[ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6 assignments

[Jesse D. Geddis]

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.