26/12 10:59 AM, Christoph Blecker wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Andrew Dul - andrew.dul
> <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
>>> wrong direction.
>>>
>>> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
>>> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
>>> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
>>> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:
>>
>>
>> In general, I support the new fee schedule.  There is one area which I
>> believe needs consideration.  For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN, 1
>> IPv6) their registration fees are  going to triple from $100 to $300.  I
>> don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world at
>> large and these smallest organizations.  I don't know the number of orgs
>> that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is a
>> significant number of end-user orgs.
>>
>> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are
>> $100, then $100 for additional records.
>>
>> Andrew
> I agree with Andrew's views, although I would suggest perhaps 5
> records per ORG. Think about it this way.. Small ORG, they instead
> have 2 existing IPv4 blocks (which is common), and an ASN. We want
> them to encourage them to *adopt* IPv6. In this case, the IPv6 block
> would be record number 4, and therefor double the annual maintenance
> that the ORG is responsible for.
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



From Yi.Chu at sprint.com  Fri Oct 26 11:20:19 2012
From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK])
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:20:19 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <508AA3AF.30605@umn.edu>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net> <508AA3AF.30605@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <EAE35C4CDA0138429278368ABCE05D555F5DEB5D@PDAWM05A.ad.sprint.com>

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 10:53 AM
To: andrew.dul at quark.net
Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
<snip>

I would suggest a slight modification to this suggestion; one record of
each type (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) be included per end-user ord-id and then
$100 for each additional record.  Its still 3 records, but not 3 records
of any type, one of each type that a typical organization would need.
If some organizations need additional resources of particular types they
pay more, but a typical organization gets what it needs for a flat fee.

Particularly, in the case of IPv6; This means that IPv6 is a one time
fee only for any end-user organization that already has either an ASN,
IPv4, or both resources, no change to the annual fee for most
organizations to receive IPv6.

Furthermore, this would set the precedence that if there were additional
new resource types created in the future, that are generally needed by
most organization, they should be included with the base end-user Org-id
annual fee.


_______________________________________________
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.


________________________________

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.



From jmaimon at chl.com  Fri Oct 26 11:37:43 2012
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:37:43 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
Message-ID: <508AAE47.8070304@chl.com>



Andrew Dul - andrew.dul wrote:
> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
>> wrong direction.
>>
>> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
>> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
>> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
>> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:
>
>
> In general, I support the new fee schedule.  There is one area which I
> believe needs consideration.  For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN,
> 1 IPv6) their registration fees are  going to triple from $100 to $300.
> I don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world
> at large and these smallest organizations.  I don't know the number of
> orgs that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is
> a significant number of end-user orgs.
>
> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are
> $100, then $100 for additional records.
>
> Andrew
>
>

My suggestion was that for EU there be tiers, just as there are for 
ISP's, but the tiers would be for number of records, not size of resources.

Joe




From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Fri Oct 26 17:48:05 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:48:05 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
Message-ID: <D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Andrew Dul - andrew.dul wrote:
> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
>> wrong direction.
>> 
>> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
>> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
>> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
>> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:
> 
> In general, I support the new fee schedule.  There is one area which I believe needs consideration.  For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN, 1 IPv6) their registration fees are  going to triple from $100 to $300.  I don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world at large and these smallest organizations.  I don't know the number of orgs that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is a significant number of end-user orgs.
> 
> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are $100, then $100 for additional records.


First, I don't believe that $300 is any significant amount of money to any operating business, profit or non-profit. I do believe that individuals who are using /24 blocks for personal use who could quite easily use provider-assigned space are going to pay more than they would like. I would like to note that I am one of those individuals myself, and yet I support this proposal against my own interests.

However, it would be stupid to ignore the fact that a large number of organizations are going to see their annual fee triple, and that could earn ARIN some angst that they don't need.

I believe that we have an opportunity to use the fee schedule to forward ARIN policy and help IPv6 adoption here. If we were to move forward with the new fee structure, but give organizations that have or adopt IPv6 a break, then it would promote forward policy.

For example: if I have an IP assignment and an ASN, I would pay $200. If I acquire an IPv6 assignment from ARIN, I would (temporarily) be returned to $100/year. This would help organizations which aren't moving forward to at least acquire the IPv6 assignment. Yes, they might sit on it. But perhaps they might actually start moving forward with it.

Over time let this temporary thing expire, and then it may actually become a useful thing to help organizations move away from IPv4. Pay $300 a year, or return your IPv4 block and get a permanent reduction in fees.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121026/94e430f9/attachment.html>

From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Fri Oct 26 17:49:52 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:49:52 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <CADx2oGHDAvx3k5DXGNCOKf0ZzecpArR2uC_Y4+zaRYuuxXcxqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<CADx2oGHDAvx3k5DXGNCOKf0ZzecpArR2uC_Y4+zaRYuuxXcxqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1D5B6B7A-2E2C-49FA-95B4-02941FFBF4CB@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Christoph Blecker wrote:
> I agree with Andrew's views, although I would suggest perhaps 5
> records per ORG. Think about it this way.. Small ORG, they instead
> have 2 existing IPv4 blocks (which is common), and an ASN. We want
> them to encourage them to *adopt* IPv6. In this case, the IPv6 block
> would be record number 4, and therefor double the annual maintenance
> that the ORG is responsible for.


I would feel strongly that rather than allowing any given 5 records (which actually promotes getting more IPv4 space) we should instead provide the discounts only when acquiring and using IPv6 space. This promotes current policy guidance.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121026/7612d181/attachment.html>

From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Fri Oct 26 17:53:12 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:53:12 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] real statistics for direct assignments to end users?
Message-ID: <DA5256FC-F8C6-42A2-AE3B-ED7558F86BA9@netconsonance.com>

John, a lot of people on this list keep making claims about what is "common" or "there are thousands of".  Is it possible for you to provide us with a real quick breakdown for how many organizations have how many different resources?  Something like:

22,000 organizations have two records
7,000 organizations have three records
?
400 organizations have more than fifty records

If I'm overlooking some way to get this information from the website please clue me in.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121026/63ebdbb9/attachment.html>

From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Fri Oct 26 17:56:20 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:56:20 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <508AA770.4080604@sliqua.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<CADx2oGHDAvx3k5DXGNCOKf0ZzecpArR2uC_Y4+zaRYuuxXcxqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<508AA770.4080604@sliqua.com>
Message-ID: <B960E12B-2F81-4650-A614-669705B7DA6F@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 26, 2012, at 8:08 AM, Alexander McMillen wrote:
> This will really turn off the rate of adoption especially in smaller ISP
> environments that aren't seeing much of an IPv6 demand at this time,
> such as ours.


That wall is coming. I just won a complaint against Comcast in which they have to provide me with reduced price for my home internet service until they can provide IPv6 to me, based on my "inability to reach necessary internet resources" -- when my HE tunnel was turned off ;-)

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121026/1f035e4c/attachment.html>

From jesse at la-broadband.com  Fri Oct 26 17:14:46 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:14:46 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <E4D0EE52-7BC5-4193-B5FE-B70DF20D7375@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CCB0487D.1CC8F%jesse@la-broadband.com>

Owen,

	If you believe how things have been handled in the past have served us
well I guess none of us would be having this conversation about rolling
out IPv6 right now at all, right? Thank you for your reply but lets try to
keep things constructive. A couple people have since suggested a sort of
flat fee but this takes it a step further. Below is my response to a
couple of John's questions:

John,

Thanks for your note. You're right about the policy part, however, it was
purely a fee conversation and I didn't want to steer things off topic ;)
Further, I think there is a mindset that comes with the existing
progressively cheaper fee structure that encourages the kind of waste
we've seen with IPv4. However, the issue of policy is of greater
importance.

I think there are a couple of ways to address it:

1. The current practice is to award larger and larger blocks to orgs. I
think this has proven troublesome.
	1. The point of this was to keep the table small but I think since newer
hardware is required to support ipv6 in the first place this is no longer
relevant. Besides ARIN can't really dictate how an org advertises their
space <http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS35908&view=2.0>.
	2. It creates waste because an org who has run out of their /16 would be
foolish to request a /22 even if that's all they require. They are
incentivized by allocation practice to request the largest they can and
hoard it. VPLS is a prime example of that
<http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/VPLSI/pft>. They have only 20 cabinets of
dedicated servers but over half a million IP's. 98% of which they aren't
using because they have abused ARINs progressive allocation practice in an
effort to later sell those resources on ARIN's market at vastly inflated
prices.


2. A linear fee might be worth looking into rather than a progressive one
(i.e. A flat tax). One for IPv4 and one for IPv6.
	1. It may help encourage more efficient usage
	2. It wouldn't penalize smaller organizations as severely and be fair
across the board.
	3. Much simpler billing structure. Say you were to bill $x per /64
starting with allocations made in 2013. For orgs that predate that move
(because /32's used to be all that were issued) them to the new fee
structure once they request more resources. For v4 you could do $x per /24
or per IP.


3. I think ARIN could more aggressively enforce existing policies
	1. During a transfer request ARIN affords itself the opportunity to
revisit the allocation and reclaim it altogether. I haven't seen this
happen in cases where it should have based on policy.
	2. For IPv4 requests or transfers the question needs to be asked "why
aren't you natting"? AT&T is a fabulous example of this. I have tens of
thousands of residential users IPv4 NAT'd with no loss of functionality. I
dual stack them with IPv6. If I can do it why can't AT&T? Why do they need
tens of millions of IP's? There is simply no technical requirement for
every end user on dsl and uverse to have a public IP.



Anyway, these are a couple things off the top of my head but I think a
much more in depth discussion should be had about resource allocation
policy and enforcement.


-- 
Jesse D. Geddis
LA Broadband LLC



On 10/26/12 3:05 AM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

On Oct 25, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com>
wrote:
>I think as organizations start getting
>larger and larger allocations we should start taking a much closer look at
>"what are you doing" and "why".

The statement above appears to be suggesting an approach for number
resource
policy, not fees.

>I think when you have a fee structure that reflects that rather that a fee
>structure that reflects the exact opposite you may get a different result.

You'll should explain how a fee structure can "take a much closer look"
at the "what you are doing & why" aspects of larger allocations if folks
are to understand your input into this fee consultation.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




-- 
Jesse D. Geddis
LA Broadband LLC



On 10/26/12 4:42 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:


On Oct 25, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com>
wrote:

> Jimmy,
> 
> I think william is speaking to a more fundamental issue that I'll try to
> paint more broadly. Getting PO's etc are practical issues and are
> certainly significant hurdles in organizations where you have over
>100,000
> employees let alone 10,000.
> 
> I think William's observations are of interest because he is illustrating
> a progressive scheme that appears almost punitive to small business while
> rewarding the larger organizations and their vast waste of resources. I
> would argue it even encourages that waste.
> 
> 	Looking at this from a broader view I think it's important to take a
>look
> at how were things handled in the past as well as the result. In the past
> this same progressive scheme was used and one has to ask what have we
> achieved in using it? You have organizations like Sony with a /8 that are
> using it _entirely_ for internal addressing. I wish I could say this was
> uncommon having worked at Sprint, WorldCom, Sony, and EarthLink I know
> it's the norm. I think when you have a sliding scale like this it has an
> inadvertent effect of favoring large allocations to organizations who are
> extremely wasteful.

You say this like it is somehow a bad thing. It is perfectly legitimate
for Sony
to choose not to deploy NAT and suffer the degraded internet access that
implies.
Any company that wants to can still apply for and obtain IPv4 addresses for
internal addressing so long as the supply lasts. Yes, they are encouraged
to
help the community out by deploying NAT, but there is no such requirement
even in current policy. (nor should there be, IMHO).

> 
> 	What would happen if this progressive scale were turned upside down this
> time around? I think the following would happen:
> 
> 1. Organizations would be encouraged to use address space more
>efficiently
> 2. I think ARIN's revenues would be greatly increased
> 

It is impossible to evaluate these two claims absent some more detailed
description
of exactly how you would turn this scheme upside down and what the fees
would look
like.

The current proposal actually does nothing of the sort in the end-user
case. In fact,
it encourages wastage from organizations of all sizes in that if you have
disparate
blocks of space, you would now be monetarily incentivized to turn them in
in trade
for an even larger block (essentially take the sum of what you have and
trade it
in for an aggregate block which rounds up your current size to a bit
boundary). In this
way, you could consolidate your multiple IPv4 blocks into a single block
and reduce
your fees by n where n=(total blocks currently held - 1) * 100 per year.

> 3. The one drawback is ARIN may possibly have to deal with more people
> (i.e. greater ticket volume) but I think this would pay for itself

I also don't see how you draw this conclusion (either half of it).

> 
> 	Maybe I'm being overly skeptical but I was around when IPv4 was first
> being issued and I remember the feeling that there was a limitless supply
> of address space. As a result you have organizations like Apple 17/8, HP
> 15/8, Ford 19/8, Merck 54/8, halliburton 34/8, ely lilly 40/8. The list
> goes on and on. Do we want this situation again? I just listed off
> 100,000,000 IP addresses allocated. Does anyone believe Ely Lilly needs
> 441.5 public IP addresses per employee to make Cialis?
> 

All of the organizations you list are large enough that they very likely
have
reasonably efficient utilization of their /8s.At max utilization as a flat
/8,
you only get about 16.7 million addresses per /8. Is there any reason to
believe
that any of those companies are unlikely to have at least 10 million nodes
on
their networks?

> 	I would hate to see us start down the same path expecting a different
> result. Are there a lot of IPv6 addresses? Sure, but what good does
>4.8x10
> to the 28th power do if the underlying allocation policy doesn't trickle
> down to end users that way?

Where did 4.8E28 come from? Total IPv6 is 3.4E38 and the current /3 being
used
for unicast is 4.25E37. A /32 is 7.9E26 and a /48 is 1.2E23. (all numbers
rounded to 3 significant digits).

The current allocation policy does make it pretty easy to get PI /48s for
each
of your end sites from ARIN. I don't, however, believe that it is so
liberal
as to create any risk of runout. If, somehow, we manage to burn through the
current /3 while I am still alive, I will be the first to support using a
more restrictive policy for issuing the next chunk and suggest even moving
the total chunk size down to /4.


> Jimmy, I think you and I may see things somewhat differently as to why
> things are where they are with IPv4. To me, getting where we are today,
> after only about 10 years is an issue of policy. I think at some point we
> would have arrived here anyway but I think a large part of the reasons
> we've arrived here with IPv4 so soon is because:
> 

IPv4 has been issued since the early 1980s, so, 10 years is not exactly an
accurate statement. (Try 30+). ARIN has been around for 15 years.
(currently
ARIN XXX meeting and 2 meetings per year).

> 1. What I cited above regarding inappropriate allocations and the
> assumption that it would never run out (seem familiar?)

This assumes that everyone buys into your premise that those assignments
were, in fact, inappropriate. I, for one, don't agree.

> 2. The larger your allocation the easier it is to acquire additional (and
> massive) space (this is backwards imho)

I also do not accept this premise entirely. Having done several large ARIN
applications, I can assure you that it is MUCH easier to get an additional
IPv4 /24 or IPv6 /48 than to get an IPv4 /16 or an IPv6 /24. Much easier to
get an IPv4 /16 than an IPv4 /12. Virtually impossible to get something
larger
than a /12 unless you have massive amounts of documentation and got in
under
the wire before things moved to three-months.

> 	I think it's easy to be tempted to look at this as a $$ issue and say
> well these fees are small compared to enormous company X. That may be
>true
> but I don't think it's the point. I think as organizations start getting
> larger and larger allocations we should start taking a much closer look
>at
> "what are you doing" and "why". I think when you have a fee structure
>that
> reflects that rather that a fee structure that reflects the exact
>opposite
> you may get a different result.
> 

Your assertion that it doesn't already work that way does not line up with
my experience or my observations of the ARIN process.

As a general rule, ARIN has taken the tact that Fees are not a mechanism
for incentivizing behavior and are instead intended as a cost-recovery
technique.

I certainly think within the realm of cost-recovery, we should seek to make
sure that the fees don't incentivize behavior contrary to the good of the
internet or the organization or the community to the extent possible, but,
I'm not so convinced that we should be looking to make fees punitive for
behaviors some subset of the community perceives to be inappropriate.

Owen

> -- 
> Jesse D. Geddis
> 
> LA Broadband LLC
> AS 16602
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/25/12 8:43 PM, "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 10/25/12, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
>> question I'm asked: can it wait. The second question I'm asked: do we
>> lose anything by waiting. The honest answers: it can and directly
>> speaking, we don't.
> 
> Well, you could cite RFC6540, and remind that the internet standards
> say you can't wait.
> 
> A $20 reg fee is ridiculously small,  compared to the human cost of
> planning and deploying, in terms of  person hours,  and new training
> for technical staff that need to understand the network.  But
> 'waiting' or trying to not spend the cash, does not make the IPv6
> future go away.
> 
> By  waiting  and not at least pre planning IPv6  you have a risk of
> increased amount of work that will have to be done in the future;
> reexamination  and reconfigurations of hosts and networks deployed
> without IPv6,  possible requirements to replace equipment,  unless
> your  IPv4 network will stay the same size the whole time you wait.
> 
> So yeah, there is something quantifiable lost,  and  some significant
> risks created
> by  just choosing to wait.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
> 
> Rather than try to balance them out at this point;  I do say,  I
> believe  the IPv6 initial allocation, transfer fees and maintenance
> should be much lower than IPv4 fees, rather than unified.
> 
> A zero-cost for the end user option should be offered to receive an
> initial allocation of IPv6 resources any time IPv4 resources are being
> transferred, requested, by an org with no IPv6 block,  and a  low-cost
> option to  pay for an IPv6 allocation at the same time as IPv4
> resource renewal.
> 
> The work required for ARIN to manage each block of IPv6 resources
> should be much lower,  especially with  ARIN's  "ipv4 countdown plan"
> and   requirement  for  increased amounts of  review during initial
> allocations.
> 
> Not to mention the many services which are really only of interest for
> IPv4 resource holders: such as the  ARIN STLS.
> 
> And of course the opportunity  to  promote using one large block of
> IPv6  for new initiatives when possible,  over   multiple disparate
> IPv4 blocks which will have to be requested or obtained at separate
> times, as the usage need increases.
> 
> 
>> Bill Herrin
> --
> -JH
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.




From owen at delong.com  Sat Oct 27 06:18:30 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 03:18:30 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>


On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:

> On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Andrew Dul - andrew.dul wrote:
>> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
>>> wrong direction.
>>> 
>>> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
>>> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
>>> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
>>> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:
>> 
>> In general, I support the new fee schedule.  There is one area which I believe needs consideration.  For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN, 1 IPv6) their registration fees are  going to triple from $100 to $300.  I don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world at large and these smallest organizations.  I don't know the number of orgs that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is a significant number of end-user orgs.
>> 
>> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are $100, then $100 for additional records.
> 
> 
> First, I don't believe that $300 is any significant amount of money to any operating business, profit or non-profit. I do believe that individuals who are using /24 blocks for personal use who could quite easily use provider-assigned space are going to pay more than they would like. I would like to note that I am one of those individuals myself, and yet I support this proposal against my own interests.

You are, in fact, incorrect about the first half of that statement.

> However, it would be stupid to ignore the fact that a large number of organizations are going to see their annual fee triple, and that could earn ARIN some angst that they don't need.
> 
> I believe that we have an opportunity to use the fee schedule to forward ARIN policy and help IPv6 adoption here. If we were to move forward with the new fee structure, but give organizations that have or adopt IPv6 a break, then it would promote forward policy.

Agreed.

> 
> For example: if I have an IP assignment and an ASN, I would pay $200. If I acquire an IPv6 assignment from ARIN, I would (temporarily) be returned to $100/year. This would help organizations which aren't moving forward to at least acquire the IPv6 assignment. Yes, they might sit on it. But perhaps they might actually start moving forward with it.
> 
> Over time let this temporary thing expire, and then it may actually become a useful thing to help organizations move away from IPv4. Pay $300 a year, or return your IPv4 block and get a permanent reduction in fees.

I think the current trend is towards $100 covers your first of each resource class permanently and $100 for each additional resource record. I'm fine with that trend.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Sat Oct 27 06:47:08 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 03:47:08 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CCB0487D.1CC8F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
References: <CCB0487D.1CC8F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <4CC30D8E-0D48-49E8-A554-F2678E0E7226@delong.com>


On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:

> Owen,
> 
> 	If you believe how things have been handled in the past have served us
> well I guess none of us would be having this conversation about rolling
> out IPv6 right now at all, right? Thank you for your reply but lets try to
> keep things constructive. A couple people have since suggested a sort of
> flat fee but this takes it a step further. Below is my response to a
> couple of John's questions:

I disagree. I think that protocols become obsolete for a variety of different
reasons. The problem with IPv4 is that it was designed for a different target
audience than is currently using it. As a result, it was sized for a dramatically
smaller internet than what we see today. It has become obsolete because it
ran out of numbers. Frankly, EUI-48 is facing a similar problem at this point
and the IEEE is now looking at it as well. That does not change the fact that
the process for handing out EUI-48s has served us well, it simply indicates
that the expected number of EUI-48 devices underestimated demand.

The internet with NAT is not the internet. It is a shadow of what the internet
should be. We have lived in that shadow for so long that the vast majority of
internet users have no comprehension that they live in shadow. Nonetheless,
they do, in fact, live in shadow. There are roughly 6.8 billion people on the
planet. We are moving towards an era where each person will have, on average,
a lap top, smart phone, tablet device, and two desktop computers (one at home
and one at the office). In addition, you need to account for content servers,
home entertainment devices, sensor networks, utility devices (refrigerators,
thermostats, intelligent cupboards, etc.), routers, network infrastructure,
etc. The mere multiplication of 6.8E9 * 5 reveals that 4.3E9 is a woefully
inadequate address space for the future internet regardless of the allocation
policies.

We are discussing IPv6 because the internet has outgrown the IPv4 address
space. I suppose one could argue that the prior allocation policies have
accelerated the time at which this has become an issue, but, in reality, I
would argue that the unfortunate deployment of NAT and it's deleterious
effects on the internet have artificially delayed that date by roughly 25
years.

