[ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6 assignments

Mon Oct 29 16:02:19 EDT 2012

Heather,

	As you know those are completely different models and are based on
purchasing power and tangible goods. We can argue down that rabbit trail
or we can address 
what was actually said since purchasing power doesn't play any roll in a
this context and these are not tangible goods. We aren't talking about the
grocery store. We are talking
about ARIN resources and assigning a *fee* to those.

Thanks,

-- 
Jesse D. Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On 10/29/12 12:38 PM, "Schiller, Heather A" <heather.schiller at verizon.com>
wrote:

Jesse,

There are plenty of organizations that have a cost structure that
decreases the per unit cost, as you buy more and some efficiencies are
gained.  

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ah5KBf21PNRMdERvTmdkVXZzTGVqS1
FJTTVwQTgzdkE

Do you have the same complaint when you shop at the grocery instead of
Costco?   What about the per MB/GB price difference that you pay your
upstream vs what a large content provider pays?  Do you pay taxes?

 --Heather

-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 2:08 PM
To: Schiller, Heather A
Cc: Bill Woodcock; arin-consult at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] discounting registration fees for IPv6
assignments

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.