[ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule

[Alexander McMillen]

Hi John,
Yes, proposal #3 addresses my requirements with regards to re-aligning the v6 fee for early adopters.

In reviewing all of the proposals, I'm a fan of proposal #4 as it solves the issue of disproportionate costs between small and large providers, and actually would increase revenue for ARIN vs the result of proposal #2. I feel that having additional size categories will incentivize those with excessive v4 allocations (in particular resources that aren't in use) to return resources to the pool if there's significant cost associated to holding onto them.

Thanks,
Alexander McMillen
AS32740

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 11, 2014, at 4:05 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Alexander McMillen <amcmillen at sliqua.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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....
> 
> Alexander - 
> 
>  Have you looked at the proposal in the report to "realign IPv6 fee
>  categories"?  It specifically aims to address the concern that you
>  raised regarding a financial disincentive for those who obtain an
>  /32 IPv6 allocation.  Does meet your requirements, or is some other
>  proposal preferred?
> 
> Thanks!
> /John
> 
> John Curran 
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
>