From my perspective, policies in the past have, in fact, served us quite
well and contributed greatly to the fact that we even have this problem.
Had policies been different, we might never have had the internet escape
from the laboratory and the web, the popular consumer internet, etc. might
never have come to fruition. I believe that the ability to readily get
free addresses and naming references deployed quickly and easily drove
much of the early adoption that lead to the internet becoming the one
driving force in consumer networking above all others. Perhaps you do not
remember when there was a choice of walled garden consumer networking
experiences most of which did not even contemplate connection to the
internet. Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe, etc. all began as separate services
which had no connection with each other or with the internet. Most of
them just sort of glazed over when you asked about internet connectivity
and said "no, we don't do that". Over time, the open internet with its
easy adoption and diverse functionality won out, but this was never
a certainty before it happened and a more conservative set of allocation
policies or higher fees at the time might well have prevented it.

It is very common and popular to ignore the context of the past when
judging the actions of the past. However, doing so is fraught with
peril and rarely yields a valid perspective or conclusion.

> 
> John,
> 
> Thanks for your note. You're right about the policy part, however, it was
> purely a fee conversation and I didn't want to steer things off topic ;)
> Further, I think there is a mindset that comes with the existing
> progressively cheaper fee structure that encourages the kind of waste
> we've seen with IPv4. However, the issue of policy is of greater
> importance.
> 
> I think there are a couple of ways to address it:
> 
> 1. The current practice is to award larger and larger blocks to orgs. I
> think this has proven troublesome.
> 	1. The point of this was to keep the table small but I think since newer
> hardware is required to support ipv6 in the first place this is no longer
> relevant. Besides ARIN can't really dictate how an org advertises their
> space <http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS35908&view=2.0>.

Indeed, the current IPv6 policy definitely does this in that if you
consume a /32, you get at least a /28 next time. The intent is that you
immediately stop making allocations into the /32 and eventually return
it through attrition if it ever becomes empty.

> 	2. It creates waste because an org who has run out of their /16 would be
> foolish to request a /22 even if that's all they require. They are
> incentivized by allocation practice to request the largest they can and
> hoard it. VPLS is a prime example of that
> <http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/VPLSI/pft>. They have only 20 cabinets of
> dedicated servers but over half a million IP's. 98% of which they aren't
> using because they have abused ARINs progressive allocation practice in an
> effort to later sell those resources on ARIN's market at vastly inflated
> prices.

In IPv4 (which is where the prefix sizes you describe would make sense), this
actually isn't the case. One needs to demonstrate not only that they have used
up their /16 (80%), but also that they actually need a larger block. If they
can only demonstrate need for a /22, ARIN will only issue a /22. Admittedly,
ARIN uses the rate at which they consumed their /16 as a partial predictor of
this need, but also considers the statements made by the applicant regarding
their future intended utilization.

> 
> 
> 2. A linear fee might be worth looking into rather than a progressive one
> (i.e. A flat tax). One for IPv4 and one for IPv6.
> 	1. It may help encourage more efficient usage
> 	2. It wouldn't penalize smaller organizations as severely and be fair
> across the board.
> 	3. Much simpler billing structure. Say you were to bill $x per /64
> starting with allocations made in 2013. For orgs that predate that move
> (because /32's used to be all that were issued) them to the new fee
> structure once they request more resources. For v4 you could do $x per /24
> or per IP.
> 

I personally believe that the logarithmic fee introduced in the APNIC
region will actually be disastrous. It will incentivize residential
broadband providers to issue tiny amounts of address space, possibly as
restrictive as /64 to their customers and will once again set back
innovation on the internet almost to the extent that NAT has degraded
things.

Conserving IPv6 space in this way is quite harmful and will result in
costs beyond mere dollars.

> 
> 3. I think ARIN could more aggressively enforce existing policies
> 	1. During a transfer request ARIN affords itself the opportunity to
> revisit the allocation and reclaim it altogether. I haven't seen this
> happen in cases where it should have based on policy.
> 	2. For IPv4 requests or transfers the question needs to be asked "why
> aren't you natting"? AT&T is a fabulous example of this. I have tens of
> thousands of residential users IPv4 NAT'd with no loss of functionality. I
> dual stack them with IPv6. If I can do it why can't AT&T? Why do they need
> tens of millions of IP's? There is simply no technical requirement for
> every end user on dsl and uverse to have a public IP.
> 

How on earth can you claim no loss of functionality. They cannot put up a
web server. They cannot have a DNS entry that points to any of their devices.
They cannot receive a SIP call without involving an external rendezvous host.

There is tremendous loss of functionality.

NAT is a disastrous problematic hack designed to temporarily cope with a
shortage of addresses. It certainly isn't a desirable steady state and I
most strenuously object to codifying extreme implementations of it in policy
as you suggest.

Owen



From mysidia at gmail.com  Sat Oct 27 09:40:45 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:40:45 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbWdnCYbm26y-chJ2h-Xn6vTEAfAyRe9xHNspTAc-p8Jww@mail.gmail.com>

It's interesting the change in language "Registration Services
Subscription Plan (RSSP) provides Internet service providers of all
types (ISP, hosting companies, etc.) "

So hosting companies will  be ISPs now, instead of End users,  even
when they assign IP addresses to their own network and devices?


On 10/27/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Andrew Dul - andrew.dul wrote:
>>> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
....
>>> In general, I support the new fee schedule.  There is one area which I
...
>>
>> First, I don't believe that $300 is any significant amount of money to any
>> operating business, profit or non-profit. I do believe that individuals
>
> You are, in fact, incorrect about the first half of that statement.

I don't believe he's incorrect about that.  The significance of
maintenance of IP address resources at  $300 for an end user or any
other price,  is to be compared  to other costs of maintaining the
network of the size those resources are assigned to;  including shared
and per-device costs;  including capital expenses,   and including
operational expenses and labor costs required to install, maintain,
repair those devices,  implement the network,  and  daily costs of any
staff or people the organization has using the devices to accomplish
tasks.


Try "$300 is not a significant amount of money compared to other
capital and operating costs for an operating organization,  who has
purchased and has to maintain all the hardware required to need an RIR
end user allocation"

Since the end user allocates start at a /22; approximately averages
$0.30 per IP address,  and maintaining anything close to computers and
network devices requiring 1000 IPs annually  is otherwise so costly,
that $300  won't likely be a significant percentage of the
maintenance.

The electricity cost alone is likely $8 -  $15 / year per host device
that is a computer,    assuming  30W usage, powered on  4 hours a day;
 in actuality, if devices are powered on that infrequently,  the
number of devices supported by a DHCP pool with that many IPs should
be much larger    than 1000,   so you could double the electricity
cost per IP from that,   except that some of those IPs  may  be
low-power devices  such as  smart phones.

So if the annual electricity cost per node averages $8;  that puts
the  $0.30 IP allocation  cost per node at  a measly  3.7%.

And you haven't started to calculate the costs of labor; the
staff/person using the node during that time.


Networks typically require repair of nodes,  when hardware and
software components fail;  human efforts to maintain and administer
nodes,  including software maintenance cost,  to keep nodes updated
and supported.



--
-JH


From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Sat Oct 27 12:23:16 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:23:16 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
Message-ID: <83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 27, 2012, at 3:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I think the current trend is towards $100 covers your first of each resource class permanently and $100 for each additional resource record. I'm fine with that trend.


I will only support that trend if the discount only applies to organizations with v6 assignments.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.





From farmer at umn.edu  Sat Oct 27 13:24:54 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:24:54 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>

On 10/27/12 11:23 , Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 3:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I think the current trend is towards $100 covers your first of each resource class permanently and $100 for each additional resource record. I'm fine with that trend.
>
>
> I will only support that trend if the discount only applies to organizations with v6 assignments.

The idea is that you get one of each type of resource for the $100. This 
primarily means that end-users that have resources already, an IPv4 
assignment or ASN, can get an IPv6 assignment without impacting their 
annual maintenance fee.  They still have to pay the one-time fees, but 
that's a different issue.  Also, if you only had a IPv4 assignment you 
could get an ASN without impact as well, and visa-verses, again you 
still pay the one-time fees.

The point is, it isn't specifically an IPv6 discount, but for the large 
majority of end-users that is the result.



From owen at delong.com  Sat Oct 27 13:47:01 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:47:01 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbWdnCYbm26y-chJ2h-Xn6vTEAfAyRe9xHNspTAc-p8Jww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbWdnCYbm26y-chJ2h-Xn6vTEAfAyRe9xHNspTAc-p8Jww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A9FB7E3B-DECD-4064-9A51-4726B51A6266@delong.com>


On Oct 27, 2012, at 6:40 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's interesting the change in language "Registration Services
> Subscription Plan (RSSP) provides Internet service providers of all
> types (ISP, hosting companies, etc.) "
> 
> So hosting companies will  be ISPs now, instead of End users,  even
> when they assign IP addresses to their own network and devices?
> 
> 
> On 10/27/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Andrew Dul - andrew.dul wrote:
>>>> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
> ....
>>>> In general, I support the new fee schedule.  There is one area which I
> ...
>>> 
>>> First, I don't believe that $300 is any significant amount of money to any
>>> operating business, profit or non-profit. I do believe that individuals
>> 
>> You are, in fact, incorrect about the first half of that statement.
> 
> I don't believe he's incorrect about that.  The significance of
> maintenance of IP address resources at  $300 for an end user or any
> other price,  is to be compared  to other costs of maintaining the
> network of the size those resources are assigned to;  including shared
> and per-device costs;  including capital expenses,   and including
> operational expenses and labor costs required to install, maintain,
> repair those devices,  implement the network,  and  daily costs of any
> staff or people the organization has using the devices to accomplish
> tasks.

I know of a number of community networks and other non-profit end-users
for whom $100 is a burden they meet through the largess of a handful
of their members donating to cover the ARIN fees each year. It is far
from certain that they would be able to depend on tripling (or more)
that largess and it would definitely not be an insignificant additional
burden for them.


> Try "$300 is not a significant amount of money compared to other
> capital and operating costs for an operating organization,  who has
> purchased and has to maintain all the hardware required to need an RIR
> end user allocation"
> 

That is an entirely different statement, but, it's also not a statement
which is inherently true. Many of these organizations operate on
donated equipment and shoestring budgets.

> Since the end user allocates start at a /22; approximately averages
> $0.30 per IP address,  and maintaining anything close to computers and
> network devices requiring 1000 IPs annually  is otherwise so costly,
> that $300  won't likely be a significant percentage of the
> maintenance.

Actually, no, end-user allocations start at /24 and maintaining a
public access community network that requires 1,000 IPs can be done
using donated hardware and labor such that $300 is, in fact, more than
90% of the annual operating budget.

> The electricity cost alone is likely $8 -  $15 / year per host device
> that is a computer,    assuming  30W usage, powered on  4 hours a day;
> in actuality, if devices are powered on that infrequently,  the
> number of devices supported by a DHCP pool with that many IPs should
> be much larger    than 1000,   so you could double the electricity
> cost per IP from that,   except that some of those IPs  may  be
> low-power devices  such as  smart phones.

Many of these networks don't have more than one computer host device
and are located such that the electricity (and real estate) is basically
donated. It's a lot easier to find donations of small amounts of space
and electricity than cash.

> So if the annual electricity cost per node averages $8;  that puts
> the  $0.30 IP allocation  cost per node at  a measly  3.7%.

You are assuming that a community network operates all of the IP-using
nodes on its network. Obviously this is not a correct assumption in
such a case.

> And you haven't started to calculate the costs of labor; the
> staff/person using the node during that time.

When the labor is donated and the staff are volunteers, those are
pretty low costs.

> Networks typically require repair of nodes,  when hardware and
> software components fail;  human efforts to maintain and administer
> nodes,  including software maintenance cost,  to keep nodes updated
> and supported.

I'm very much aware of all of these things. I'm also aware of the fact
that when you assume that all ARIN entities are businesses and ignore
community-service minded organizations doing things for motivations
other than making money, you come to conclusions like the ones above.

Since I happen to believe that such organizations are useful and
beneficial to the communities that they serve, I prefer not to encode
such assumptions into ARIN fees or policies.

Owen



From mysidia at gmail.com  Sat Oct 27 14:23:55 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:23:55 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <A9FB7E3B-DECD-4064-9A51-4726B51A6266@delong.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbWdnCYbm26y-chJ2h-Xn6vTEAfAyRe9xHNspTAc-p8Jww@mail.gmail.com>
	<A9FB7E3B-DECD-4064-9A51-4726B51A6266@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbVk_uqCL5RBZ-K340120QoTsv1xM9YEYhpgOFKMiTciSA@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/27/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 6:40 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/27/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Andrew Dul - andrew.dul wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:

> I know of a number of community networks and other non-profit end-users
> for whom $100 is a burden they meet through the largess of a handful
> of their members donating to cover the ARIN fees each year. It is far

In other words, much like ARIN is a non-profit org that relies on cash
provided by resource holders to be able to pay ARIN's bills.

> which is inherently true. Many of these organizations operate on
> donated equipment and shoestring budgets.

Granted, but  donated equipment does not have a cost of $0.  It  just
means they have an external source of funding.

> and are located such that the electricity (and real estate) is basically
> donated. It's a lot easier to find donations of small amounts of space
> and electricity than cash.

So they aren't actually operating "with a small budget";  they are
just relying on other people to fund them  by  donating electricity,
upstream bandwidth, IP connectivity, and  removing expenses that
someone other than the org then still has to deal with.

> When the labor is donated and the staff are volunteers, those are
> pretty low costs.

Well,  in that case, what it means is the volunteers are paying  the
labor costs for the organization,  by waiving the wages they would
ordinarily be paid;  that is tantamount to a cash donation.

> Since I happen to believe that such organizations are useful and
> beneficial to the communities that they serve, I prefer not to encode
> such assumptions into ARIN fees or policies.

The assumptions will be true for over 95% of cases.

It would be an excellent thing (when resources permit) for ARIN to
donate some registry services to non-profit organizations that have
limited access to cash,  but  still have good need/justification for
IP space,  and  provide a meaningful benefit to the community.

By reducing, waiving fees,  or obtaining something other than cash in
exchange for ARIN services,  in those rare exceptional cases.


But the fee schedule for ARIN to recover its costs shouldn't be
designed around it.

> Owen
-- 
-JH


From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Sat Oct 27 16:12:38 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:12:38 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>

> On 10/27/12 11:23 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>> I will only support that trend if the discount only applies to organizations with v6 assignments.

On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:24 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> The idea is that you get one of each type of resource for the $100. This primarily means that end-users that have resources already, an IPv4 assignment or ASN, can get an IPv6 assignment without impacting their annual maintenance fee.  They still have to pay the one-time fees, but that's a different issue.  Also, if you only had a IPv4 assignment you could get an ASN without impact as well, and visa-verses, again you still pay the one-time fees.
> 
> The point is, it isn't specifically an IPv6 discount, but for the large majority of end-users that is the result.

I oppose that idea as you have stated it, and will stand fast in opposition. This would be a discount for standing still, out of line with actual cost recovery (3-4 resources for cost of 1). If we are going to provide a discount, let's use that discount to help move the world forward.

In particular, many network admins are jumping to get IPv6 blocks and are being held off by their managers.  In every situation as soon as I got the managers to accept "let's get the future block for documentation purposes", pretty soon they were tossing tasks at their staff to get nameservice and e-mail delivery over v6, etc and the gate was opened.

If we give them incentives to acquire the block, we can't force them to deploy it on their services but we may well open the door for them.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.





From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Sat Oct 27 16:32:40 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:32:40 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <A9FB7E3B-DECD-4064-9A51-4726B51A6266@delong.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbWdnCYbm26y-chJ2h-Xn6vTEAfAyRe9xHNspTAc-p8Jww@mail.gmail.com>
	<A9FB7E3B-DECD-4064-9A51-4726B51A6266@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5F5EB2DA-CFAF-4A29-B373-C1F3996A0E50@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I know of a number of community networks and other non-profit end-users

It's time to start naming names. Everyone is claiming they know "a numer", "thousands", "tens of thousands" but nobody has brought forward a single real case. This won't harm the organization: if they are a real non-profit providing networking services, their name should be well known in these circles.

> for whom $100 is a burden they meet through the largess of a handful
> of their members donating to cover the ARIN fees each year.

So I want to be very clear on this topic, and I really hope John Curran can pull together some real numbers on this topic.  I am going to float some numbers as estimates here just to show the idea. I would love to see real numbers put to this.

My experience would suggest that in reality there are likely something like 3k-5k small businesses paying $100 a month, and something like 20-50 actual registered non-profits who depend on member donations to cover these fees. **PLEASE SUPPLY REAL NUMBERS.

I do not feel that we should be discounting fees for 2950 - 4950 small businesses who likely pay something a minimum of $2k per month for all aspects of their internet service.

I am absolutely willing to support a special discount for the 20-50 registered nonprofits (or any legitimate not-doing-this-for-profit we can identify) to give those entities a better discount.

Truth in advertising: I am a person who runs a small network and offers free hosting to charities and causes I support, and I don't make a single dollar from it. I would benefit from the proposal that I am arguing against.

> That is an entirely different statement, but, it's also not a statement
> which is inherently true. Many of these organizations operate on
> donated equipment and shoestring budgets.
> public access community network that requires 1,000 IPs can be done
> using donated hardware and labor such that $300 is, in fact, more than
> 90% of the annual operating budget.

Sorry, have to call you on this one. As you very well know, the largest cost of this kind of business is power, not connectivity. You cannot run a single, lower-power server for $300 a year of power, no matter your power supplier. You can say that the power is donated, but then it remains part of the budget.

> Many of these networks don't have more than one computer host device
> and are located such that the electricity (and real estate) is basically
> donated. It's a lot easier to find donations of small amounts of space
> and electricity than cash.

Sorry, something is starting to smell here. They have a single computer, but need multiple disparate /24s that they can't route from a single place.  They operate from a single server in donated real estate, but need an ASN and PI space to peer with multiple providers. I think you are blending the needs of a very diverse set of people together to come up with a single killer to the proposal. I call bull.

In the only situation where it makes sense, that being loaned real estate within a colo facility, they are already on someone else's network and don't need to do their own peering. If they truly need to do their own peering, then they are paying for cross connect fees which add up to thousands of dollars at the very cheapest facilities. So $300 being 90% of their budget is unbelievable.

I'm calling bull on this entire line of reasoning.  You can't pick and choose attributes of a hundred different solutions and combine them to together to create your best case argument.

> I'm very much aware of all of these things. I'm also aware of the fact
> that when you assume that all ARIN entities are businesses and ignore
> community-service minded organizations doing things for motivations
> other than making money, you come to conclusions like the ones above.
> Since I happen to believe that such organizations are useful and
> beneficial to the communities that they serve, I prefer not to encode
> such assumptions into ARIN fees or policies.

I agree that there are a few providers who we should be willing to make special policy for. I don't believe that all small businesses should get the same discount.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.


From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Sat Oct 27 16:35:03 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:35:03 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbVk_uqCL5RBZ-K340120QoTsv1xM9YEYhpgOFKMiTciSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbWdnCYbm26y-chJ2h-Xn6vTEAfAyRe9xHNspTAc-p8Jww@mail.gmail.com>
	<A9FB7E3B-DECD-4064-9A51-4726B51A6266@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVk_uqCL5RBZ-K340120QoTsv1xM9YEYhpgOFKMiTciSA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FC8317F6-C675-436C-9602-85B44E8239AB@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 27, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> The assumptions will be true for over 95% of cases.

+1   if not more like 99% 

> It would be an excellent thing (when resources permit) for ARIN to
> donate some registry services to non-profit organizations that have
> limited access to cash,  but  still have good need/justification for
> IP space,  and  provide a meaningful benefit to the community.
> By reducing, waiving fees,  or obtaining something other than cash in
> exchange for ARIN services,  in those rare exceptional cases.

+1

> But the fee schedule for ARIN to recover its costs shouldn't be designed around it.


where 'it' == a very small number of cases.

+1

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.





From jesse at la-broadband.com  Sat Oct 27 17:25:46 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:25:46 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <FC8317F6-C675-436C-9602-85B44E8239AB@netconsonance.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbWdnCYbm26y-chJ2h-Xn6vTEAfAyRe9xHNspTAc-p8Jww@mail.gmail.com>
	<A9FB7E3B-DECD-4064-9A51-4726B51A6266@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVk_uqCL5RBZ-K340120QoTsv1xM9YEYhpgOFKMiTciSA@mail.gmail.com>,
	<FC8317F6-C675-436C-9602-85B44E8239AB@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <BC35DA47-A18F-4CBE-B54E-94CB09BDA9D7@la-broadband.com>

Aren't we pretty far into the weeds here in minutiae?

There's two aspects to a fee, right.

1. To the extent to which it can be used to incentivise purchase. Which is all that's being discussed here.

2. To the extent in which the resulting revenue can be used for advocacy, workshops, training and so on and so forth. 

I think the second item has a much greater impact region-wide than the difference of $200 for a narrow number of organisations.

Will a $200 per annum savings have a massive regional impact? Not likely. But take a look at the other side of that and you've answered both problems. If the concern is a narrow number of nonprofits is what we are discussing opting for a greater revenue generating option allows you to subsidise those exact users 'can make it free' via the larger community on a case by case basis. 

I still don't see the logic in making things progressively cheaper as your allocation grows. I think the cost should scale directly with the resources bing consumed. In the case of the proposed fees exactly the opposite is happening. Why?

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
ASN 16602
JNCIS-SEC, JNCIS-ENT
JNCIA-SSL, JNCIA-JUNOS

On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:34 PM, "Jo Rhett" <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:

> On Oct 27, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> The assumptions will be true for over 95% of cases.
> 
> +1   if not more like 99% 
> 
>> It would be an excellent thing (when resources permit) for ARIN to
>> donate some registry services to non-profit organizations that have
>> limited access to cash,  but  still have good need/justification for
>> IP space,  and  provide a meaningful benefit to the community.
>> By reducing, waiving fees,  or obtaining something other than cash in
>> exchange for ARIN services,  in those rare exceptional cases.
> 
> +1
> 
>> But the fee schedule for ARIN to recover its costs shouldn't be designed around it.
> 
> 
> where 'it' == a very small number of cases.
> 
> +1
> 
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


From jesse at la-broadband.com  Sat Oct 27 09:27:34 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:27:34 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <4CC30D8E-0D48-49E8-A554-F2678E0E7226@delong.com>
References: <CCB0487D.1CC8F%jesse@la-broadband.com>,
	<4CC30D8E-0D48-49E8-A554-F2678E0E7226@delong.com>
Message-ID: <1DF3EC36-719A-4F8F-8A98-8FF5FD30E7FA@la-broadband.com>

Owen,

Been trying to keep on topic here but thanks for your long agreement.

