[ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6 assignments

[Jesse D. Geddis]

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.