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

Jo Rhett jrhett at netconsonance.com
Mon Oct 29 16:45:37 EDT 2012

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>

More information about the ARIN-consult mailing list