While this sharing can be interesting I was hard pressed to find anything on topic in the response. Perhaps future off topic replies an be directed at me individually.

I did want to touch on your assertion about NAT as my experience has been vastly different from yours and this may help others who are tinkering with carrier level NAT or even wondering if its possible. I would hate for anyone to walk away thinking it breaks everything or detracts from a typical user experience.

As far as NAT being a "shadow" that's simply your experience and is really dependant on the vendor's implementation of the protocol. Apparently you guys use foundry/brocade at HE who has always had abysmal support for it if any. My users are NAT'd IPv4 and routed ipv6. In two years time I have not heard a single complaint of anything not working from vpns to Xbox to vonage to bittorrent and anything else you can imagine in a home on a massive scale. I've even tried natting 10,000 apartments on a single v4 IP just to see what would happen. No one noticed. You guys might want to check out some more mainstream hardware sometime like Juniper. I think your perception of how the Internet behaves may change :) Foundry/Brocade's marketshare is tiny. 

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On Oct 27, 2012, at 5:32 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:
> 
>> Owen,
>> 
>>    If you believe how things have been handled in the past have served us
>> well I guess none of us would be having this conversation about rolling
>> out IPv6 right now at all, right? Thank you for your reply but lets try to
>> keep things constructive. A couple people have since suggested a sort of
>> flat fee but this takes it a step further. Below is my response to a
>> couple of John's questions:
> 
> I disagree. I think that protocols become obsolete for a variety of different
> reasons. The problem with IPv4 is that it was designed for a different target
> audience than is currently using it. As a result, it was sized for a dramatically
> smaller internet than what we see today. It has become obsolete because it
> ran out of numbers. Frankly, EUI-48 is facing a similar problem at this point
> and the IEEE is now looking at it as well. That does not change the fact that
> the process for handing out EUI-48s has served us well, it simply indicates
> that the expected number of EUI-48 devices underestimated demand.
> 
> The internet with NAT is not the internet. It is a shadow of what the internet
> should be. We have lived in that shadow for so long that the vast majority of
> internet users have no comprehension that they live in shadow. Nonetheless,
> they do, in fact, live in shadow. There are roughly 6.8 billion people on the
> planet. We are moving towards an era where each person will have, on average,
> a lap top, smart phone, tablet device, and two desktop computers (one at home
> and one at the office). In addition, you need to account for content servers,
> home entertainment devices, sensor networks, utility devices (refrigerators,
> thermostats, intelligent cupboards, etc.), routers, network infrastructure,
> etc. The mere multiplication of 6.8E9 * 5 reveals that 4.3E9 is a woefully
> inadequate address space for the future internet regardless of the allocation
> policies.
> 
> We are discussing IPv6 because the internet has outgrown the IPv4 address
> space. I suppose one could argue that the prior allocation policies have
> accelerated the time at which this has become an issue, but, in reality, I
> would argue that the unfortunate deployment of NAT and it's deleterious
> effects on the internet have artificially delayed that date by roughly 25
> years.
> 
> From my perspective, policies in the past have, in fact, served us quite
> well and contributed greatly to the fact that we even have this problem.
> Had policies been different, we might never have had the internet escape
> from the laboratory and the web, the popular consumer internet, etc. might
> never have come to fruition. I believe that the ability to readily get
> free addresses and naming references deployed quickly and easily drove
> much of the early adoption that lead to the internet becoming the one
> driving force in consumer networking above all others. Perhaps you do not
> remember when there was a choice of walled garden consumer networking
> experiences most of which did not even contemplate connection to the
> internet. Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe, etc. all began as separate services
> which had no connection with each other or with the internet. Most of
> them just sort of glazed over when you asked about internet connectivity
> and said "no, we don't do that". Over time, the open internet with its
> easy adoption and diverse functionality won out, but this was never
> a certainty before it happened and a more conservative set of allocation
> policies or higher fees at the time might well have prevented it.
> 
> It is very common and popular to ignore the context of the past when
> judging the actions of the past. However, doing so is fraught with
> peril and rarely yields a valid perspective or conclusion.
> 
>> 
>> John,
>> 
>> Thanks for your note. You're right about the policy part, however, it was
>> purely a fee conversation and I didn't want to steer things off topic ;)
>> Further, I think there is a mindset that comes with the existing
>> progressively cheaper fee structure that encourages the kind of waste
>> we've seen with IPv4. However, the issue of policy is of greater
>> importance.
>> 
>> I think there are a couple of ways to address it:
>> 
>> 1. The current practice is to award larger and larger blocks to orgs. I
>> think this has proven troublesome.
>>    1. The point of this was to keep the table small but I think since newer
>> hardware is required to support ipv6 in the first place this is no longer
>> relevant. Besides ARIN can't really dictate how an org advertises their
>> space <http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS35908&view=2.0>.
> 
> Indeed, the current IPv6 policy definitely does this in that if you
> consume a /32, you get at least a /28 next time. The intent is that you
> immediately stop making allocations into the /32 and eventually return
> it through attrition if it ever becomes empty.
> 
>>    2. It creates waste because an org who has run out of their /16 would be
>> foolish to request a /22 even if that's all they require. They are
>> incentivized by allocation practice to request the largest they can and
>> hoard it. VPLS is a prime example of that
>> <http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/VPLSI/pft>. They have only 20 cabinets of
>> dedicated servers but over half a million IP's. 98% of which they aren't
>> using because they have abused ARINs progressive allocation practice in an
>> effort to later sell those resources on ARIN's market at vastly inflated
>> prices.
> 
> In IPv4 (which is where the prefix sizes you describe would make sense), this
> actually isn't the case. One needs to demonstrate not only that they have used
> up their /16 (80%), but also that they actually need a larger block. If they
> can only demonstrate need for a /22, ARIN will only issue a /22. Admittedly,
> ARIN uses the rate at which they consumed their /16 as a partial predictor of
> this need, but also considers the statements made by the applicant regarding
> their future intended utilization.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2. A linear fee might be worth looking into rather than a progressive one
>> (i.e. A flat tax). One for IPv4 and one for IPv6.
>>    1. It may help encourage more efficient usage
>>    2. It wouldn't penalize smaller organizations as severely and be fair
>> across the board.
>>    3. Much simpler billing structure. Say you were to bill $x per /64
>> starting with allocations made in 2013. For orgs that predate that move
>> (because /32's used to be all that were issued) them to the new fee
>> structure once they request more resources. For v4 you could do $x per /24
>> or per IP.
> 
> I personally believe that the logarithmic fee introduced in the APNIC
> region will actually be disastrous. It will incentivize residential
> broadband providers to issue tiny amounts of address space, possibly as
> restrictive as /64 to their customers and will once again set back
> innovation on the internet almost to the extent that NAT has degraded
> things.
> 
> Conserving IPv6 space in this way is quite harmful and will result in
> costs beyond mere dollars.
> 
>> 
>> 3. I think ARIN could more aggressively enforce existing policies
>>    1. During a transfer request ARIN affords itself the opportunity to
>> revisit the allocation and reclaim it altogether. I haven't seen this
>> happen in cases where it should have based on policy.
>>    2. For IPv4 requests or transfers the question needs to be asked "why
>> aren't you natting"? AT&T is a fabulous example of this. I have tens of
>> thousands of residential users IPv4 NAT'd with no loss of functionality. I
>> dual stack them with IPv6. If I can do it why can't AT&T? Why do they need
>> tens of millions of IP's? There is simply no technical requirement for
>> every end user on dsl and uverse to have a public IP.
> 
> How on earth can you claim no loss of functionality. They cannot put up a
> web server. They cannot have a DNS entry that points to any of their devices.
> They cannot receive a SIP call without involving an external rendezvous host.
> 
> There is tremendous loss of functionality.
> 
> NAT is a disastrous problematic hack designed to temporarily cope with a
> shortage of addresses. It certainly isn't a desirable steady state and I
> most strenuously object to codifying extreme implementations of it in policy
> as you suggest.
> 
> Owen
> 


From bill at herrin.us  Sat Oct 27 18:33:26 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:33:26 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVpE4DkrNhJgjghsBkM-_gWNhMZCXpR0y_yNc0kOqzS2Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
> First, I don't believe that $300 is any significant amount of money to any
> operating business, profit or non-profit.

Hi Jo,

Respectfully, you're missing the point. Your belief and its
correctness or lack are not at issue here.

Reasonable or not, ARIN fees and the need to put them through a
company's accounts payable process are one of the reasons folks elect
to defer deploying IPv6. Not the only reason. Not the most significant
reason. But one of the few reasons that ARIN can do anything about
without either fouling number policy or placing itself at legal risk.

No one expects ARIN to wave a wand and suddenly everybody deploys
IPv6. Nevertheless, ARIN is doing *less than it can* to facilitate
IPv6 deployment. And if an organization in ARIN's or ICANN's or the
IETF's position is doing less than it reasonably can then it's not
doing enough.

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


From farmer at umn.edu  Sat Oct 27 18:45:59 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:45:59 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>

On 10/27/12 15:12 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>> On 10/27/12 11:23 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>>> I will only support that trend if the discount only applies to organizations with v6 assignments.
>
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:24 AM, David Farmer wrote:
>> The idea is that you get one of each type of resource for the $100. This primarily means that end-users that have resources already, an IPv4 assignment or ASN, can get an IPv6 assignment without impacting their annual maintenance fee.  They still have to pay the one-time fees, but that's a different issue.  Also, if you only had a IPv4 assignment you could get an ASN without impact as well, and visa-verses, again you still pay the one-time fees.
>>
>> The point is, it isn't specifically an IPv6 discount, but for the large majority of end-users that is the result.
>
> I oppose that idea as you have stated it, and will stand fast in opposition. This would be a discount for standing still, out of line with actual cost recovery (3-4 resources for cost of 1). If we are going to provide a discount, let's use that discount to help move the world forward.
>
> In particular, many network admins are jumping to get IPv6 blocks and are being held off by their managers.  In every situation as soon as I got the managers to accept "let's get the future block for documentation purposes", pretty soon they were tossing tasks at their staff to get nameservice and e-mail delivery over v6, etc and the gate was opened.
>
> If we give them incentives to acquire the block, we can't force them to deploy it on their services but we may well open the door for them.

To be clear, I believe that the fee schedule proposed by the 
consultation, creates a disincentive for end-user organizations to 
deploy IPv6, however small.  The proposal in the consultation charges 
end-users $100 for each resource they have, meaning an extra $100 a year 
if they receive an IPv6 assignment.  Prior to the new fee schedule 
end-users paid a single $100 annual fee covering all resources they had.

The change I'm proposing is simply to allow an organization, to have one 
of each type resource (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) for their first $100, and to pay 
$100 for each resource of any type beyond the first one of each type. 
With the simple intent of removing any dis-incentive to deploy IPv6 with 
as few changes to the overall proposal as possible.

Personally, I'd be willing to support other incentives for deploying 
IPv6.  However, much more important than creating any incentive for 
deploying IPv6, is to ensure that no disincentive to deploy IPv6 is 
created accidentally by any change, however small the disincentive may 
actually be.

Overall I think the board got it right, and I support this very 
important and necessary restructuring of the fee schedule, including 
having end-user fees scale with the number of assignments they have.  I 
simply want to avoid any unintentional disincentive to deploy IPv6, 
again however small it may actually be.  Allowing each end-user 
organization one of each type resource (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) for their first 
$100 seems like the simplest way to fix this problem, without having to 
redo over a years worth of work by the board.  Note: If the change 
creates to big of a revenue whole, I'd support $150 per organization 
with one of each type resource (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) included, and then $100 
for each resource of any type beyond the first one of each type.

Further, while you seem to be arguing against the change I'm proposing, 
its unclear to me if you support the consultation's proposal or not.  It 
would be helpful if you would please clarify if you support the 
consultation's proposal or not.

Thanks


From woody at pch.net  Sat Oct 27 19:11:06 2012
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:11:06 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>


Two things I'd like to point out:

First, this doesn't disincentivize IPv6 deployment, it only disincentives people getting allocations that are way, way larger than they need.  Same as in IPv4.

Second, arguments that some other hypothetical person might suffer an increased burden, that are not borne out by the statistics, don't carry a heck of a lot of weight.  If _you_ are unhappy with how _your_ fees are changing, I want to hear about it.  Arguments about what someone else, who might or might not exist, might or might not think, are feckless.

                                -Bill







From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Sat Oct 27 19:25:47 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:25:47 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <A1EC6887-2ECF-4C99-A613-462F5731A6D3@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 27, 2012, at 3:45 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 10/27/12 15:12 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>>> On 10/27/12 11:23 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>>>> I will only support that trend if the discount only applies to organizations with v6 assignments.
>> 
>> On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:24 AM, David Farmer wrote:
>>> The idea is that you get one of each type of resource for the $100. This primarily means that end-users that have resources already, an IPv4 assignment or ASN, can get an IPv6 assignment without impacting their annual maintenance fee.  They still have to pay the one-time fees, but that's a different issue.  Also, if you only had a IPv4 assignment you could get an ASN without impact as well, and visa-verses, again you still pay the one-time fees.
>>> 
>>> The point is, it isn't specifically an IPv6 discount, but for the large majority of end-users that is the result.
>> 
>> I oppose that idea as you have stated it, and will stand fast in opposition. This would be a discount for standing still, out of line with actual cost recovery (3-4 resources for cost of 1). If we are going to provide a discount, let's use that discount to help move the world forward.
>> 
>> In particular, many network admins are jumping to get IPv6 blocks and are being held off by their managers.  In every situation as soon as I got the managers to accept "let's get the future block for documentation purposes", pretty soon they were tossing tasks at their staff to get nameservice and e-mail delivery over v6, etc and the gate was opened.
>> 
>> If we give them incentives to acquire the block, we can't force them to deploy it on their services but we may well open the door for them.
> 
> To be clear, I believe that the fee schedule proposed by the consultation, creates a disincentive for end-user organizations to deploy IPv6, however small.  The proposal in the consultation charges end-users $100 for each resource they have, meaning an extra $100 a year if they receive an IPv6 assignment.  Prior to the new fee schedule end-users paid a single $100 annual fee covering all resources they had.
> 
> The change I'm proposing is simply to allow an organization, to have one of each type resource (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) for their first $100, and to pay $100 for each resource of any type beyond the first one of each type. With the simple intent of removing any dis-incentive to deploy IPv6 with as few changes to the overall proposal as possible.

David, I have met you and you are smart. So why do you keep replying to my messages without reading the text of them?  You keep talking as if I said nothing at all.

I will vote against your proposal, and I'm the designated voting person for several entities.  If we are going to provide a discount, the discount should only come to organizations who deploy IPv6. We should not discount any organization which stays IPv4 only.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.





From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Sat Oct 27 19:27:49 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:27:49 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
Message-ID: <C712DF6C-FCBC-4D38-AF89-075564332060@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 27, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> First, this doesn't disincentivize IPv6 deployment, it only disincentives people getting allocations that are way, way larger than they need.  Same as in IPv4.

It does add an annual fee for having an IPv6 allocation. Discounting the IPv6 allocation as I've proposed would remove that disincentive.

> Second, arguments that some other hypothetical person might suffer an increased burden, that are not borne out by the statistics, don't carry a heck of a lot of weight.  If _you_ are unhappy with how _your_ fees are changing, I want to hear about it.  Arguments about what someone else, who might or might not exist, might or might not think, are feckless.

My fees will increase and I support this proposal.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.





From jcurran at arin.net  Sun Oct 28 10:34:04 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:34:04 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
Message-ID: <EAA5CF5B-A1D8-46D0-BA59-2678A2D6FB60@corp.arin.net>


On Oct 26, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Andrew Dul - andrew.dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
>> wrong direction.
>> 
>> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
>> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
>> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
>> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:
> 
> 
> In general, I support the new fee schedule.  There is one area which I believe needs consideration.  For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN, 1 IPv6) their registration fees are  going to triple from $100 to $300.  I don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world at large and these smallest organizations.  I don't know the number of orgs that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is a significant number of end-user orgs.
> 
> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are $100, then $100 for additional records.

FYI - We will shortly generate some numbers regarding financial
aspects of this type of change.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From bill at herrin.us  Sun Oct 28 12:09:12 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:09:12 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> Second, arguments that some other hypothetical person
> might suffer an increased burden, that are not borne out
> by the statistics, don't carry a heck of a lot of weight.
>  If _you_ are unhappy with how _your_ fees are changing,
> I want to hear about it.  Arguments about what someone
> else, who might or might not exist, might or might not
> think, are feckless.

Fair enough. I currently manage three end-user BGP-multihomed
networks. I have begun IPv6 deployment on one of them. The owner had
some end-of-fiscal-year money and wasn't real particular about how it
was spent.

On the second, I'm blocked by a lack of ISP support (for *some* reason
they've chosen not to start deploying IPv6) and by the fact that it's
a low budget network where the ARIN cost of IPv6 is not justifiable.

On the third, I'm blocked solely because the ARIN cost of IPv6 is not
justifiable.

I don't mean "too much." I mean not justifiable: If I deploy it now, I
won't gain $1200 of benefit in the next 12 months. I won't gain $600
of benefit either. Or even $100 of benefit. Not this year. The same
money buys be a better router, another server, spare budget for
replacement parts, something from which I will derive benefit. This
year.

If I could deploy cost-neutral, I'd do it. I can't, so I'll wait until
the short-term benefit is much closer to the short-term cost.

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


From jmaimon at chl.com  Sun Oct 28 12:27:02 2012
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:27:02 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <EAA5CF5B-A1D8-46D0-BA59-2678A2D6FB60@corp.arin.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<EAA5CF5B-A1D8-46D0-BA59-2678A2D6FB60@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <508D5CD6.3010403@chl.com>



John Curran wrote:

>>
>> In general, I support the new fee schedule.  There is one area which I believe needs consideration.  For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN, 1 IPv6) their registration fees are  going to triple from $100 to $300.  I don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world at large and these smallest organizations.  I don't know the number of orgs that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is a significant number of end-user orgs.
>>
>> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are $100, then $100 for additional records.
>
> FYI - We will shortly generate some numbers regarding financial
> aspects of this type of change.
>
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>

Could that number generation consider tiers as well?

Best,

Joe


From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Sun Oct 28 14:25:14 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:25:14 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6 assignments
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 28, 2012, at 9:09 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> I don't mean "too much." I mean not justifiable: If I deploy it now, I
> won't gain $1200 of benefit in the next 12 months.

This seems to be an argument not against the proposed annual fee change, but against the current and existing price for IPv6 allocations. I don't think this is relevant to the current conversation (because I didn't observe much if any change in the pricing at registration time) however I'd like to state for the record that I would officially support a policy proposal that offered a discount period for IPv6 registrations in order to increase uptake.

* obviously this would require considerable number crunching to make sure it's plausible with ARIN's budget.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.





From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Sun Oct 28 14:31:40 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:31:40 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <D363557A-D28F-4BA9-9AB1-D4CB6926CD31@delong.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbWdnCYbm26y-chJ2h-Xn6vTEAfAyRe9xHNspTAc-p8Jww@mail.gmail.com>
	<A9FB7E3B-DECD-4064-9A51-4726B51A6266@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVk_uqCL5RBZ-K340120QoTsv1xM9YEYhpgOFKMiTciSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D363557A-D28F-4BA9-9AB1-D4CB6926CD31@delong.com>
Message-ID: <164356E8-387C-4C81-8AD6-D8BAA15404D2@netconsonance.com>

I am including arin-consult on my reply because I feel that the following statements are the most succinct and to the point this conversation has gotten.
 
On Oct 28, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Does that mean that a useful group of organizations that provide valuable
> benefit to the community should be ignored merely because they are a
> minority?

I haven't heard a single person argue that we should not provide discounts to these entities. I and others have argued that these individuals are a different class than most small businesses, and that we should not provide the same discount to all small businesses with the aim of aiding this particular class of organization.

In short, I disagree that every small business with one type of each record should be receive a discount.

I completely agree that the organizations whose cause you are advocating for should receive a significant discount.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.





From woody at pch.net  Sun Oct 28 15:33:22 2012
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:33:22 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>


On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
> I'd like to state for the record that I would officially support a policy proposal that offered a discount period for IPv6 registrations in order to increase uptake.

?except that we tried that experiment for, what, eight or ten years?  So if people weren't motivated by the discount-all-the-way-to-free, nor by the phasing-out of the discount over several years, do you really think they'd be motivated by it being discounted _again_, when they weren't the first time?

Essentially, I'm tired of special corner cases that are created to satisfy theoretical demands that might or might not exist on the part of hypothetical third parties.  Our policies are lousy with such loopholes, and our pricing was as well.  This pricing doesn't entirely fix the problem, but it certainly makes a good step in the right direction.

It doesn't fix the ridiculously-large volume discounts, but it makes a step in the right direction.

It doesn't get rid of the ISP/end-user distinction, but it makes a step in the right direction.

                                -Bill







From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Sun Oct 28 15:40:48 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:40:48 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>
	<43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
Message-ID: <7FAA9BB2-A1CA-49A0-8026-FC358651FF7E@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 28, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> ?except that we tried that experiment for, what, eight or ten years?  So if people weren't motivated by the discount-all-the-way-to-free, nor by the phasing-out of the discount over several years, do you really think they'd be motivated by it being discounted _again_, when they weren't the first time?

After pretty much sitting on my haunches waiting for a chance to deploy IPv6 in a production network for ten years, I understand your frustration. But the fact is that nobody saw the need before. Now the IPv4 runout is big headline news in the Wall Street Journal.  Now is different from then.  Now it might gain attention.

> Essentially, I'm tired of special corner cases that are created to satisfy theoretical demands that might or might not exist on the part of hypothetical third parties.  Our policies are lousy with such loopholes, and our pricing was as well.

I understand completely, and I'm fine either way. I was just curious if others thought it was worth a jaunt.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.


