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

[David Farmer]

On 10/31/12 13:12 , Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:59 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> If, on the other hand, you believe as I do that your IPv6 deployment
>> gains value only in relation to everybody else's IPv6 deployment then
>> the bottom line is: remove the blockers.
>
> There is only one actual blocker in play at this point, and it's not
> $100 or even $1000. It's the fact that there is nothing to get to on v6,
> and that again has no relevance to the fees.

You are incorrect, their is quite a bit of stuff out there in IPv6 land 
approximately 15% to 20% of our (University of Minnesota) traffic, to 
the tune of almost 500Mbs daily peak, is using IPv6 now.  A large 
majority, would guess 55% to 65%, but no mean all of our network is IPv6 
enabled yet.  I am cautiously optimistic that we can get to 30% to 40%, 
maybe more, of or traffic doing IPv6 by this time next year.  I'm hoping 
to have closer to 80% or more of our network with IPv6 enabled by then 
and for continued growth of IPv6 by content providers.

Little to none of our content is IPv6 enabled yet, but that should 
change over the next year or so too, we have new load balancers coming 
that will do IPv6.

> My suggestion to ARIN was to promote getting more people to put more
> services on v6, which would help solve the actual real blocker.

I think the best way for ARIN to do this is to have a low but 
sustainable and consistent fee structure for IPv6 allocations and 
assignments.  Discounts and other schemes that are not sustainable in 
the long-run do not provide the reliability that people are looking for 
so they can build their business models for IPv6 services.