[ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6 assignments

[Jimmy Hess]

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