From woody at pch.net  Sun Oct 28 15:53:13 2012
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:53:13 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <7FAA9BB2-A1CA-49A0-8026-FC358651FF7E@netconsonance.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>
	<43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
	<7FAA9BB2-A1CA-49A0-8026-FC358651FF7E@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <F38497E7-B9A5-4B95-A4DC-D93F4E777490@pch.net>

>> Essentially, I'm tired of?
> 
> I understand completely, and I'm fine either way. I was just curious if others thought it was worth a jaunt.

Yep.  I don't mean to sound like a grouchy old dude?  I definitely want to hear everyone's ideas about how to make pricing better or simpler.

                                -Bill







From paul at redbarn.org  Sun Oct 28 15:59:14 2012
From: paul at redbarn.org (P Vixie)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:59:14 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for
	IPv6	assignments
In-Reply-To: <43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>
	<43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
Message-ID: <0ec092eb-72ba-4573-b08b-7913573c1407@email.android.com>

+1.

Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:

>
>On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com>
>wrote:
>> I'd like to state for the record that I would officially support a
>policy proposal that offered a discount period for IPv6 registrations
>in order to increase uptake.
>
>?except that we tried that experiment for, what, eight or ten years? 
>So if people weren't motivated by the discount-all-the-way-to-free, nor
>by the phasing-out of the discount over several years, do you really
>think they'd be motivated by it being discounted _again_, when they
>weren't the first time?
>
>Essentially, I'm tired of special corner cases that are created to
>satisfy theoretical demands that might or might not exist on the part
>of hypothetical third parties.  Our policies are lousy with such
>loopholes, and our pricing was as well.  This pricing doesn't entirely
>fix the problem, but it certainly makes a good step in the right
>direction.
>
>It doesn't fix the ridiculously-large volume discounts, but it makes a
>step in the right direction.
>
>It doesn't get rid of the ISP/end-user distinction, but it makes a step
>in the right direction.
>
>                                -Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121028/dcf73018/attachment.html>

From bill at herrin.us  Sun Oct 28 16:22:15 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:22:15 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>
	<43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWHgaq_i3gT4xOyKvuz15-491t_2duVfD926C6cY-kFcA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to state for the record that I would officially support a policy proposal that offered a discount period for IPv6 registrations in order to increase uptake.
>
> ?except that we tried that experiment for, what, eight or ten years?
> So if people weren't motivated by the discount-all-the-way-to-free, nor
> by the phasing-out of the discount over several years, do you really
> think they'd be motivated by it being discounted _again_, when
> they weren't the first time?

At what point were any of my three end-user orgs able to register for
addresses at a discount? Never. That's when. The discounts were
eliminated just before we finally gave up on the idea that multihomed
end users would get their addresses from ISPs and instituted something
approaching sane number policy for IPv6.

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


From woody at pch.net  Sun Oct 28 18:36:36 2012
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 15:36:36 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <66BBF61F-3465-4339-B629-3A932DBC5C76@la-broadband.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>,
	<43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
	<66BBF61F-3465-4339-B629-3A932DBC5C76@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <ED798F5C-5535-4021-9BA9-972C2D2495F1@pch.net>


On Oct 28, 2012, at 1:33 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:
> I was motivated by it and even ended up moving primarily to IPv6 over v4. However, with the proposed policy my fees will be $2k based on my default /32 allocation instead of my v4 allocation which would be $1k.

Okay so, since you're putting yourself forward as an example:

If $2,000 is more than you were paying before, that means that you had a /21 of IPv4 or less, in addition to your /32 of IPv6.

If you have fewer than 19,807,040,628,566,100,000,000,000,000 hosts, then you're actually in really good shape.  You can just hand back a /33 and a /34 until you need them, and you'll be paying $1,000 year, a 20% savings from the $1,250 that you're paying right now.  Moreover, you could get another /21 of IPv4 space (provided you need it) without an increase in fees, which would not have been possible under the old pricing.

So, is the $250/year discount objectionable, or do you have more than 19,807,040,628,566,100,000,000,000,000 hosts?

I'm not sure I'm seeing a problem here.

                                -Bill







From jesse at la-broadband.com  Sun Oct 28 19:19:51 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 23:19:51 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
 assignments
In-Reply-To: <ED798F5C-5535-4021-9BA9-972C2D2495F1@pch.net>
Message-ID: <CCB306AF.1CD3D%jesse@la-broadband.com>

Bill,

	Thanks for your response. Please keep in mind the context of my email was
in response to your questions/assertions and not in the vacuum you just
put it in. I'll break out this email and put it back in context.

What I was paying for IPv6 before was $0. What I said was I wouldn't have
bothered with IPv6 were that not the case in response to your email saying:

-------
On 10/28/12 12:33 PM, "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:


Essentially, I'm tired of special corner cases that are created to satisfy
theoretical demands that might or might not exist on the part of
hypothetical third parties.  Our policies are lousy with such loopholes,
and our pricing was as well.  This pricing doesn't entirely fix the
problem, but it certainly makes a good step in the right direction.


Essentially, I'm tired of special corner cases that are created to satisfy
theoretical demands that might or might not exist on the part of
hypothetical third parties.  Our policies are lousy with such loopholes,
and our pricing was as well.  This pricing doesn't entirely fix the
problem, but it certainly makes a good step in the right direction.

It doesn't fix the ridiculously-large volume discounts, but it makes a
step in the right direction.

It doesn't get rid of the ISP/end-user distinction, but it makes a step in
the right direction.
-------


With regards to your suggestion of giving IPv6 blocks back as being a
solution based on your calculation of the number of hosts let me remind
you that the number of hosts rarely, if ever, has any relation to how a
net block is consumed. Rather, the number of networks does. Per guidelines
we are expected to assign /48's or greater to our customer networks not 1
IP of 19,807,040,628,566,100,000,000,000,000. So I think we can safely set
aside that portion of your email.

Again, had an IPv6 allocation not been free at the time I would not have
requested it because it is not monetised. So my simple point is that
discounting does have a direct impact on getting IPv6 out there. Your
other statement was regarding corner cases you suggested may not exit and
theoretical demands etc. Now you have your example of it's impact.

As far as where the problem is? I didn't point one out. However, being a
business owner having costs on a good that could unpredictably increase by
100% is not generally helpful no matter what the $ amount is. I think your
other points about ridiculously-large volume discounts and ISP/end-user
distinctions are important as they speak precisely to what I've been
saying in suggesting a flat fee across the board. That would solve both
those items. I am very curious what the dollar amount would have to be if
ISP's and End Users both were charged per /48 (for example) equally. I
think in such a scheme you could likely both reduce the barrier for entry
for all the people Jo, William etc have been speaking of while making the
'ridiculously-large allocations' pay their fare share.

One last thing I'm curious about is who is subsidizing who? If we were to
look at the numbers for 2 categories of people; say Org's with more than
5mil IP's and everyone else. Who is paying what share?


-- 
Jesse D. Geddis
LA Broadband LLC




On 10/28/12 3:36 PM, "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:


On Oct 28, 2012, at 1:33 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com>
wrote:
> I was motivated by it and even ended up moving primarily to IPv6 over
>v4. However, with the proposed policy my fees will be $2k based on my
>default /32 allocation instead of my v4 allocation which would be $1k.

Okay so, since you're putting yourself forward as an example:

If $2,000 is more than you were paying before, that means that you had a
/21 of IPv4 or less, in addition to your /32 of IPv6.

If you have fewer than 19,807,040,628,566,100,000,000,000,000 hosts, then
you're actually in really good shape.  You can just hand back a /33 and a
/34 until you need them, and you'll be paying $1,000 year, a 20% savings
from the $1,250 that you're paying right now.  Moreover, you could get
another /21 of IPv4 space (provided you need it) without an increase in
fees, which would not have been possible under the old pricing.

So, is the $250/year discount objectionable, or do you have more than
19,807,040,628,566,100,000,000,000,000 hosts?

I'm not sure I'm seeing a problem here.

                                -Bill





_______________________________________________
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.



From jesse at la-broadband.com  Sun Oct 28 16:33:33 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:33:33 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for
	IPv6	assignments
In-Reply-To: <43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>,
	<43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
Message-ID: <66BBF61F-3465-4339-B629-3A932DBC5C76@la-broadband.com>

Bill,

I was motivated by it and even ended up moving primarily to IPv6 over v4. However, with the proposed policy my fees will be $2k based on my default /32 allocation instead of my v4 allocation which would be $1k. Price was almost the sole factor for me to use v6 because I could not 'even now' have monetized the increased fees for a v6 block. The other factor was simply an engineering curiosity one.

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
JNCIS-SEC, JNCIS-ENT
JNCIA-SSL, JNCIA-JUNOS

On Oct 28, 2012, at 12:33 PM, "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to state for the record that I would officially support a policy proposal that offered a discount period for IPv6 registrations in order to increase uptake.
> 
> ?except that we tried that experiment for, what, eight or ten years?  So if people weren't motivated by the discount-all-the-way-to-free, nor by the phasing-out of the discount over several years, do you really think they'd be motivated by it being discounted _again_, when they weren't the first time?
> 
> Essentially, I'm tired of special corner cases that are created to satisfy theoretical demands that might or might not exist on the part of hypothetical third parties.  Our policies are lousy with such loopholes, and our pricing was as well.  This pricing doesn't entirely fix the problem, but it certainly makes a good step in the right direction.
> 
> It doesn't fix the ridiculously-large volume discounts, but it makes a step in the right direction.
> 
> It doesn't get rid of the ISP/end-user distinction, but it makes a step in the right direction.
> 
>                                -Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


From mysidia at gmail.com  Sun Oct 28 20:57:34 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 19:57:34 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <ED798F5C-5535-4021-9BA9-972C2D2495F1@pch.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>
	<43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
	<66BBF61F-3465-4339-B629-3A932DBC5C76@la-broadband.com>
	<ED798F5C-5535-4021-9BA9-972C2D2495F1@pch.net>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbX6kuzb7RWmAFow_DJhMn5C_UuKB3uAfnEA+zxJh4TDsA@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/28/12, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 1:33 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com>
> wrote:
>> I was motivated by it and even ended up moving primarily to IPv6 over v4.
> Okay so, since you're putting yourself forward as an example:
> If $2,000 is more than you were paying before, that means that you had a /21
> of IPv4 or less, in addition to your /32 of IPv6.

> If you have fewer than 19,807,040,628,566,100,000,000,000,000 hosts, then
[snip]
You mean if you have fewer than    65,536  end sites.  In IPv6, the
unit of IP address management is a /48 end site, and a /64 network,
not a host.

The size of ARIN's IPv6 allocation is  over 10e25 times the size of
IPv4 address space.


> you're actually in really good shape.  You can just hand back a /33 and a
> /34 until you need them, and you'll be paying $1,000 year, a 20% savings
> from the $1,250 that you're paying right now.  Moreover, you could get
[snip]
I believe that's the less sane of the suggestions i've seen.  An IP
assignment of a  /32 MINUS a /33 MINUS a /34   is bound to cost just
as much if not more for ARIN to administer.     The  approximate size
of the IPV6 address assignment, at least below /32  should be
irrelevent to ARIN.

If you "hand back" a /33 and a /34,  you have returned well over half
of your available number of networks.   You now only have 16,384
/48s.  ARIN should not be creating incentives   for organizations to
"hand back"  IPv6 resources,  for the sole purpose of creating more
administrative work for ARIN to justify additional fees.

And getting back the /33 and /34 later may very well result in an IP
addressing arrangement with a less-efficient routing disign, than if
there was assigned originally an aggregable /32  --  over 90% of
organizations to be given an IPv6  prefix are supposed to get ONE
allocation and never need another one.

> another /21 of IPv4 space (provided you need it) without an increase in
> fees, which would not have been possible under the old pricing.
>
> So, is the $250/year discount objectionable, or do you have more than
> 19,807,040,628,566,100,000,000,000,000 hosts?
>
> I'm not sure I'm seeing a problem here.
>
>                                 -Bill
--
-JH


From mysidia at gmail.com  Sun Oct 28 21:26:59 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:26:59 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>
	<43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbXnnKowumXMD6YM+FSVTQ2QadZx=iArrersaHT3=J37PA@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/28/12, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
> ?except that we tried that experiment for, what, eight or ten years?  So if

There may have been an experiment tried for some number of years, but
there were no conclusive results.

> people weren't motivated by the discount-all-the-way-to-free, nor by the
> phasing-out of the discount over several years, do you really think they'd
> be motivated by it being discounted _again_, when they weren't the first

Discount, especially discount to 0  of  new IPv6 requests,  is not
motivation per se.
It is a removal of one barrier.  The removal of a barrier makes other
motivations more effective.

If nobody in an organization finds a motivation,  the org is not
likely to waste the time in even applying for IPv6.

If the organization, or some people in it _DO_ have a motivation,
they may start the steps towards IP deployment,  but when they are
researching what is required for them to obtain address resources,
they find there are these costs,   that the organization cannot
justify.

Therefore, although there is motivation,  the deployment does not move
ahead... it gets delayed for consideration in  2014, 2015, 2016, ....

> It doesn't fix the ridiculously-large volume discounts, but it makes a step
> in the right direction.

IP resources are _not_  assets that ARIN sells to applicants.  ARIN
does not charge a fee for a certain number of IP address seats,  so
there is nothing the least bit wrong  that larger allocations have a
lower average cost per IP.

Now they do have these allocation-size based pricing,  which are
obviously meant to distribute ARIN costs  based on the relative sizes
of networks.

But it's not reasonable to say that the region's most massive IP
networks with the /12s  should pay almost all ARIN's costs,  via
per-IP pricing.

That makes ARIN too reliant on a small number of large organizations
for its survival, which creates extra risks,  those organizations
might object, and just collude and refuse to pay, it   makes entry
costs too low,   and  eventually means that smaller orgs are deprived
of meaningful participation.

> It doesn't get rid of the ISP/end-user distinction, but it makes a step in
> the right direction.

ISPs and End users at not the same.    ISPs  are allocated resources
to reassign to end users  connected to them;  a distinction is
appropriate.


>                                 -Bill
--
-JH


From farmer at umn.edu  Mon Oct 29 04:09:52 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 03:09:52 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
Message-ID: <508E39D0.90003@umn.edu>

On 10/27/12 18:11 , Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> Two things I'd like to point out:
>
> First, this doesn't disincentivize IPv6 deployment, it only disincentives people getting allocations that are way, way larger than they need.  Same as in IPv4.

I disagree at least partially.  But first, I really like what has been 
done with regards to the one-time fees for end users and IPv6.

The Policy experience report last week, slide #7, gives use good data 
about IPv6 assignments since March 2011;
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/nobile_policy.pdf

Combined that with the current and proposed fees, and you get;

53% of end users are getting /48, current fee $1250, proposed fee $500
25% of end users are getting /44, current fee $1250, proposed fee $1000
15% of end users are getting /40, current fee $2250, proposed fee $1000
5% of end users are getting /36, current fee $2250, proposed fee $1000
2% of end users are getting /32, current fee $2250, proposed fee $2000

If these percentages hold for the long term, then 53% of end users will 
pay $500 (a 60% reduction) and 45% will pay $1000 for their IPv6 
assignment.  I think that is quite reasonable, and represents a good 
reduction for most end users, and everyone is reduced by at least a 
little.

However, the problem and disincentive isn't with the one-time fees, it 
is the annual maintenance fee.  So, lets look at a small organization 
that was an early adopter and has been listening to us about IPv6;  They 
paid $1250 (there never was a IPv6 discount for end users) for their /48 
of IPv6 and now they have to pay $300 a year (assuming they have one 
assignment each type of resource; ASN, IPv4, IPv6), $100 of which is 
directly attributable to their IPv6 assignment.  They don't get any 
advantage from the reduction in one-time fees and are seeing a 300% 
increase in their annual fees.

Next, lets look at a small organization that hasn't deployed IPv6; They 
will now pay $200 a year (assuming they have an ASN and IPv4 
assignment).  When they add IPv6, they pay a $500 one-time fee for their 
/48 and an extra $100 annual maintenance fee, again directly 
attributable to their IPv6 assignment.  Its the extra $100 a year that 
is directly attributable to IPv6 that I contend is the disincentive.

My recommendation is to include one resource assignment of each type 
with the base annual maintenance fee for each organization, be that 
$100, $150, $200, etc...  The first organization, that was an early 
adopter of IPv6, no longer sees any increase if the base fee is at $100, 
and in any case no increase that is directly attributable to their IPv6 
assignment.  The second organization, only pays the one-time $500 fee 
for their /48 when they receive it, no change in their annual fee when 
they get IPv6, even if their annual fee gets increased overall.

With the recommendation, as long as an organization has only one IPv6 
assignment, which under current policy should be the norm for the 
foreseeable future, there is no increase in their annual maintenance fee 
that can be attributed to IPv6.  However, as currently propose there is 
a $100 increase in the annual maintenance fee for every organization 
that is directly attributable to IPv6 if they have it, I believe that to 
be a disincentive for IPv6.

> Second, arguments that some other hypothetical person might suffer an increased burden, that are not borne out by the statistics, don't carry a heck of a lot of weight.  If _you_ are unhappy with how _your_ fees are changing, I want to hear about it.  Arguments about what someone else, who might or might not exist, might or might not think, are feckless.
>
>                                  -Bill

I believe Owen and a few others have said that they are directly 
effected and have taken issue.  I'm merely proposing a solution and 
discussing the advantages of such solution.  John has said ARIN is 
generating numbers related to such a solution, only ARIN can actually 
generate the numbers.

I generally like the idea that annual maintenance fee for end users will 
scale up with the number of registrations that they have, that even 
remains true with what I'm recommending.  I just think that having a 
$100 increase in the annual maintenance fee that is directly 
attributable to IPv6 is a bad idea.

If you want all end user organizations to pay more than $100 for their 
annual maintenance fee, then make the annual maintenance fee $150, $200, 
$250, or even $300 per organization, but include one resource 
registration of each type and then charge $100 per additional resource 
registration beyond the first one of each type per organization.






From heather.schiller at verizon.com  Mon Oct 29 13:06:36 2012
From: heather.schiller at verizon.com (Schiller, Heather A)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:06:36 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees
	for	IPv6	assignments
In-Reply-To: <66BBF61F-3465-4339-B629-3A932DBC5C76@la-broadband.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>,
	<43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
	<66BBF61F-3465-4339-B629-3A932DBC5C76@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <B9EBD2474913AD4A995B8C7B8BEF8C0E1597ACB488@FHDP1LUMXC7V43.us.one.verizon.com>


Jesse -- 

 I think you are missing Bill's point.  You have a v4 /22 and /21 -- putting you in the Xsmall category today ($1250) and if you had only v4 resources you would stay in Xsmall and you would save $250 as your fees would go down to $1k.  However, you also have an IPv6 /32 which puts you in the Small category ($2,250) today. The fee waiver expires at the end of this year.  Fee restructuring aside, starting in January you would be paying $2,250 for your resources. With fee restructuring you will pay $2,000 for your IPv6 /32 AND IPv4 space.  [You pay the larger of the 2 fees]  The fee restructuring will save you $250 over what your cost would be next year. 

Yes, that is $750 more per year than you are paying now, but you were going to be paying 1k more starting in January anyway.  You are saying that you did not plan for an extra $750 a year in costs when you deployed IPv6?  I don't understand why though, its not like the expiration of the fee waiver or the fee schedule is a surprise.  The IPv6 fee schedule has been published for years. Why is it unreasonable to expect folks to take the future cost of address space into consideration in deploying?  The Board extended the fee waiver multiple times, not indefinitely, which alone is an indication that it will eventually expire.  How many other vendors tell you several years in advance what something will eventually cost?  Now that the fee waiver is about to expire, they have lowered the price, at least in your category.  How often does that happen? 

Ok, so you failed to plan, and you don't like the extra $750 and/or v6 isn't worth impacting your bottom line - The minimum allocation to an ISP for IPv6 is a /36.  You can return space to get into a lower fee category.  An IPv6 /36 would keep you in Xsmall, and your fees would be $1,000 ($250 less than you are paying this year)  An IPv6 /36 would give you 4,096 /48's - which is more subnets than IPv4 /32's you have.  Odds are that ARIN will have the /32 reserved for you for a long time anyway - so if you needed more space in the next few years you would grow into that /32.
 
Do not confuse fee restructuring with the loss of the IPv6 waiver-- they are not synonymous.  The waiver was due to expire at the end of this year. 

--Heather

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:34 PM
To: Bill Woodcock
Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6 assignments

Bill,

I was motivated by it and even ended up moving primarily to IPv6 over v4. However, with the proposed policy my fees will be $2k based on my default /32 allocation instead of my v4 allocation which would be $1k. Price was almost the sole factor for me to use v6 because I could not 'even now' have monetized the increased fees for a v6 block. The other factor was simply an engineering curiosity one.

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
JNCIS-SEC, JNCIS-ENT
JNCIA-SSL, JNCIA-JUNOS

On Oct 28, 2012, at 12:33 PM, "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to state for the record that I would officially support a policy proposal that offered a discount period for IPv6 registrations in order to increase uptake.
> 
> ...except that we tried that experiment for, what, eight or ten years?  So if people weren't motivated by the discount-all-the-way-to-free, nor by the phasing-out of the discount over several years, do you really think they'd be motivated by it being discounted _again_, when they weren't the first time?
> 
> Essentially, I'm tired of special corner cases that are created to satisfy theoretical demands that might or might not exist on the part of hypothetical third parties.  Our policies are lousy with such loopholes, and our pricing was as well.  This pricing doesn't entirely fix the problem, but it certainly makes a good step in the right direction.
> 
> It doesn't fix the ridiculously-large volume discounts, but it makes a step in the right direction.
> 
> It doesn't get rid of the ISP/end-user distinction, but it makes a step in the right direction.
> 
>                                -Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.


From mstotyn at enmax.com  Mon Oct 29 13:31:57 2012
From: mstotyn at enmax.com (Stotyn, Mel)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:31:57 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <A1EC6887-2ECF-4C99-A613-462F5731A6D3@netconsonance.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<A1EC6887-2ECF-4C99-A613-462F5731A6D3@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <16377D27BA4075438EC19DE72E29156AA87DE0E4@CORPMBXEP02.enmax.com>

I don't think David is "replying to [Jo's] messages without reading the text of them". I think he just disagrees. So do I.

