[ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
amcmillen at sliqua.com
Sat Oct 11 00:33:15 EDT 2014
Absolutely agree with you on this.
Some further two cents:
As a provider that simply has a /21 of v4 and /32 of v6, we're currently considering shorting our v6 allocation to save $1000 a year as we simply don't have the v6 space utilized to justify the allocation....
As for whatever reason, ARIN felt the need to offer a /32 of v6 by default (with no option for a smaller allocation at the time of issuance) and now we're being penalized for their mistake now that smaller allocations are available. Meanwhile the larger providers get away with paying pennies on the dollar for their v4 space, and the v6 space is an after thought.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:00 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:24 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> Following the adoption of the current ARIN Fee Schedule on 1 July 2013,
>> the ARIN Board of Trustees convened a "Fee Structure Review Panel". The
>> panel recently released the "ARIN Fee Structure Review Report" which
>> provides alternative long-term directions for the ARIN fee schedule,
>> outlining the potential merits of each.
>> The full report is available at:
> I was very disappointed to see my 2012 campaign platform of no fees
> for IPv6 in the short term completely ignored by the review panel.
> Were you asleep? Seriously, I got half the votes I'd have needed to be
> elected to the board on that platform. Is even that not enough for you
> to evaluate the notion, even if only to state the reasons you think
> it's a bad idea?
> I'd like to see the cost of IPv6 reduced to $10/year or less for the
> first assignment or allocation to an organization regardless of size
> *until* IPv6 replaces IPv4 as the dominant protocol on the Internet.
> Charging for IPv6 address now, as most organizations continue to
> realize little or no revenue from it, slows adoption to no good
> Once IPv6 is the dominant driver on the Internet, its registry cost
> will have to change. Even today's IPv6 fees are not enough to sustain
> the organization once revenue from IPv4 fees begins its plunge. But
> let's deal with that when the time is ripe for it. Charging more than
> pocket change today just gets in the way of an already sluggish
> In IPv4 I'd like to see a cost schedule tied to the number of IP
> addresses allocated. Perhaps not linearly, but it should diverge by no
> more than a single order of magnitude across the range of allocations.
> So, if a /24 costs $100 per year (39 cents per address) then a /8
> should cost *at least* $655,000 per year (3.9 cents per address). Or
> turn it around: if a /8 costs $32,000 per year (0.2 cents per address)
> then a /24 should cost no more than $5.12 (2 cents per address).
> When the cost per address diverges by not one or two, but three full
> orders of magnitude (1000 times) between the largest address hoarders,
> excuse me, address holders and the smallest, the system has a pretty
> severe fairness problem.
> Bill Herrin
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
> 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.
More information about the ARIN-consult