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

Joe Maimon jmaimon at chl.com
Mon Oct 29 17:03:20 EDT 2012

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.



More information about the ARIN-consult mailing list