+1 David Farmer's suggestion

Mel Stotyn
Senior Operations Specialist
ENMAX Envision Inc.
mstotyn at enmax.com 
Phone: 403 514-3443

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jo Rhett
Sent: October 27, 2012 5:26 PM
To: David Farmer
Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring

On Oct 27, 2012, at 3:45 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 10/27/12 15:12 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>>> On 10/27/12 11:23 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>>>> I will only support that trend if the discount only applies to organizations with v6 assignments.
>> 
>> On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:24 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> The change I'm proposing is simply to allow an organization, to have one of each type resource (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) for their first $100, and to pay $100 for each resource of any type beyond the first one of each type. With the simple intent of removing any dis-incentive to deploy IPv6 with as few changes to the overall proposal as possible.

David, I have met you and you are smart. So why do you keep replying to my messages without reading the text of them?  You keep talking as if I said nothing at all.

I will vote against your proposal, and I'm the designated voting person for several entities.  If we are going to provide a discount, the discount should only come to organizations who deploy IPv6. We should not discount any organization which stays IPv4 only.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
*************************************************************
This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and
may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the
person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail,
please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any 
attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding.
*************************************************************




From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Mon Oct 29 13:53:43 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:53:43 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <16377D27BA4075438EC19DE72E29156AA87DE0E4@CORPMBXEP02.enmax.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<A1EC6887-2ECF-4C99-A613-462F5731A6D3@netconsonance.com>
	<16377D27BA4075438EC19DE72E29156AA87DE0E4@CORPMBXEP02.enmax.com>
Message-ID: <C5F7A63B-7337-43D2-867A-A5B1763DEC0D@netconsonance.com>

When someone disagrees, they generally indicate that. Repeating yourself again and again as if nobody else is talking (after quoting their words explicitly)? seems odd. David's a smart, friendly guy so this confuses me.

On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Stotyn, Mel wrote:
> I don't think David is "replying to [Jo's] messages without reading the text of them". I think he just disagrees. So do I.
> 
> +1 David Farmer's suggestion
> 
> Mel Stotyn
> Senior Operations Specialist
> ENMAX Envision Inc.
> mstotyn at enmax.com 
> Phone: 403 514-3443
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jo Rhett
> Sent: October 27, 2012 5:26 PM
> To: David Farmer
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
> 
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 3:45 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>> On 10/27/12 15:12 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>>>> On 10/27/12 11:23 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>>>>> I will only support that trend if the discount only applies to organizations with v6 assignments.
>>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:24 AM, David Farmer wrote:
>> The change I'm proposing is simply to allow an organization, to have one of each type resource (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) for their first $100, and to pay $100 for each resource of any type beyond the first one of each type. With the simple intent of removing any dis-incentive to deploy IPv6 with as few changes to the overall proposal as possible.
> 
> David, I have met you and you are smart. So why do you keep replying to my messages without reading the text of them?  You keep talking as if I said nothing at all.
> 
> I will vote against your proposal, and I'm the designated voting person for several entities.  If we are going to provide a discount, the discount should only come to organizations who deploy IPv6. We should not discount any organization which stays IPv4 only.
> 
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
> *************************************************************
> This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and
> may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the
> person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail,
> please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any 
> attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding.
> *************************************************************
> 
> 

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121029/1b0556c4/attachment.html>

From jesse at la-broadband.com  Mon Oct 29 14:08:12 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:08:12 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees
	for	IPv6	assignments
In-Reply-To: <B9EBD2474913AD4A995B8C7B8BEF8C0E1597ACB488@FHDP1LUMXC7V43.us.one.verizon.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>,
	<43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
	<66BBF61F-3465-4339-B629-3A932DBC5C76@la-broadband.com>,
	<B9EBD2474913AD4A995B8C7B8BEF8C0E1597ACB488@FHDP1LUMXC7V43.us.one.verizon.com>
Message-ID: <EB91AE2C-D1DA-45DD-B2DC-B9BECC6D93FB@la-broadband.com>

Heather,

I'm not missing Bill's point at all :) Bill was off on several irrelevant tangents and arguing purely for the sake of arguing.

Read carefully ;)

It can be summed up in:
Bill: discounting doesn't make anyone get v6
Jesse: discounting is the very reason I got v6

With regards to the other content of my email. 
I never said I had an issue with $0 going to $2,250. I have table lamps that cost more than that. Nor any issue with $1k to $2k, or $2,250 to $2k. Bill demanded examples of such happening to people and I gave him one. What I have said numerous times, however, is that I do take issue with paying more per IP than X-Large.

Thanks again,

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:06 AM, "Schiller, Heather A" <heather.schiller at verizon.com> wrote:

> 
> Jesse -- 
> 
> I think you are missing Bill's point.  You have a v4 /22 and /21 -- putting you in the Xsmall category today ($1250) and if you had only v4 resources you would stay in Xsmall and you would save $250 as your fees would go down to $1k.  However, you also have an IPv6 /32 which puts you in the Small category ($2,250) today. The fee waiver expires at the end of this year.  Fee restructuring aside, starting in January you would be paying $2,250 for your resources. With fee restructuring you will pay $2,000 for your IPv6 /32 AND IPv4 space.  [You pay the larger of the 2 fees]  The fee restructuring will save you $250 over what your cost would be next year. 
> 
> Yes, that is $750 more per year than you are paying now, but you were going to be paying 1k more starting in January anyway.  You are saying that you did not plan for an extra $750 a year in costs when you deployed IPv6?  I don't understand why though, its not like the expiration of the fee waiver or the fee schedule is a surprise.  The IPv6 fee schedule has been published for years. Why is it unreasonable to expect folks to take the future cost of address space into consideration in deploying?  The Board extended the fee waiver multiple times, not indefinitely, which alone is an indication that it will eventually expire.  How many other vendors tell you several years in advance what something will eventually cost?  Now that the fee waiver is about to expire, they have lowered the price, at least in your category.  How often does that happen? 
> 
> Ok, so you failed to plan, and you don't like the extra $750 and/or v6 isn't worth impacting your bottom line - The minimum allocation to an ISP for IPv6 is a /36.  You can return space to get into a lower fee category.  An IPv6 /36 would keep you in Xsmall, and your fees would be $1,000 ($250 less than you are paying this year)  An IPv6 /36 would give you 4,096 /48's - which is more subnets than IPv4 /32's you have.  Odds are that ARIN will have the /32 reserved for you for a long time anyway - so if you needed more space in the next few years you would grow into that /32.
> 
> Do not confuse fee restructuring with the loss of the IPv6 waiver-- they are not synonymous.  The waiver was due to expire at the end of this year. 
> 
> --Heather
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:34 PM
> To: Bill Woodcock
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6 assignments
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I was motivated by it and even ended up moving primarily to IPv6 over v4. However, with the proposed policy my fees will be $2k based on my default /32 allocation instead of my v4 allocation which would be $1k. Price was almost the sole factor for me to use v6 because I could not 'even now' have monetized the increased fees for a v6 block. The other factor was simply an engineering curiosity one.
> 
> Jesse Geddis
> LA Broadband LLC
> JNCIS-SEC, JNCIS-ENT
> JNCIA-SSL, JNCIA-JUNOS
> 
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 12:33 PM, "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>>> I'd like to state for the record that I would officially support a policy proposal that offered a discount period for IPv6 registrations in order to increase uptake.
>> 
>> ...except that we tried that experiment for, what, eight or ten years?  So if people weren't motivated by the discount-all-the-way-to-free, nor by the phasing-out of the discount over several years, do you really think they'd be motivated by it being discounted _again_, when they weren't the first time?
>> 
>> Essentially, I'm tired of special corner cases that are created to satisfy theoretical demands that might or might not exist on the part of hypothetical third parties.  Our policies are lousy with such loopholes, and our pricing was as well.  This pricing doesn't entirely fix the problem, but it certainly makes a good step in the right direction.
>> 
>> It doesn't fix the ridiculously-large volume discounts, but it makes a step in the right direction.
>> 
>> It doesn't get rid of the ISP/end-user distinction, but it makes a step in the right direction.
>> 
>>                              -Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


From jesse at la-broadband.com  Sun Oct 28 22:08:31 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:08:31 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
 assignments
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbXnnKowumXMD6YM+FSVTQ2QadZx=iArrersaHT3=J37PA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CCB32C11.1CDA0%jesse@la-broadband.com>

On 10/28/12 6:26 PM, "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:


> There may have been an experiment tried for some number of years, but
> there were no conclusive results.

An absence of data should be cause to collect that data rather than take a
blind action.

> IP resources are _not_  assets that ARIN sells to applicants.  ARIN
> does not charge a fee for a certain number of IP address seats,  so
> there is nothing the least bit wrong  that larger allocations have a
> lower average cost per IP.

This isn't true at all in practice. ARIN DOES charge a charge a fee for a
certain number of IP's. As Willian Herrin pointed out on the 25th ARIN
charges a smaller organization 100x *more* per IP more than it would
charge say an AT&T. This doesn't sit well with me at all.

> Now they do have these allocation-size based pricing,  which are
> obviously meant to distribute ARIN costs  based on the relative sizes
> of networks.

I don't believe that's what the cost is rooted in at all. Perhaps John
could shed some light as to how these numbers have been arrived at. I
think there are probably two tangibles you can peg the dollar amount to
and I don't believe the current costs are rooted in either.
1. The resources consumed (that's clearly not the case here)
2. The management cost of the consumed resources (I don't believe they are
pegged to this either even remotely)

A way to find this out is to compare customers. In 2012 LA Broadband
generated a total of 2 ARIN tickets. How much did that cost ARIN? How many
tickets, on average, did Orgs with over say 5 million IP's create? How
much time did they take to resolve? What is the dollar amount associated
with maintaining those Orgs vs my 2 tickets? Did my org really cost 100x
more per IP to maintain? My fee last year was $2,250. Did two tickets cost
that? Unlikely.

> But it's not reasonable to say that the region's most massive IP
> networks with the /12s  should pay almost all ARIN's costs,  via
> per-IP pricing.

This statement lacks foundation

> That makes ARIN too reliant on a small number of large organizations
> for its survival, which creates extra risks,  those organizations
> might object, and just collude and refuse to pay, it   makes entry
> costs too low,   and  eventually means that smaller orgs are deprived
> of meaningful participation.

I don't buy this kind of hyperbole for a second. ARIN already lacks
enforcement authority, for the most part, yet things have still gone
relatively smoothly. ARIN isn't stopping me from advertising blocks that
aren't assigned to LA Broadband via BGP. My upstream providers are. So we
could equally all collude to completely ignore ARIN's allocations and
conspire with our upstream provider but you don't see that happening on a
large scale (or on any that I'm aware of). By the same token, using this
middle man scheme gives super large carriers way too much control over end
users (whom are the ultimate and majority destination of these IP's). I
would *guess* probably 20-30 companies control over 80% of the IPv4
resources.

> ISPs and End users at not the same.    ISPs  are allocated resources
> to reassign to end users  connected to them;  a distinction is
> appropriate.

Jimmy, thanks for bringing this up as I've been wanting to but wasn't sure
what can of worms it would open up. Just because something *is* doesn't
mean it *should be*. Personally, I am not sure I buy the whole delegation
scheme. I haven't been able to think of a compelling reason to maintain
that middle layer between ARIN and the end user. If ARIN truly cared about
that buffer there then why would ARIN be offering "End User Allocations"
at all? If ARIN's point in doing this is to decrease workload than either
1. ARIN should do away with End User Allocations altogether or 2. do away
with the "middle men". I think given the appropriate cost structure the
former could be achieved to pay for the resources required to handle the
additional tickets and billing. I think if I were to take a frank look at
how well carriers have been at doing the bulk of the management of
allocations to end users I would not paint a very kind picture.


>                                 -Bill
--
-JH
_______________________________________________
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.



From heather.schiller at verizon.com  Mon Oct 29 15:38:34 2012
From: heather.schiller at verizon.com (Schiller, Heather A)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:38:34 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees
	for	IPv6	assignments
In-Reply-To: <EB91AE2C-D1DA-45DD-B2DC-B9BECC6D93FB@la-broadband.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7FEEEFA-4DED-40A5-AB50-F94B6ED4BC21@netconsonance.com>,
	<43E164B7-32AE-4A88-B2C6-C72E56175D40@pch.net>
	<66BBF61F-3465-4339-B629-3A932DBC5C76@la-broadband.com>,
	<B9EBD2474913AD4A995B8C7B8BEF8C0E1597ACB488@FHDP1LUMXC7V43.us.one.verizon.com>
	<EB91AE2C-D1DA-45DD-B2DC-B9BECC6D93FB@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <B9EBD2474913AD4A995B8C7B8BEF8C0E1597ACB5F7@FHDP1LUMXC7V43.us.one.verizon.com>


Jesse,

There are plenty of organizations that have a cost structure that decreases the per unit cost, as you buy more and some efficiencies are gained.  

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ah5KBf21PNRMdERvTmdkVXZzTGVqS1FJTTVwQTgzdkE

Do you have the same complaint when you shop at the grocery instead of Costco?   What about the per MB/GB price difference that you pay your upstream vs what a large content provider pays?  Do you pay taxes?

 --Heather


-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 2:08 PM
To: Schiller, Heather A
Cc: Bill Woodcock; arin-consult at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6 assignments

Heather,

I'm not missing Bill's point at all :) Bill was off on several irrelevant tangents and arguing purely for the sake of arguing.

Read carefully ;)

It can be summed up in:
Bill: discounting doesn't make anyone get v6
Jesse: discounting is the very reason I got v6

With regards to the other content of my email. 
I never said I had an issue with $0 going to $2,250. I have table lamps that cost more than that. Nor any issue with $1k to $2k, or $2,250 to $2k. Bill demanded examples of such happening to people and I gave him one. What I have said numerous times, however, is that I do take issue with paying more per IP than X-Large.

Thanks again,

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:06 AM, "Schiller, Heather A" <heather.schiller at verizon.com> wrote:

> 
> Jesse --
> 
> I think you are missing Bill's point.  You have a v4 /22 and /21 -- putting you in the Xsmall category today ($1250) and if you had only v4 resources you would stay in Xsmall and you would save $250 as your fees would go down to $1k.  However, you also have an IPv6 /32 which puts you in the Small category ($2,250) today. The fee waiver expires at the end of this year.  Fee restructuring aside, starting in January you would be paying $2,250 for your resources. With fee restructuring you will pay $2,000 for your IPv6 /32 AND IPv4 space.  [You pay the larger of the 2 fees]  The fee restructuring will save you $250 over what your cost would be next year. 
> 
> Yes, that is $750 more per year than you are paying now, but you were going to be paying 1k more starting in January anyway.  You are saying that you did not plan for an extra $750 a year in costs when you deployed IPv6?  I don't understand why though, its not like the expiration of the fee waiver or the fee schedule is a surprise.  The IPv6 fee schedule has been published for years. Why is it unreasonable to expect folks to take the future cost of address space into consideration in deploying?  The Board extended the fee waiver multiple times, not indefinitely, which alone is an indication that it will eventually expire.  How many other vendors tell you several years in advance what something will eventually cost?  Now that the fee waiver is about to expire, they have lowered the price, at least in your category.  How often does that happen? 
> 
> Ok, so you failed to plan, and you don't like the extra $750 and/or v6 isn't worth impacting your bottom line - The minimum allocation to an ISP for IPv6 is a /36.  You can return space to get into a lower fee category.  An IPv6 /36 would keep you in Xsmall, and your fees would be $1,000 ($250 less than you are paying this year)  An IPv6 /36 would give you 4,096 /48's - which is more subnets than IPv4 /32's you have.  Odds are that ARIN will have the /32 reserved for you for a long time anyway - so if you needed more space in the next few years you would grow into that /32.
> 
> Do not confuse fee restructuring with the loss of the IPv6 waiver-- they are not synonymous.  The waiver was due to expire at the end of this year. 
> 
> --Heather
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:34 PM
> To: Bill Woodcock
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6 
> assignments
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I was motivated by it and even ended up moving primarily to IPv6 over v4. However, with the proposed policy my fees will be $2k based on my default /32 allocation instead of my v4 allocation which would be $1k. Price was almost the sole factor for me to use v6 because I could not 'even now' have monetized the increased fees for a v6 block. The other factor was simply an engineering curiosity one.
> 
> Jesse Geddis
> LA Broadband LLC
> JNCIS-SEC, JNCIS-ENT
> JNCIA-SSL, JNCIA-JUNOS
> 
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 12:33 PM, "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>>> I'd like to state for the record that I would officially support a policy proposal that offered a discount period for IPv6 registrations in order to increase uptake.
>> 
>> ...except that we tried that experiment for, what, eight or ten years?  So if people weren't motivated by the discount-all-the-way-to-free, nor by the phasing-out of the discount over several years, do you really think they'd be motivated by it being discounted _again_, when they weren't the first time?
>> 
>> Essentially, I'm tired of special corner cases that are created to satisfy theoretical demands that might or might not exist on the part of hypothetical third parties.  Our policies are lousy with such loopholes, and our pricing was as well.  This pricing doesn't entirely fix the problem, but it certainly makes a good step in the right direction.
>> 
>> It doesn't fix the ridiculously-large volume discounts, but it makes a step in the right direction.
>> 
>> It doesn't get rid of the ISP/end-user distinction, but it makes a step in the right direction.
>> 
>>                              -Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


From info at arin.net  Mon Oct 29 16:30:19 2012
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:30:19 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation: Revision to the Policy
	Development Process
Message-ID: <508EE75B.1090201@arin.net>

ARIN is consulting with the community with regards to the attached
Revised Policy Development Process (PDP) for policy development in the
ARIN region. This revision to the PDP includes refinements as a result
of the PDP consultation initiated on 29 May 2012 and concluded 28
June 2012.

There are three parts to the proposed PDP: Part 1 is the goal statement,
Part 2 is the PDP itself, and Part 3 is the PDP Petition Process.

This version contains a further revision to Part Three, Petitions,
Section 2.1 to make it clearer that a delay can be petitioned in the early
stage of the process. These proposed revisions may be viewed at:

https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_proposed.html#validpetitions

The full text of the proposed PDP revision may be viewed at:

https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_proposed.html 
<https://web.dev.arin.net/policy/pdp_proposed.html>

A presentation on the proposed revised Policy Development Process was
given at ARIN XXX on 25 October, 2012. It may be viewed at:
PDF:
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/curran_pdp.pdf

PPTX:
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PPT/thursday/curran_pdp.pptx

The initial consultation posting, including the text of the revised
Policy Development Process is available at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/05-29-2012_pdp.html

Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net.

Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 30 November 2012. ARIN
seeks clear direction through community input, so your feedback is
important. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net.

Regards,


Communications and Member Services?
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121029/654da3a4/attachment.html>

From mcr+arin at sandelman.ca  Mon Oct 29 16:23:27 2012
From: mcr+arin at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:23:27 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
Message-ID: <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>


I am pleased to see new lower fees for XX-Small.  
However, I continue to see that ARIN continues to get in the way of
innovative usage of IPV6 by tying IPv6 allocations to the cost of IPv4
allocations. 

I suggest a new End-User assignment size of XXX-v6only (well, maybe a bad name)
which would be for a /48 or smaller only, and no IPv4 space at all.
My goal is to get the cost of this down far enough that it becomes a
no-brainer for a low-level engineering manager to just expense.


>>>>> "ARIN" == ARIN  <info at arin.net> writes:
    ARIN> Please view the proposed fee schedule at:
    ARIN> https://www.arin.net/fees/proposed_fee_schedule.html
    ARIN> In addition, a presentation was given on this proposed fee schedule today,



From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Mon Oct 29 16:45:37 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:45:37 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I am pleased to see new lower fees for XX-Small.  
> However, I continue to see that ARIN continues to get in the way of
> innovative usage of IPV6 by tying IPv6 allocations to the cost of IPv4
> allocations. 

I don't believe that they are tied together at all.  You can have v6 without v4 and vice versa. Right now you are not paying twice the price for having both, as to avoid penalizing people who are migration from v4 to v6.

> I suggest a new End-User assignment size of XXX-v6only (well, maybe a bad name)
> which would be for a /48 or smaller only, and no IPv4 space at all.
> My goal is to get the cost of this down far enough that it becomes a
> no-brainer for a low-level engineering manager to just expense.


Please help me understand. Since you need to peer with at least two providers independantly to justify a direct ARIN allocation, and the current cost of that allocation would be $100/year and the proposed new cost would be $200/year ($100 for v6, $100 for the ASN) whereas the minimum cost for having two IP uplinks which will do IP peering is roughly $2k per month, can you elucidate clearly how the current cost scheme is not already inconsequential?

Seriously, arguments over $100/year for services which cost thousands per month to maintain baffle me.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121029/184fdc34/attachment.html>

From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Oct 29 17:03:20 2012
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:03:20 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <508EEF18.3080705@chl.com>



Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> I am pleased to see new lower fees for XX-Small.
>> However, I continue to see that ARIN continues to get in the way of
>> innovative usage of IPV6 by tying IPv6 allocations to the cost of IPv4
>> allocations.
>
> I don't believe that they are tied together at all.  You can have v6
> without v4 and vice versa. Right now you are not paying twice the price
> for having both, as to avoid penalizing people who are migration from v4
> to v6.
>

In our real world, at best they certainly are. At worst, IPv6 is a 
parasitic afterthought.


> Seriously, arguments over $100/year for services which cost thousands
> per month to maintain baffle me.
>


ARIN fees are far more arbitrary. And making assumptions about what 
bills resource holders are already paying is subject to a complete 
reversal of the proposed fee schedule.

Risking repetitiveness, these are my thoughts on the topic.

The proposed fee schedule is a step in the right direction with regards 
to ISP's and totally bone-headed for End Users.

The proportions of expenses are still skewed for small ISP's, the medium 
ground appears to be quite small and there is room for a number of 
notches above XX-Large.

End user fees should be tiered in the same fashion, but for number of 
records regardless of type or size.

End user are not at all like ISP's and while our distinctions of them 
are hardly ideal or perfect, they more closely reflect reality than 
would trying to treat them alike.

As far as IPv6, ISP's do not need incentive in the form of ARIN, they 
need it in the form of users.

Best,

Joe



From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Oct 29 22:51:24 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 02:51:24 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
 assignments
In-Reply-To: <CCB32C11.1CDA0%jesse@la-broadband.com>
References: <CCB32C11.1CDA0%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <DB3E156D-8F70-4A52-8BAD-D55D1F009061@corp.arin.net>

On Oct 28, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:

> Perhaps John could shed some light as to how these numbers have been arrived at.

