[ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
jrhett at netconsonance.com
Tue Oct 30 23:58:27 EDT 2012
On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> The price of an IPv6 allocation can not go down, because it includes
> IPv4 space. You are thinking/talking like an encumbent who already has
> lots of IPv4 space. New entrants have no v4 space, and might not need any.
I disagree with everything you said here. I have helped a new org get v6 only space without v4, and I never meant what you proposed. I was mostly thinking of the opposite situation.
> 1) *many*, *many*, *many* organizations have IPv4/28s's from several
> providers, and use NAT.
> Unless you think that said organizations should use NAT66 or NPT66,
> they need something, and ULA-Random doesn't cut it.
> They don't want to get a /48 from one upstream because:
> a) it locks them to one provider.
> b) upstream is too clueless to have IPv6 (so, they might want to
> change...see point-a)
I have no idea how this relates to the question. If they can pay for several uplinks, then they can afford the proposed maintenance fees. The proposed maintenance fees are trivial in the face of the costs of maintaining those uplinks.
> 2) We continue to have no policy for Non-Connected Networks, but part of
> the problem is that we have no price for IPv6 only, so it's really
> hard to understand what the policy might be.
The proposed policy clearly lists the price for v6 only. And you can get v6 only RIGHT NOW. So again, your facts are wrong.
> Imagine that you had an open source project that could benefit from
> IPv6 *internal* connectivity among it's *components* and/or *members*
> Could you officially get a /48 to number it?
Yes. I just finished the justification for one recently.
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
More information about the ARIN-consult