Jesse - 

ARIN's core registry services could reasonably be considered proportional
to the number of prefixes served; costs which are comparable between IPv4 
prefixes and IPv6 prefixes, and most definitely not proportional to the 
number of IP addresses. Note also that core registry operations costs are 
smaller than the policy & registry development costs (which benefits all 
customers.)

A cost breakdown was presented last year at the ARIN 28 meeting in Philly -
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/curran_cost_breakdown.pdf)

> A way to find this out is to compare customers. In 2012 LA Broadband
> generated a total of 2 ARIN tickets. How much did that cost ARIN? How many
> tickets, on average, did Orgs with over say 5 million IP's create? How
> much time did they take to resolve? What is the dollar amount associated
> with maintaining those Orgs vs my 2 tickets? Did my org really cost 100x
> more per IP to maintain? My fee last year was $2,250. Did two tickets cost
> that? Unlikely.

You are likely to be surprised how few tickets many larger organizations 
generate, as their personnel are often more experienced interfacing with 
ARIN.  Finally, it's important to remember that tickets are generally 
related to requests for issuance or transfer of number resources, and 
wouldn't result in costs actually proportional to number of IP addresses
involved.

FYI,
/John






From mysidia at gmail.com  Tue Oct 30 03:42:55 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 02:42:55 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <DB3E156D-8F70-4A52-8BAD-D55D1F009061@corp.arin.net>
References: <CCB32C11.1CDA0%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<DB3E156D-8F70-4A52-8BAD-D55D1F009061@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbWzf8UJrkKLFc53kzUTjZt7bx-sUpJQ1oALi_-XgfPa1A@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/29/12, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com>
> wrote:

I wonder if the number of recent IPv6 requests is actually significant?

> Jesse -
> ARIN's core registry services could reasonably be considered proportional
> to the number of prefixes served; costs which are comparable between IPv4
> prefixes and IPv6 prefixes, and most definitely not proportional to the
> number of IP addresses. Note also that core registry operations costs are

This is what I would expect... it makes sense in this case, the
shorter the average prefix length that a particular block of addresses
is carved into,  the lower ARIN's registry cost should be, with  fewer
allocations on average for that group of addresses.     The  tiered
fee schedule should be better aligned to the ARIN registry costs than
per-IP-address based pricing.

For the allocation of prefixes longer than /20, the NRPM specifies
"They will be from a block reserved for that purpose.

Which suggests that the allocation of smaller blocks (longer prefixes)
may have a greater per-prefix and per-IP administrative overhead,
because ARIN likely has to  find and reserve  specific blocks from its
pool well in advance, to dedicate to the purpose of allocating long
prefixes.

While with shorter prefixes,  ARIN's registry should have the
flexibility to apply any packing of allocations into the  unreserved
free pool of choice  that will efficiently fit.



> smaller than the policy & registry development costs (which benefits all
> customers.)



> FYI,
> /John
--
-JH


From jesse at la-broadband.com  Mon Oct 29 16:02:19 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:02:19 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
 assignments
In-Reply-To: <B9EBD2474913AD4A995B8C7B8BEF8C0E1597ACB5F7@FHDP1LUMXC7V43.us.one.verizon.com>
Message-ID: <CCB42CC2.1CE03%jesse@la-broadband.com>

Heather,

	As you know those are completely different models and are based on
purchasing power and tangible goods. We can argue down that rabbit trail
or we can address 
what was actually said since purchasing power doesn't play any roll in a
this context and these are not tangible goods. We aren't talking about the
grocery store. We are talking
about ARIN resources and assigning a *fee* to those.

Thanks,


-- 
Jesse D. Geddis
LA Broadband LLC




On 10/29/12 12:38 PM, "Schiller, Heather A" <heather.schiller at verizon.com>
wrote:


Jesse,

There are plenty of organizations that have a cost structure that
decreases the per unit cost, as you buy more and some efficiencies are
gained.  

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ah5KBf21PNRMdERvTmdkVXZzTGVqS1
FJTTVwQTgzdkE

Do you have the same complaint when you shop at the grocery instead of
Costco?   What about the per MB/GB price difference that you pay your
upstream vs what a large content provider pays?  Do you pay taxes?

 --Heather


-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 2:08 PM
To: Schiller, Heather A
Cc: Bill Woodcock; arin-consult at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
assignments

Heather,

I'm not missing Bill's point at all :) Bill was off on several irrelevant
tangents and arguing purely for the sake of arguing.

Read carefully ;)

It can be summed up in:
Bill: discounting doesn't make anyone get v6
Jesse: discounting is the very reason I got v6

With regards to the other content of my email.
I never said I had an issue with $0 going to $2,250. I have table lamps
that cost more than that. Nor any issue with $1k to $2k, or $2,250 to $2k.
Bill demanded examples of such happening to people and I gave him one.
What I have said numerous times, however, is that I do take issue with
paying more per IP than X-Large.

Thanks again,

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:06 AM, "Schiller, Heather A"
<heather.schiller at verizon.com> wrote:

> 
> Jesse --
> 
> I think you are missing Bill's point.  You have a v4 /22 and /21 --
>putting you in the Xsmall category today ($1250) and if you had only v4
>resources you would stay in Xsmall and you would save $250 as your fees
>would go down to $1k.  However, you also have an IPv6 /32 which puts you
>in the Small category ($2,250) today. The fee waiver expires at the end
>of this year.  Fee restructuring aside, starting in January you would be
>paying $2,250 for your resources. With fee restructuring you will pay
>$2,000 for your IPv6 /32 AND IPv4 space.  [You pay the larger of the 2
>fees]  The fee restructuring will save you $250 over what your cost would
>be next year. 
> 
> Yes, that is $750 more per year than you are paying now, but you were
>going to be paying 1k more starting in January anyway.  You are saying
>that you did not plan for an extra $750 a year in costs when you deployed
>IPv6?  I don't understand why though, its not like the expiration of the
>fee waiver or the fee schedule is a surprise.  The IPv6 fee schedule has
>been published for years. Why is it unreasonable to expect folks to take
>the future cost of address space into consideration in deploying?  The
>Board extended the fee waiver multiple times, not indefinitely, which
>alone is an indication that it will eventually expire.  How many other
>vendors tell you several years in advance what something will eventually
>cost?  Now that the fee waiver is about to expire, they have lowered the
>price, at least in your category.  How often does that happen?
> 
> Ok, so you failed to plan, and you don't like the extra $750 and/or v6
>isn't worth impacting your bottom line - The minimum allocation to an ISP
>for IPv6 is a /36.  You can return space to get into a lower fee
>category.  An IPv6 /36 would keep you in Xsmall, and your fees would be
>$1,000 ($250 less than you are paying this year)  An IPv6 /36 would give
>you 4,096 /48's - which is more subnets than IPv4 /32's you have.  Odds
>are that ARIN will have the /32 reserved for you for a long time anyway -
>so if you needed more space in the next few years you would grow into
>that /32.
> 
> Do not confuse fee restructuring with the loss of the IPv6 waiver-- they
>are not synonymous.  The waiver was due to expire at the end of this
>year. 
> 
> --Heather
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:34 PM
> To: Bill Woodcock
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
> assignments
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I was motivated by it and even ended up moving primarily to IPv6 over
>v4. However, with the proposed policy my fees will be $2k based on my
>default /32 allocation instead of my v4 allocation which would be $1k.
>Price was almost the sole factor for me to use v6 because I could not
>'even now' have monetized the increased fees for a v6 block. The other
>factor was simply an engineering curiosity one.
> 
> Jesse Geddis
> LA Broadband LLC
> JNCIS-SEC, JNCIS-ENT
> JNCIA-SSL, JNCIA-JUNOS
> 
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 12:33 PM, "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>>> I'd like to state for the record that I would officially support a
>>>policy proposal that offered a discount period for IPv6 registrations
>>>in order to increase uptake.
>> 
>> ...except that we tried that experiment for, what, eight or ten years?
>>So if people weren't motivated by the discount-all-the-way-to-free, nor
>>by the phasing-out of the discount over several years, do you really
>>think they'd be motivated by it being discounted _again_, when they
>>weren't the first time?
>> 
>> Essentially, I'm tired of special corner cases that are created to
>>satisfy theoretical demands that might or might not exist on the part of
>>hypothetical third parties.  Our policies are lousy with such loopholes,
>>and our pricing was as well.  This pricing doesn't entirely fix the
>>problem, but it certainly makes a good step in the right direction.
>> 
>> It doesn't fix the ridiculously-large volume discounts, but it makes a
>>step in the right direction.
>> 
>> It doesn't get rid of the ISP/end-user distinction, but it makes a step
>>in the right direction.
>> 
>>                              -Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



From jesse at la-broadband.com  Tue Oct 30 06:55:14 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:55:14 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
 assignments
In-Reply-To: <DB3E156D-8F70-4A52-8BAD-D55D1F009061@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CCB4FA5A.1CE78%jesse@la-broadband.com>

John,

	Thank you for shooting that link over. Although it doesn't address the
kind of detail I was looking for as far as what certain classes of
customers cost vs what they contribute. However, with a flat fee this
really doesn't matter. As far as the tickets, the two tickets I used as an
example of mine were an allocation request and one related to my arin-rr
entries getting mucked up when the auth mechanism was changed by ARIN.
There are also several other questions it doesn't answers, like why does
ARIN have both an end user and service provider category when ARIN's model
is said to be a delegated one?

	Jimmy, with regards to what you're saying about block reservations I
think that's more relevant for IPv4 and much less so for IPv6. I don't
think ARIN is doing that anymore for IPv4 anyway given the resource pool
situation. My blocks certainly aren't contiguous. So I think that may be a
moot issue.

	What I'm wondering is if you were to take the current total count of
/48's issued (both end user and ISPs together) and the total ARIN is
projected to receive for IPv6 fees based on the proposed fee structure
(not including discounting) and divided them by each other what would that
number be per /48? n/48 / $ipv6 fees. Would the total be lower than the
perceived barrier for small organizations? I don't think the cost to
support those allocations will scale linearly. I think the cost will go
down. So I'm guessing with each successive year we are at this with a flat
fee that flat fee will become lower.

	High level, this is where I'm going with this. I think we could eliminate
the service provider category. I think we can eliminate the tiers. I think
it is certainly true for IPv6 more so than v4. I wonder if we can get to a
point where every end user has their own block that can be ported like a
phone number from carrier to carrier. I think we can get there. From a
technology standpoint I don't see any reason why that isn't possible
today. What makes it impossible is this delegated model where the carriers
are in control of the majority of end user address space. If our goal is
to get IPv6 out there I can't think of any better way than to eliminate
the very middlemen who have been dragging their feet on IPv6 rollouts for
friggin years from the process of getting the address space to the end
users and content producers.

	Jimmy offered a conspiracy theory of ARIN being beholden to carriers
because they'd pay too much in a flat rate model. However, the complete
opposite is true. Going in this direction the carriers lose their
relevance in IP management and they contribute very little.

-- 
Jesse D. Geddis

LA Broadband LLC
AS 16602




On 10/29/12 7:51 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

On Oct 28, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com>
wrote:

> Perhaps John could shed some light as to how these numbers have been
>arrived at.

Jesse - 

ARIN's core registry services could reasonably be considered proportional
to the number of prefixes served; costs which are comparable between IPv4
prefixes and IPv6 prefixes, and most definitely not proportional to the
number of IP addresses. Note also that core registry operations costs are
smaller than the policy & registry development costs (which benefits all
customers.)

A cost breakdown was presented last year at the ARIN 28 meeting in Philly -
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/cu
rran_cost_breakdown.pdf)

> A way to find this out is to compare customers. In 2012 LA Broadband
> generated a total of 2 ARIN tickets. How much did that cost ARIN? How
>many
> tickets, on average, did Orgs with over say 5 million IP's create? How
> much time did they take to resolve? What is the dollar amount associated
> with maintaining those Orgs vs my 2 tickets? Did my org really cost 100x
> more per IP to maintain? My fee last year was $2,250. Did two tickets
>cost
> that? Unlikely.

You are likely to be surprised how few tickets many larger organizations
generate, as their personnel are often more experienced interfacing with
ARIN.  Finally, it's important to remember that tickets are generally
related to requests for issuance or transfer of number resources, and
wouldn't result in costs actually proportional to number of IP addresses
involved.

FYI,
/John







From owen at delong.com  Tue Oct 30 09:24:06 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:24:06 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
Message-ID: <57544A77-647A-4E11-8143-035D1902A950@delong.com>



Having taken some time to do a more detailed review of the proposed fee re-alignment, I think it is overly burdensome to end-users:

If you look at https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/curran_fee_schedule.pdf,

Page 7 has a break down of ARIN revenues. Allocations (ISPs) total almost $11.4M. Assignments are less than $1.4M. This includes both the annual maintenance fees (which we are discussing) and the initial assignment fees. There's some category called "Other" which I'm uncertain what it would contain, but, it's almost $1.5M. Current assignment revenue, including initial and recurring fees totals less than "Miscellaneous income".

Under the proposed fee structure, this would go from <$1.4M to nearly $4M, mainly due to the increase as a result of charging per ASN ($1M vs. what is likely now $0). Given the number of ASNs listed, however, I suspect that this charge is distributed among both End-Users and ISPs and that ISPs pay for each ASN in addition to their IP Address subscriptions. (10,416 ASNs vs. 3,500 End-user ORGs). (Page 14 of the same document).

While I presume that the average number of ASNs per end-user organization may be >1, I would be willing to bet that it is less than 2. So, if we presume that ?7,000 of those 10,416 ASNs are for End-user ORGs, the end-user portion of that revenue drops to ?$700,000.

In other words, the entire structure is a proposal to provide relatively small discounts to most ISPs at the cost of putting a huge additional burden on end-users and ISPs that happen to fall into the wrong side of fee-bucket-realignment. I will point out that for the most part, only 56 very large ISPs are in this category and their fees double from $16,000/year to $32,000/year (with the possible additional cost of $100/asn on top of that).

While many organizations receive roughly a 10% discount in their fees, those that are unfortunate enough to be on the wrong side of these realignments are hit with 2, 3, 4, 5, or even as much as 10x increases in their fees.

Owen





From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Oct 30 09:58:14 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:58:14 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation: Revision to the Policy
 Development Process
In-Reply-To: <508EE75B.1090201@arin.net>
References: <508EE75B.1090201@arin.net>
Message-ID: <508FDCF6.4060707@umn.edu>

A couple issues;

1. In the email below a link was included to what I assume is ARIN 
internal development web page, and if you clicked the link you got "page 
not available", if you copied the text and pasted it into a browser then 
you could get the page.  Also, email phishing alerts are frequently 
triggered by such a difference between the text and the link.

2. At the beginning of Part Two there is a suppose to be a link to a 
flow graphic for the proposed PDP, the link seems to provide to the flow 
graphic for the current PDP not the proposed PDP.

Other than that the proposed PDP seems to deal with the issues brought 
up in the previous consultation, and I support the proposed PDP.

On 10/29/12 15:30 , ARIN wrote:
> ARIN is consulting with the community with regards to the attached
> Revised Policy Development Process (PDP) for policy development in the
> ARIN region. This revision to the PDP includes refinements as a result
> of the PDP consultation initiated on 29 May 2012 and concluded 28
> June 2012.
>
> There are three parts to the proposed PDP: Part 1 is the goal statement,
> Part 2 is the PDP itself, and Part 3 is the PDP Petition Process.
>
> This version contains a further revision to Part Three, Petitions,
> Section 2.1 to make it clearer that a delay can be petitioned in the early
> stage of the process. These proposed revisions may be viewed at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_proposed.html#validpetitions
>
> The full text of the proposed PDP revision may be viewed at:
<<<<<<<<<<
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_proposed.html
> <https://web.dev.arin.net/policy/pdp_proposed.html>
<<<<<<<<<<
> A presentation on the proposed revised Policy Development Process was
> given at ARIN XXX on 25 October, 2012. It may be viewed at:
> PDF:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/curran_pdp.pdf
>
> PPTX:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PPT/thursday/curran_pdp.pptx
>
> The initial consultation posting, including the text of the revised
> Policy Development Process is available at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/05-29-2012_pdp.html
>
> Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net.
>
> Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 30 November 2012. ARIN
> seeks clear direction through community input, so your feedback is
> important. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Communications and Member Services

> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



From mcr+arin at sandelman.ca  Tue Oct 30 10:11:50 2012
From: mcr+arin at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:11:50 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <12623.1351606310@obiwan.sandelman.ca>


{resend}

>>>>> "Jo" == Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> writes:
    Jo> On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> I am pleased to see new lower fees for XX-Small.  
    >> However, I continue to see that ARIN continues to get in the way of
    >> innovative usage of IPV6 by tying IPv6 allocations to the cost of IPv4
    >> allocations. 

    Jo> I don't believe that they are tied together at all.  You can
    Jo> have v6 without v4 and vice versa. Right now you are not paying
    Jo> twice the price for having both, as to avoid penalizing people
    Jo> who are migration from v4 to v6. 

The price of an IPv6 allocation can not go down, because it includes
IPv4 space.  You are thinking/talking like an encumbent who already has
lots of IPv4 space.  New entrants have no v4 space, and might not need any.

    >> I suggest a new End-User assignment size of XXX-v6only (well,
    >> maybe a bad name) 
    >> which would be for a /48 or smaller only, and no IPv4 space at all.
    >> My goal is to get the cost of this down far enough that it becomes a
    >> no-brainer for a low-level engineering manager to just expense.

    Jo> Please help me understand. Since you need to peer with at least
    Jo> two providers independantly to justify a direct ARIN allocation,

That in itself is a problem, but:

1) *many*, *many*, *many* organizations have IPv4/28s's from several
   providers, and use NAT.  
   Unless you think that said organizations should use NAT66 or NPT66, 
   they need something, and ULA-Random doesn't cut it.
   They don't want to get a /48 from one upstream because:
   a) it locks them to one provider.
   b) upstream is too clueless to have IPv6 (so, they might want to 
      change...see point-a)

2) We continue to have no policy for Non-Connected Networks, but part of
   the problem is that we have no price for IPv6 only, so it's really
   hard to understand what the policy might be.

IPv6 is for more than just the Internet.

    Jo> Jo Rhett
    Jo> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and
    Jo> internet projects. 

Imagine that you had an open source project that could benefit from
IPv6 *internal* connectivity among it's *components* and/or *members*
Could you officially get a /48 to number it?  

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition. 


    


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Oct 30 10:38:10 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:38:10 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <57544A77-647A-4E11-8143-035D1902A950@delong.com>
References: <57544A77-647A-4E11-8143-035D1902A950@delong.com>
Message-ID: <290B5B3E-310C-455C-A41A-C9D7BA1E02AB@corp.arin.net>

On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> Under the proposed fee structure, this would go from <$1.4M to nearly $4M, mainly due to the increase as a result of charging per ASN ($1M vs. what is likely now $0). Given the number of ASNs listed, however, I suspect that this charge is distributed among both End-Users and ISPs and that ISPs pay for each ASN in addition to their IP Address subscriptions. (10,416 ASNs vs. 3,500 End-user ORGs). (Page 14 of the same document).

Owen - ISP registration service subscription plans include maintenance for 
all number resources including ASNs, i.e. the 10,416 ASN maintenance fees 
are simply for end-user held ASNs. 

> In other words, the entire structure is a proposal to provide relatively small discounts to most ISPs at the cost of putting a huge additional burden on end-users and ISPs that happen to fall into the wrong side of fee-bucket-realignment.

What you characterize as a "huge additional burden" is the establishment
of a maintenance fee for each resource held, as opposed to a single $100 
maintenance fee for unlimited number of resources.  

Any change to the fee schedule which establishes fees which increases with
resources held will have this type of impact, but the alternative is a fee
schedule which does not fairly recover costs in proportion to resources held. 
As the vast majority of end-user organizations have a small total number of
resources held, this is almost always a modest increase of several hundred 
dollars per year.  If indeed we include one of each IPv4/IPv6/ASN in the 
initial $100 maintenance fee, then even fewer organizations will see such 
an increase under the proposed revision to the fee schedule.

As discussed, here is the distribution of total number of IPv4+IPv6+ASN 
resources held by end-users under an RSA agreement (excludes LRSA held
resources as their total fees paid will change over multiple years) -

# - Count of End-User Organizations with that total number of resources.

1 - 11658
2 - 423
3 - 669
4 - 135
5 - 97
6 - 40
7 - 26
8 - 15
9 - 8
10 - 11
11 - 11
12 - 6
13 - 4
14 - 1
15 - 5
16 - 1
17 - 1
18 - 2
20 - 2
21 - 1
23 - 1
28 - 2
31 - 1
32 - 2
35 - 1
38 - 1
45 - 1
54 - 1
55 - 1
59 - 1
75 - 1

The large number of organizations with just 1 resource are due to the number 
of organizations which simply have a single AS# (and likely are either legacy
resource holders or using provider-assigned address space for connectivity)

> I will point out that for the most part, only 56 very large ISPs are in this category and their fees double from $16,000/year to $32,000/year (with the possible additional cost of $100/asn on top of that).

Incorrect - more than 500 ISPs (out of a total of about four thousand ISPs) see 
an increase under the proposed revision to the fee schedule, and this enables 
the reduction in the fees seen by the fifteen hundred xx-small and x-small ISPs 
(to $500 per year and $1000 per year respectively); this is one of the explicit 
goals of the proposed revision to the fee schedule.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

From owen at delong.com  Tue Oct 30 11:16:30 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:16:30 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <290B5B3E-310C-455C-A41A-C9D7BA1E02AB@corp.arin.net>
References: <57544A77-647A-4E11-8143-035D1902A950@delong.com>
	<290B5B3E-310C-455C-A41A-C9D7BA1E02AB@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <8DC72A8A-6345-4B17-849E-92E7B6914907@delong.com>


On Oct 30, 2012, at 07:38 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>> Under the proposed fee structure, this would go from <$1.4M to nearly $4M, mainly due to the increase as a result of charging per ASN ($1M vs. what is likely now $0). Given the number of ASNs listed, however, I suspect that this charge is distributed among both End-Users and ISPs and that ISPs pay for each ASN in addition to their IP Address subscriptions. (10,416 ASNs vs. 3,500 End-user ORGs). (Page 14 of the same document).
> 
> Owen - ISP registration service subscription plans include maintenance for 
> all number resources including ASNs, i.e. the 10,416 ASN maintenance fees 
> are simply for end-user held ASNs. 
> 

OK... It wasn't clear from the document that this was to remain the case. I am surprised to see such a high ratio of ASNs to end-user organizations.


>> In other words, the entire structure is a proposal to provide relatively small discounts to most ISPs at the cost of putting a huge additional burden on end-users and ISPs that happen to fall into the wrong side of fee-bucket-realignment.
> 
> What you characterize as a "huge additional burden" is the establishment
> of a maintenance fee for each resource held, as opposed to a single $100 
> maintenance fee for unlimited number of resources.  
> 

Nonetheless, that is, in fact, a multiplier of fees for most organizations.

> Any change to the fee schedule which establishes fees which increases with
> resources held will have this type of impact, but the alternative is a fee
> schedule which does not fairly recover costs in proportion to resources held. 
> As the vast majority of end-user organizations have a small total number of
> resources held, this is almost always a modest increase of several hundred 
> dollars per year.  If indeed we include one of each IPv4/IPv6/ASN in the 
> initial $100 maintenance fee, then even fewer organizations will see such 
> an increase under the proposed revision to the fee schedule.
> 
> As discussed, here is the distribution of total number of IPv4+IPv6+ASN 
> resources held by end-users under an RSA agreement (excludes LRSA held
> resources as their total fees paid will change over multiple years) -
> 
> # - Count of End-User Organizations with that total number of resources.
> 
> 1 - 11658

> 2 - 423
> 3 - 669
> 4 - 135
> 5 - 97
> 6 - 40
> 7 - 26
> 8 - 15
> 9 - 8
> 10 - 11
> 11 - 11
> 12 - 6
> 13 - 4
> 14 - 1
> 15 - 5
> 16 - 1
> 17 - 1
> 18 - 2
> 20 - 2
> 21 - 1
> 23 - 1
> 28 - 2
> 31 - 1
> 32 - 2
> 35 - 1
> 38 - 1
> 45 - 1
> 54 - 1
> 55 - 1
> 59 - 1
> 75 - 1
> 
> The large number of organizations with just 1 resource are due to the number 
> of organizations which simply have a single AS# (and likely are either legacy
> resource holders or using provider-assigned address space for connectivity)

In other words, a badly skewed artificially high number while most conventional end-user resource holders fit into the other categories.

I also find it interesting that the slide claims 3500 end-user organizations, yet the count above yields more than 12,000.

> 
>> I will point out that for the most part, only 56 very large ISPs are in this category and their fees double from $16,000/year to $32,000/year (with the possible additional cost of $100/asn on top of that).
> 
> Incorrect - more than 500 ISPs (out of a total of about four thousand ISPs) see 
> an increase under the proposed revision to the fee schedule, and this enables 
> the reduction in the fees seen by the fifteen hundred xx-small and x-small ISPs 
> (to $500 per year and $1000 per year respectively); this is one of the explicit 
> goals of the proposed revision to the fee schedule.

Of the 500, most are not very large. There are only 56 very large ISPs that see their fees increased.

This is from your own slide. In other words, the majority of very large consumers of address space get a discount on the backs of smaller organizations under this proposal.

Owen



From woody at pch.net  Tue Oct 30 13:15:08 2012
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:15:08 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <CCB4FA5A.1CE78%jesse@la-broadband.com>
References: <CCB4FA5A.1CE78%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <8E8D32CF-61D8-4709-BBE9-63C4B63F47A7@pch.net>


On Oct 30, 2012, at 3:55 AM, "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:
> I wonder if we can get to a point where every end user has their own block that can
> be ported like a phone number from carrier to carrier. I think we can get there.

Perhaps.  Moore's Law will eventually overtake the population carrying capacity of the earth, god willing and the creek don't rise.

> From a technology standpoint I don't see any reason why that isn't possible today.

Because the amount of fast RAM in a router too small to hold a flat routing space.

                                -Bill







From info at arin.net  Tue Oct 30 17:05:33 2012
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:05:33 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation: Revision to the Policy
 Development Process - url updates
In-Reply-To: <508FDCF6.4060707@umn.edu>
References: <508EE75B.1090201@arin.net> <508FDCF6.4060707@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <5090411D.1040902@arin.net>

David,

Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention.
Please note the proposed new Policy Development Process text may be 
viewed at:

https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_proposed.html

The link to Appendix A has been corrected to bring you to the flow chart 
of the proposed revision, and also note that this is the same flow chart 
that accompanied the earlier consultation. It can also be viewed at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/05-29-2012_pdp.html 
<https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/05-29-2012_pdp.html>

We encourage the community to voice their opinion on this proposed new text.

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

On 10/30/12 9:58 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> A couple issues;
>
> 1. In the email below a link was included to what I assume is ARIN 
> internal development web page, and if you clicked the link you got 
> "page not available", if you copied the text and pasted it into a 
> browser then you could get the page.  Also, email phishing alerts are 
> frequently triggered by such a difference between the text and the link.
>
> 2. At the beginning of Part Two there is a suppose to be a link to a 
> flow graphic for the proposed PDP, the link seems to provide to the 
> flow graphic for the current PDP not the proposed PDP.
>
> Other than that the proposed PDP seems to deal with the issues brought 
> up in the previous consultation, and I support the proposed PDP.
>
> On 10/29/12 15:30 , ARIN wrote:
>> ARIN is consulting with the community with regards to the attached
>> Revised Policy Development Process (PDP) for policy development in the
>> ARIN region. This revision to the PDP includes refinements as a result
>> of the PDP consultation initiated on 29 May 2012 and concluded 28
>> June 2012.
>>
>> There are three parts to the proposed PDP: Part 1 is the goal statement,
>> Part 2 is the PDP itself, and Part 3 is the PDP Petition Process.
>>
>> This version contains a further revision to Part Three, Petitions,
>> Section 2.1 to make it clearer that a delay can be petitioned in the 
>> early
>> stage of the process. These proposed revisions may be viewed at:
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_proposed.html#validpetitions
>>
>> The full text of the proposed PDP revision may be viewed at:
> <<<<<<<<<<
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_proposed.html
>> <https://web.dev.arin.net/policy/pdp_proposed.html>
> <<<<<<<<<<
>> A presentation on the proposed revised Policy Development Process was
>> given at ARIN XXX on 25 October, 2012. It may be viewed at:
>> PDF:
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/curran_pdp.pdf 
>>
>>
>> PPTX:
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PPT/thursday/curran_pdp.pptx 
>>
>>
>> The initial consultation posting, including the text of the revised
>> Policy Development Process is available at:
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/05-29-2012_pdp.html 
>>
>>
>> Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net.
>>
>> Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 30 November 2012. ARIN
>> seeks clear direction through community input, so your feedback is
>> important. If you have any questions, please contact us at 
>> info at arin.net.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Communications and Member Services

>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121030/d25c720a/attachment.html>

From rs at seastrom.com  Tue Oct 30 17:07:16 2012
From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:07:16 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <CCB4FA5A.1CE78%jesse@la-broadband.com> (Jesse D. Geddis's
	message of "Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:55:14 +0000")
References: <CCB4FA5A.1CE78%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <868vanacu3.fsf@seastrom.com>


"Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com> writes:

> I wonder if we can get to a point where every end user has their own
> block that can be ported like a phone number from carrier to
> carrier. I think we can get there. From a technology standpoint I
> don't see any reason why that isn't possible today.

Various schemes (my personal favorite being draft-odell-8+8 [*]) have
been proposed over the years for separation of locators (routing) and
identifiers (hosts).  Institutionalizing this separation would have
enabled the sort of address portability you suggest above.  None ever
went very far, unfortunately...  and that ship sailed a decade and a
half ago.

Absent this separation, as Bill pointed out, the default-free zone is
ever-growing and hopefully we stay on the right side of Moore's Law in
terms of our ability to hold, propagate and converge a full RIB.
Every bit of (significant, non-aggregated) routing information needs
to be carried in every corner of the network no matter how locally
irrelevant.

With the current routing technology, a (permanent, portable) prefex
per end user is not possible.  It does not scale.

-r

[*] No reading list for "the Internet that never was" would be
complete without citations to RFC 1955 and
http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/nimrod/archdoc_v4.txt



From springer at inlandnet.com  Tue Oct 30 19:37:50 2012
From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <A1EC6887-2ECF-4C99-A613-462F5731A6D3@netconsonance.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>
	<A1EC6887-2ECF-4C99-A613-462F5731A6D3@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <20121030162031.J13341@mail.inlandnet.com>



On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 3:45 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>> On 10/27/12 15:12 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>>>> On 10/27/12 11:23 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>>> On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:24 AM, David Farmer wrote:
>
> I will vote against your proposal, and I'm the designated voting person for several entities.  If we are going to provide a discount, the discount should only come to organizations who deploy IPv6. We should not discount any organization which stays IPv4 only.
>
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
>


Hi Jo,

ICBWH, but I don't think fees are a matter of policy and hence not of 
policy discussion or voting, per se. So, I what seems to be going on here 
is that the Board of Trustees is running a community consultation on a 
proposed fee schedule that is scheduled for implementation in January of 
2013. They will then take into account the discussion and views expressed 
here before fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities to the community.

John Springer


From jesse at la-broadband.com  Tue Oct 30 19:33:21 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:33:21 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
 assignments
In-Reply-To: <868vanacu3.fsf@seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <CCB5B047.1D133%jesse@la-broadband.com>

Robert,

	Oh I don't know. When I started doing this routers had 256m or less RAM
and you had to spend mad money for a 100mbps FDDI. Now they have 4-8gigs
and 100gbps interfaces. No one believed you'd ever need speed like that
just like everyone believed we had plenty of address space. The market
place has a way of sorting such things out but you have to start
somewhere. Aggregation and summarization do a good job.

	I don't think it would hurt anything to use a standard flat fee per block
size. I have a feeling it would lower costs significantly for the vast
majority of people and I think it would also server better to get IPv6 out
there. I also think it would force carriers to take efficiency in
addressing much more seriously than they do now. All of these are good
things There's no better time than now, with IPv6 in relative infancy to
start fostering such things with policy and fees.


-- 
Jesse D. Geddis

LA Broadband LLC
AS 16602




On 10/30/12 2:07 PM, "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:


"Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com> writes:

> I wonder if we can get to a point where every end user has their own
> block that can be ported like a phone number from carrier to
> carrier. I think we can get there. From a technology standpoint I
> don't see any reason why that isn't possible today.

Various schemes (my personal favorite being draft-odell-8+8 [*]) have
been proposed over the years for separation of locators (routing) and
identifiers (hosts).  Institutionalizing this separation would have
enabled the sort of address portability you suggest above.  None ever
went very far, unfortunately...  and that ship sailed a decade and a
half ago.

Absent this separation, as Bill pointed out, the default-free zone is
ever-growing and hopefully we stay on the right side of Moore's Law in
terms of our ability to hold, propagate and converge a full RIB.
Every bit of (significant, non-aggregated) routing information needs
to be carried in every corner of the network no matter how locally
irrelevant.

With the current routing technology, a (permanent, portable) prefex
per end user is not possible.  It does not scale.

-r

[*] No reading list for "the Internet that never was" would be
complete without citations to RFC 1955 and
http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/nimrod/archdoc_v4.txt




From mysidia at gmail.com  Tue Oct 30 23:47:28 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:47:28 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <DB3E156D-8F70-4A52-8BAD-D55D1F009061@corp.arin.net>
References: <CCB32C11.1CDA0%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<DB3E156D-8F70-4A52-8BAD-D55D1F009061@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbU85WBbr4OErFb68zdrk5TqYBnbY=FuRudFpcxyf_Wk8Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/29/12, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com>
> wrote:
> ARIN's core registry services could reasonably be considered proportional
> to the number of prefixes served; costs which are comparable between IPv4

Another thought is....  "policy development" and  number of prefixes
served are not independent.    If policy said something different,
Large ISP X,  could have requested a single /8  from ARIN,  and then,
 the costs incurred for ARIN would be lower, because they would not
have had to come back to ARIN several times to receive multiple
discontiguous /12s.

Especially for smaller  growing organizations,  ARIN has policies such
as slow start, which essentially force organizations to start with
longer prefixes,  and  request a larger number of prefixes over time
than would be ideal,  resulting in a larger number of prefixes being
allocated.

So, because ARIN policy forces them to do this as a matter of policy,
there is some unfairness in charging larger fees to smaller
organizations more for the  additional prefixes,   that they would not
have,  if they could have obtained one larger block that would meet
justified and future expected needs.

In this manner,  a tiered fee based on  overall  number resources, as
if all IPv4 resources were one allocation,  is fairer, in that sense,
than a simple count of the number of blocks.


> prefixes and IPv6 prefixes, and most definitely not proportional to the
> number of IP addresses. Note also that core registry operations costs are
> smaller than the policy & registry development costs (which benefits all
> customers.)

--
-JH


From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Tue Oct 30 23:58:27 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:58:27 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> The price of an IPv6 allocation can not go down, because it includes
> IPv4 space.  You are thinking/talking like an encumbent who already has
> lots of IPv4 space.  New entrants have no v4 space, and might not need any.

I disagree with everything you said here. I have helped a new org get v6 only space without v4, and I never meant what you proposed. I was mostly thinking of the opposite situation.

> 1) *many*, *many*, *many* organizations have IPv4/28s's from several
>   providers, and use NAT.  
>   Unless you think that said organizations should use NAT66 or NPT66, 
>   they need something, and ULA-Random doesn't cut it.
>   They don't want to get a /48 from one upstream because:
>   a) it locks them to one provider.
>   b) upstream is too clueless to have IPv6 (so, they might want to 
>      change...see point-a)

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.

> 2) We continue to have no policy for Non-Connected Networks, but part of
>   the problem is that we have no price for IPv6 only, so it's really
>   hard to understand what the policy might be.

The proposed policy clearly lists the price for v6 only. And you can get v6 only RIGHT NOW. So again, your facts are wrong.

> Imagine that you had an open source project that could benefit from
> IPv6 *internal* connectivity among it's *components* and/or *members*
> Could you officially get a /48 to number it?  

Yes. I just finished the justification for one recently.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.





From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Wed Oct 31 00:06:18 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:06:18 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <290B5B3E-310C-455C-A41A-C9D7BA1E02AB@corp.arin.net>
References: <57544A77-647A-4E11-8143-035D1902A950@delong.com>
	<290B5B3E-310C-455C-A41A-C9D7BA1E02AB@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <67C04FE0-5C2F-4F98-8755-1FA975D66360@netconsonance.com>

Thank you very much for posting these numbers, John. It really helps clarify things for me.

I support your proposal as it stands today, with the following suggestions:

1. I would support discounts for registered non-profits (or whatever criteria ARIN feels is best for identifying legitimate causes in each country)

2. I would support that included with the first bill which each end user receives after the changes take effect, a promotion or waiver which allows entities which have gotten an IPv6 allocation or who get one within (some period like 90 days tbd by ARIN) to receive a discount for doing so which lasts for one or more years but not indefinitely. This is explicitly "here is a price raise, but you can avoid it by joining the future". It's crass, but it may be very effective. I would ensure that people who acquired IPv6 before this policy went into effect are not left out.

On Oct 30, 2012, at 7:38 AM, John Curran wrote:
> As discussed, here is the distribution of total number of IPv4+IPv6+ASN 
> resources held by end-users under an RSA agreement (excludes LRSA held
> resources as their total fees paid will change over multiple years) -
> 
> # - Count of End-User Organizations with that total number of resources.
> 
> 1 - 11658
> 2 - 423
> 3 - 669
> 4 - 135
> 5 - 97
> 6 - 40
> 7 - 26
> 8 - 15
> 9 - 8
> 10 - 11
> 11 - 11
> 12 - 6
> 13 - 4
> 14 - 1
> 15 - 5
> 16 - 1
> 17 - 1
> 18 - 2
> 20 - 2
> 21 - 1
> 23 - 1
> 28 - 2
> 31 - 1
> 32 - 2
> 35 - 1
> 38 - 1
> 45 - 1
> 54 - 1
> 55 - 1
> 59 - 1
> 75 - 1
> 
> The large number of organizations with just 1 resource are due to the number 
> of organizations which simply have a single AS# (and likely are either legacy
> resource holders or using provider-assigned address space for connectivity)

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.


From mysidia at gmail.com  Wed Oct 31 00:33:31 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:33:31 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbUD0M48vyN6TPXVLMbq8guuBzCOEMF+kOCZ3J0bG7WdbA@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/30/12, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Michael Richardson 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.

For IPv6 non-connected networks; or networks that only peer:  uplink
fees may be $0,
or just the cost of the least expensive hardware available for the task.

--
-JH


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Oct 31 07:42:13 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:42:13 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
 assignments
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbU85WBbr4OErFb68zdrk5TqYBnbY=FuRudFpcxyf_Wk8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CCB32C11.1CDA0%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<DB3E156D-8F70-4A52-8BAD-D55D1F009061@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbU85WBbr4OErFb68zdrk5TqYBnbY=FuRudFpcxyf_Wk8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1666C6CF-1D10-40BD-8C02-25441EEE1D86@arin.net>

On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:47 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> So, because ARIN policy forces them to do this as a matter of policy,
> there is some unfairness in charging larger fees to smaller
> organizations more for the  additional prefixes,   that they would not
> have,  if they could have obtained one larger block that would meet
> justified and future expected needs.
> 
> In this manner,  a tiered fee based on  overall  number resources, as
> if all IPv4 resources were one allocation,  is fairer, in that sense,
> than a simple count of the number of blocks.

Indeed.  Those who are most likely to have to come back multiple times
are the ISP community, and what you describe as fairer ("a tiered fee 
based on overall number resources") is precisely what is proposed.

For end-users, while there are some organizations that come multiple
times, it was felt that prefix count was an adequate indicator of the
ARIN's imputed cost of service.  While imperfect, it is definitely 
fairer than the present $100 annual maintenance for an unlimited number 
of number of resources.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From mcr+arin at sandelman.ca  Wed Oct 31 08:45:53 2012
From: mcr+arin at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:45:53 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <CCB5B047.1D133%jesse@la-broadband.com>
References: <CCB5B047.1D133%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <3922.1351687553@obiwan.sandelman.ca>


>>>>> "Jesse" == Jesse D Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> writes:
    Jesse> I don't think it would hurt anything to use a standard flat fee per block
    Jesse> size. I have a feeling it would lower costs significantly for the vast
    Jesse> majority of people and I think it would also server better to get IPv6 out
    Jesse> there. I also think it would force carriers to take efficiency in
    Jesse> addressing much more seriously than they do now. All of these are good
    Jesse> things There's no better time than now, with IPv6 in relative infancy to
    Jesse> start fostering such things with policy and fees.

Further, IPv6 is for more than the Internet.
Address space != default-free-zone-router slot.

Enterprises need IPv6 space for use internally (they might have PA
addresses as well). ULA won't cut it in a big organization.

Products/systems often need IPv6 space for use *inside-the-chassis*

** But, for now, the policy says that you can't have it unless you have two
** upstreams...that's a policy discussion.

-> Fine, but don't tie IPv6 pricing to IPv4 scarcity.

(If people are worried about DFZ routing slots, then find a way to write
olicy to discourage the piles of IPv4/24s that pollute the table)

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition. 


From mcr+arin at sandelman.ca  Wed Oct 31 09:30:18 2012
From: mcr+arin at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:30:18 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <12615.1351690218@obiwan.sandelman.ca>


>>>>> "Jo" == Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> writes:
    >> 2) We continue to have no policy for Non-Connected Networks, but part of
    >> the problem is that we have no price for IPv6 only, so it's really
    >> hard to understand what the policy might be.

    Jo> The proposed policy clearly lists the price for v6 only. And you
    Jo> can get v6 only RIGHT NOW. So again, your facts are wrong. 

Oh, I guess I missed it.

I am reading: https://www.arin.net/fees/proposed_fee_schedule.html

"END-USER / ASSIGNMENT INITIAL REGISTRATION FEES".
It's $500 for XX-Small.  Up to IPv4/22 or IPv6/48.
Plus $100/year.

I see no discount if I want IPv6 space only.
I have to go through all the qualifications/restrictions for IPv4 space.






From mcr+arin at sandelman.ca  Wed Oct 31 09:35:37 2012
From: mcr+arin at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:35:37 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <67C04FE0-5C2F-4F98-8755-1FA975D66360@netconsonance.com>
References: <57544A77-647A-4E11-8143-035D1902A950@delong.com>
	<290B5B3E-310C-455C-A41A-C9D7BA1E02AB@corp.arin.net>
	<67C04FE0-5C2F-4F98-8755-1FA975D66360@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <13608.1351690537@obiwan.sandelman.ca>


>>>>> "Jo" == Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> writes:
    Jo> 2. I would support that included with the first bill which each
    Jo> end user receives after the changes take effect, a promotion or
    Jo> waiver which allows entities which have gotten an IPv6
    Jo> allocation or who get one within (some period like 90 days tbd
    Jo> by ARIN) to receive a discount for doing so which lasts for one
    Jo> or more years but not indefinitely. This is explicitly "here is
    Jo> a price raise, but you can avoid it by joining the future". It's
    Jo> crass, but it may be very effective. I would ensure that people
    Jo> who acquired IPv6 before this policy went into effect are not
    Jo> left out. 

Does the IPv6 have to be advertised to the DFZ?
(I am not suggesting it must be. Just asking for your opinion)



From bill at herrin.us  Wed Oct 31 12:59:30 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:59:30 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>

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


From owen at delong.com  Wed Oct 31 13:16:18 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:16:18 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <3922.1351687553@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <CCB5B047.1D133%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<3922.1351687553@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <B4995193-F69E-4BD3-A959-543C6CAFC245@delong.com>


On Oct 31, 2012, at 05:45 , Michael Richardson <mcr+arin at sandelman.ca> wrote:

> 
>>>>>> "Jesse" == Jesse D Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> writes:
>    Jesse> I don't think it would hurt anything to use a standard flat fee per block
>    Jesse> size. I have a feeling it would lower costs significantly for the vast
>    Jesse> majority of people and I think it would also server better to get IPv6 out
>    Jesse> there. I also think it would force carriers to take efficiency in
>    Jesse> addressing much more seriously than they do now. All of these are good
>    Jesse> things There's no better time than now, with IPv6 in relative infancy to
>    Jesse> start fostering such things with policy and fees.
> 
> Further, IPv6 is for more than the Internet.
> Address space != default-free-zone-router slot.
> 
> Enterprises need IPv6 space for use internally (they might have PA
> addresses as well). ULA won't cut it in a big organization.
> 
> Products/systems often need IPv6 space for use *inside-the-chassis*
> 
> ** But, for now, the policy says that you can't have it unless you have two
> ** upstreams...that's a policy discussion.
> 

I think you may have missed the latest updates to IPv6 policy. Here is an excerpt of the current IPv6 end-user assignment policy:

============================
6.5.8.1. Initial Assignment Criteria
Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent for the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by meeting one of the following criteria:
Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, or;
Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS number, or;
By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or;
By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or;
By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable.
Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR may be unsuitable include, but are not limited to:
An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety or the functioning of society can justify the need for an assignment based on the fact that renumbering would have a broader than expected impact than simply the number of hosts directly involved. These would include: hospitals, fire fighting, police, emergency response, power or energy distribution, water or waste treatment, traffic management and control, etc.
Regardless of the number of hosts directly involved, an organization can justify the need for an assignment if renumbering would affect 2000 or more individuals either internal or external to the organization.
An organization with a network not connected to the Internet can justify the need for an assignment by documenting a need for guaranteed uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness provided by ULA (see RFC 4193).
An organization with a network not connected to the Internet, such as a VPN overlay network, can justify the need for an assignment if they require authoritative delegation of reverse DNS.
6.5.8.2. Initial assignment size
Organizations that meet at least one of the initial assignment criteria above are eligible to receive an initial assignment of /48. Requests for larger initial assignments, reasonably justified with supporting documentation, will be evaluated based on the number of sites in an organization?s network and the number of subnets needed to support any extra-large sites defined below.
The initial assignment size will be determined by the number of sites justified below. An organization qualifies for an assignment on the next larger nibble boundary when their sites exceed 75% of the /48s available in a prefix. For example:
More than 1 but less than or equal to 12 sites justified, receives a /44 assignment;
More than 12 but less than or equal to 192 sites justified, receives a /40 assignment;
More than 192 but less than or equal to 3,072 sites justified, receives a /36 assignment;
More than 3,072 but less than or equal to 49,152 sites justified, receives a /32 assignment; etc...
6.5.8.2.1. Standard sites
A site is a discrete location that is part of an organization?s network. A campus with multiple buildings may be considered as one or multiple sites, based on the implementation of its network infrastructure. For a campus to be considered as multiple sites, reasonable technical documentation must be submitted describing how the network infrastructure is implemented in a manner equivalent to multiple sites.
An organization may request up to a /48 for each site in its network, and any sites that will be operational within 12 months.
6.5.8.2.2. Extra-large sites
In rare cases, an organization may request more than a /48 for an extra-large site which requires more than 16,384 /64 subnets. In such a case, a detailed subnet plan must be submitted for each extra-large site in an organization?s network. An extra-large site qualifies for the next larger prefix when the total subnet utilization exceeds 25%. Each extra-large site will be counted as an equivalent number of /48 standard sites.
==================================
You must meet ANY ONE (or more) of the criteria in 6.5.8.1. If you have IPv4, you qualify. If you have 2000 nodes or 200 subnets, you qualify. If you are multihomed, you qualify. If none of those apply and you can write a convincing technical justification for some other reason, you qualify.

In other words, IPv6 PI policy isn't quite a Pez dispenser, but it's _REALLY_ darn close to it.

When David and I were reworking the policy last time, we wanted to make it as easy as possible for organizations with remotely reasonable need to get PI IPv6 space and I believe we accomplished that goal with the above policy as written. If you think that there is a legitimate use case for PI IPv6 space that is not covered in the above policy text, I would be very interested in knowing more about that case and developing additional policy language to support it if necessary.


> -> Fine, but don't tie IPv6 pricing to IPv4 scarcity.
> 
> (If people are worried about DFZ routing slots, then find a way to write
> olicy to discourage the piles of IPv4/24s that pollute the table)
> 

How do you distinguish the piles of /24 pollution from the legitimate /24s?

What would such a policy look like?

How would it be part of ARIN policy given that ARIN does not control the operation of any routers outside of the few that provide ARIN's network connectivity?

I'm not trying to be obnoxious or confrontational, just trying to understand how you see such a suggestion working out in practice.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121031/3351406b/attachment.html>

From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Wed Oct 31 14:07:57 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:07:57 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <12615.1351690218@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<12615.1351690218@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <BE42F327-74BC-427B-96BD-2A1CB2D12744@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 31, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I see no discount if I want IPv6 space only.

I never said there was a discount. I have personally suggested a discount would be a good idea. You can support that.

> I have to go through all the qualifications/restrictions for IPv4 space.


Absolutely not. Are you just making up these theories and tossing them out there? IPv6 has its own assignment policy.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121031/a6bd4f21/attachment.html>

From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Wed Oct 31 14:09:59 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:09:59 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <13608.1351690537@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <57544A77-647A-4E11-8143-035D1902A950@delong.com>
	<290B5B3E-310C-455C-A41A-C9D7BA1E02AB@corp.arin.net>
	<67C04FE0-5C2F-4F98-8755-1FA975D66360@netconsonance.com>
	<13608.1351690537@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <B1EABA21-2C32-4B09-BD9D-6EE986BBEF21@netconsonance.com>

> "Jo" == Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> writes:
>    Jo> 2. I would support that included with the first bill which each
>    Jo> end user receives after the changes take effect, a promotion or
>    Jo> waiver which allows entities which have gotten an IPv6
>    Jo> allocation or who get one within (some period like 90 days tbd
>    Jo> by ARIN) to receive a discount for doing so which lasts for one
>    Jo> or more years but not indefinitely. This is explicitly "here is
>    Jo> a price raise, but you can avoid it by joining the future". It's
>    Jo> crass, but it may be very effective. I would ensure that people
>    Jo> who acquired IPv6 before this policy went into effect are not
>    Jo> left out. 

On Oct 31, 2012, at 6:35 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Does the IPv6 have to be advertised to the DFZ?
> (I am not suggesting it must be. Just asking for your opinion)


I would like to have verification that it was deployed. But I would leave that up to ARIN, most notably because enforcement of this would be an implementation detail.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121031/5c2090d9/attachment.html>

From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Wed Oct 31 14:12:53 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:12:53 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:59 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> 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. 

There is only one actual blocker in play at this point, and it's not $100 or even $1000. It's the fact that there is nothing to get to on v6, and that again has no relevance to the fees.

My suggestion to ARIN was to promote getting more people to put more services on v6, which would help solve the actual real blocker.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121031/6e404214/attachment.html>

From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Wed Oct 31 14:16:56 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:16:56 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <3922.1351687553@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <CCB5B047.1D133%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<3922.1351687553@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <CEF2B04C-F4A4-4B17-8BC2-B9B5E87AFCDE@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 31, 2012, at 5:45 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> (If people are worried about DFZ routing slots, then find a way to write
> olicy to discourage the piles of IPv4/24s that pollute the table)


Impossible. For what it's worth, I could stop advertising large amounts of /24s if I could advertise the actual necessary space /27 or /26. But since /24 is the smallest routable space, that's what I route. Do you want to give me a /22 and have me waste even more space?

These are all default free sites with more than 5 peers, and often with private peering direct to specific networks.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121031/3db34b6c/attachment.html>

From owen at delong.com  Wed Oct 31 14:24:31 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:24:31 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <55A01365-C528-4CA4-AFFC-468573A492D0@delong.com>


On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:12 , Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:

> On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:59 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> 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. 
> 
> There is only one actual blocker in play at this point, and it's not $100 or even $1000. It's the fact that there is nothing to get to on v6, and that again has no relevance to the fees.
> 

Nothing to get to?

	Google (including gmail, you tube, and many other google services)
	Yahoo
	CNN
	Facebook
	Netflix
	All of the RIRs
	Blogspot
	Blogger
	Mozilla
	Feedburner
	Flipkart
	Most US Government Public sites
	Dreamhost
	Cloudflare
	AT&T
	And many other web sites are, in fact, reachable via IPv6.
	

Admittedly, it's only 35,329 of the Alexa 1M, but, many of them are very popular web sites (as listed above).

Even more if you include the ones named ipv6.<domain>

> My suggestion to ARIN was to promote getting more people to put more services on v6, which would help solve the actual real blocker.
> 

How do you propose that ARIN do so other than by making it easier/cheaper to get IPv6 space for those services?

Owen



From leo.vegoda at icann.org  Wed Oct 31 14:27:07 2012
From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:27:07 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B15EAD73BC66@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Jo Rhett wrote:

[...]

> There is only one actual blocker in play at this point, and it's 
> not $100 or even $1000. It's the fact that there is nothing to 
> get to on v6, and that again has no relevance to the fees.

There's lots to get to. Large content providers that come to mind include:
Facebook, Google, Yahoo! Netflix, Wikimedia and AOL. There's a longer list
here:

http://www.worldipv6launch.org/participants/?q=1

> My suggestion to ARIN was to promote getting more people 
> to put more services on v6, which would help solve the actual 
> real blocker.

Based on the list of names from World IPv6 Launch Day, I think a significant
amount has been achieved by the operators who implemented IPv6 for their
content and organisations like ARIN and ISOC who encouraged and supported a
well-coordinated launch. 

Regards,

Leo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5499 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121031/cd918149/attachment.p7s>

From bill at herrin.us  Wed Oct 31 14:32:08 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:32:08 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <3922.1351687553@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <CCB5B047.1D133%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<3922.1351687553@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXODXO_uED8S2VRV84jnCyYMEnj2b-Z1rMmoA4mygvy-w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+arin at sandelman.ca> wrote:
> (If people are worried about DFZ routing slots, then find a way to write
> olicy to discourage the piles of IPv4/24s that pollute the table)

That ship has sailed for IPv4. It might still be possible to encourage
it for IPv6 by strongly discouraging the advertisement of /48
downstream customers from inside ISP /32's so that you can rely on
such advertisements consisting of only ISP traffic engineering.

-Bill


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Wed Oct 31 14:37:29 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:37:29 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <55A01365-C528-4CA4-AFFC-468573A492D0@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>
	<55A01365-C528-4CA4-AFFC-468573A492D0@delong.com>
Message-ID: <6E58ACE9-D035-46AE-B053-2D0C4BB7EE1E@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Nothing to get to?

Find me something on IPv6 which I can't get to on v4. This is one of the arguments.

But a much more important argument is this. Find me anything at all which I (or anyone else) would consider essential services on v6. I have several machines set up with v6 only. I can't pay my bills, I can't access my bank accounts, about the only thing I can successfully do on those machines is look up driving directions on google maps. So yes, that is "nothing to get to".

>> My suggestion to ARIN was to promote getting more people to put more services on v6, which would help solve the actual real blocker.
> 
> How do you propose that ARIN do so other than by making it easier/cheaper to get IPv6 space for those services?

That was exactly what I proposed. But not "free if you want v6" but "reduction in other fees if you deploy v6". 

We don't have to solve the first problem listed above, but until my v6 only machines can realistically browse more than a few select sites?

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121031/67930618/attachment.html>

From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Wed Oct 31 14:46:03 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:46:03 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B15EAD73BC66@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>
	<5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B15EAD73BC66@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <5CFEA3B7-9046-46F4-8459-451FC0235E01@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> There's lots to get to. Large content providers that come to mind include:
> Facebook, Google, Yahoo! Netflix, Wikimedia and AOL. There's a longer list
> here:

May I suggest that you build a v6-only box in your house and try to use it as your desktop. It will work great for home file serving and things, but you will find yourself unable to complete even the most basic transaction on the Internet. I actually use a v6-only machine as my desktop right now, with IPv4 only available in a VMware window on the machine so that I can get things done. I am very personally directly aware of what you can do with v6 and frankly, it isn't much. There was more useful, productive services on the Internet in 1992 when AOL hit it, got on, and then went home because "there's nothing there".

May I point out that nearly zero tech-industry websites are available in v6?  That's how backwards our industry is.

> Based on the list of names from World IPv6 Launch Day, I think a significant
> amount has been achieved by the operators who implemented IPv6 for their
> content and organisations like ARIN and ISOC who encouraged and supported a
> well-coordinated launch. 

Hahahaha that's funny. The vast majority of those participants have nothing more than a single page there. For example, Comcast claims to be the only large ISP providing IPv6, but they have only a single page available on IPv6 and no service for consumers at all. Frankly, I feel that most of those participants should be chided for playing marketing games with us without enabling even the most basic services on IPv6. For 2013, you have seriously got to refuse to list anyone who doesn't make their primary product available over IPv6.

Today, right now, IPv6 is useful only to go to the ipv6 test site and clap yourself on the back for getting all green buttons. There's no other reason to turn it on. Don't try to tell me I'm wrong, because my home desktop lives in this world. You should try it.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121031/fc413688/attachment.html>

From farmer at umn.edu  Wed Oct 31 14:46:42 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:46:42 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <50917212.7040007@umn.edu>

On 10/31/12 13:12 , Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:59 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> 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.
>
> There is only one actual blocker in play at this point, and it's not
> $100 or even $1000. It's the fact that there is nothing to get to on v6,
> and that again has no relevance to the fees.

You are incorrect, their is quite a bit of stuff out there in IPv6 land 
approximately 15% to 20% of our (University of Minnesota) traffic, to 
the tune of almost 500Mbs daily peak, is using IPv6 now.  A large 
majority, would guess 55% to 65%, but no mean all of our network is IPv6 
enabled yet.  I am cautiously optimistic that we can get to 30% to 40%, 
maybe more, of or traffic doing IPv6 by this time next year.  I'm hoping 
to have closer to 80% or more of our network with IPv6 enabled by then 
and for continued growth of IPv6 by content providers.

Little to none of our content is IPv6 enabled yet, but that should 
change over the next year or so too, we have new load balancers coming 
that will do IPv6.

> My suggestion to ARIN was to promote getting more people to put more
> services on v6, which would help solve the actual real blocker.

I think the best way for ARIN to do this is to have a low but 
sustainable and consistent fee structure for IPv6 allocations and 
assignments.  Discounts and other schemes that are not sustainable in 
the long-run do not provide the reliability that people are looking for 
so they can build their business models for IPv6 services.


From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Wed Oct 31 14:51:13 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:51:13 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <50917212.7040007@umn.edu>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>
	<50917212.7040007@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <1A71CBA1-23E3-4E5B-8F20-78D9717FCB55@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:46 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> You are incorrect, their is quite a bit of stuff out there in IPv6 land approximately 15% to 20% of our (University of Minnesota) traffic, to the tune of almost 500Mbs daily peak, is using IPv6 now.  A large majority, would guess 55% to 65%, but no mean all of our network is IPv6 enabled yet.  I am cautiously optimistic that we can get to 30% to 40%, maybe more, of or traffic doing IPv6 by this time next year.  I'm hoping to have closer to 80% or more of our network with IPv6 enabled by then and for continued growth of IPv6 by content providers.

Actually, you have hit on a point which is valid, but does not make the Internet more attractive to users. There's a lot of torrent traffic on IPv6. I've be curious if you could post aggregated service counters, because besides some DNS and torrent, there's just not much you can do.

Now, let's talk about what works on v6:

gmail doesn't work on v6
google plus is broken on v6
facebook is broken on v6
yahoo services are almost entirely broken on v6
no banks in the US are available in v6
?etc etc etc.

> I think the best way for ARIN to do this is to have a low but sustainable and consistent fee structure for IPv6 allocations and assignments.  Discounts and other schemes that are not sustainable in the long-run do not provide the reliability that people are looking for so they can build their business models for IPv6 services.


Low fees for something nobody wants encourages nothing. Giving people money in their hands to deploy v6 might. (or might not)

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121031/7e14a0ca/attachment.html>

From owen at delong.com  Wed Oct 31 15:17:47 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:17:47 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <6E58ACE9-D035-46AE-B053-2D0C4BB7EE1E@netconsonance.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>
	<55A01365-C528-4CA4-AFFC-468573A492D0@delong.com>
	<6E58ACE9-D035-46AE-B053-2D0C4BB7EE1E@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <84617A28-8032-4F33-AD51-4EF2640D61F7@delong.com>


On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:37 , Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:

> On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Nothing to get to?
> 
> Find me something on IPv6 which I can't get to on v4. This is one of the arguments.
> 

This is an absurd argument. Ideally, we don't face that situation until we start deprecating IPv4 _AFTER_ IPv6 is fully deployed.

No doubt, due to this kind of absurd procrastination, we will face this situation sooner due to lack of IPv4 address space, but, that's certainly not ideal and certainly not a valid argument for procrastinating an IPv6 deployment.

> But a much more important argument is this. Find me anything at all which I (or anyone else) would consider essential services on v6. I have several machines set up with v6 only. I can't pay my bills, I can't access my bank accounts, about the only thing I can successfully do on those machines is look up driving directions on google maps. So yes, that is "nothing to get to".
> 

Banks are always the last to do anything with technology, so that isn't a surprise. I forget the name of the bank, but it was only a year ago that I remember them replacing their 3270-like terminals with PC client machines. 

I can actually pay for some things over IPv6 using Google Wallet.

There are people who consider CNN essential. There are people who consider Facebook and Gmail essential.

Should there be more? Sure... I'm working on it and I hope others are as well.

>>> My suggestion to ARIN was to promote getting more people to put more services on v6, which would help solve the actual real blocker.
>> 
>> How do you propose that ARIN do so other than by making it easier/cheaper to get IPv6 space for those services?
> 
> That was exactly what I proposed. But not "free if you want v6" but "reduction in other fees if you deploy v6". 
> 
> We don't have to solve the first problem listed above, but until my v6 only machines can realistically browse more than a few select sites?

Well, the number is growing and the growth rate is accelerating, so, I suspect that will be true within a year or so for some definitions of "more than a few selected sites" and will continue to improve over time.

Owen



From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Wed Oct 31 15:26:58 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:26:58 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <84617A28-8032-4F33-AD51-4EF2640D61F7@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>
	<55A01365-C528-4CA4-AFFC-468573A492D0@delong.com>
	<6E58ACE9-D035-46AE-B053-2D0C4BB7EE1E@netconsonance.com>
	<84617A28-8032-4F33-AD51-4EF2640D61F7@delong.com>
Message-ID: <D7D08150-2F44-4457-8C9D-12822D4674EF@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 31, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I can actually pay for some things over IPv6 using Google Wallet.

I can't get to the shopping carts on most sites that sell things.

> There are people who consider CNN essential. There are people who consider Facebook and Gmail essential.

Most links on CNN don't work. Facebook loads the home page, but you can't go farther down in the history. You can't edit your preferences, and you can't use most apps. Gmail doesn't support IPv6 at all.

I think you are a dual stack, so you don't see the problems. Try v6 only.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121031/58183ebb/attachment.html>

From leo.vegoda at icann.org  Wed Oct 31 15:27:15 2012
From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:27:15 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <5CFEA3B7-9046-46F4-8459-451FC0235E01@netconsonance.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7BC21113-0A90-48F8-9999-D0AB83E326A3@netconsonance.com>
	<5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B15EAD73BC66@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<5CFEA3B7-9046-46F4-8459-451FC0235E01@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B15EAD73BC76@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Jo Rhett wrote:

[...]

> Hahahaha that's funny. The vast majority of those participants 
> have nothing more than a single page there. For example, 
> Comcast claims to be the only large ISP providing IPv6, but they 
> have only a single page available on IPv6 and no service for 
> consumers at all. Frankly, I feel that most of those participants 
> should be chided for playing marketing games with us without 
> enabling even the most basic services on IPv6.?For 2013, you 
> have seriously got to refuse to list anyone who doesn't make 
> their primary product available over IPv6.

As this sub-thread is both off-topic and starting to turn into ad-hominem I
will duck out.

Leo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5499 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121031/3f89adbf/attachment.p7s>

From mcr+arin at sandelman.ca  Wed Oct 31 16:01:50 2012
From: mcr+arin at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:01:50 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <CEF2B04C-F4A4-4B17-8BC2-B9B5E87AFCDE@netconsonance.com>
References: <CCB5B047.1D133%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<3922.1351687553@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<CEF2B04C-F4A4-4B17-8BC2-B9B5E87AFCDE@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <24097.1351713710@obiwan.sandelman.ca>


>>>>> "Jo" == Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> writes:
    Jo> On Oct 31, 2012, at 5:45 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> (If people are worried about DFZ routing slots, then find a way to write
    >> olicy to discourage the piles of IPv4/24s that pollute the table)

    Jo> Impossible. For what it's worth, I could stop advertising large
    Jo> amounts of /24s if I could advertise the actual necessary space
    Jo> /27 or /26. But since /24 is the smallest routable space, that's
    Jo> what I route. Do you want to give me a /22 and have me waste
    Jo> even more space? 

Well, a /27 occupies the same slot, so it saves nothing.

The piles of IPv4/24, I am talking about are all taken from /20s.
I observed this repeatedly when I tried to filter intelligently.
(Since then, router FIB ram has grown)

I know that there were a few analysis about this, either Renasys
or Geoff Houston.  I'm sorry, I don't have the pointer, but I'll keep
looking.

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition. 


From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Wed Oct 31 16:15:04 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:15:04 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
	assignments
In-Reply-To: <24097.1351713710@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <CCB5B047.1D133%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<3922.1351687553@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<CEF2B04C-F4A4-4B17-8BC2-B9B5E87AFCDE@netconsonance.com>
	<24097.1351713710@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <9197F2A2-6A16-4BFE-BE97-50D4D32DC3D6@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 31, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> The piles of IPv4/24, I am talking about are all taken from /20s.
> I observed this repeatedly when I tried to filter intelligently.
> (Since then, router FIB ram has grown)
> 
> I know that there were a few analysis about this, either Renasys
> or Geoff Houston.  I'm sorry, I don't have the pointer, but I'll keep
> looking.


Yeah. I'm wondering to consolidate our /22 into two /23s instead of 4 /24s but it's hard to get one of the VoIP services moved.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121031/321c1af1/attachment.html>