<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
I'm a 3x-Small organization (literally "the smallest end users" to
<br>
borrow Owen DeLong's terminology) chiming in.
<br>
<br>
After a few years of reading NANOG I came to the conclusion that the
<br>
IPv4 to IPv6 transition was going to be long, slow and potentially
<br>
ugly. So this is why I chose to get my own resources directly from
<br>
ARIN to cover both bases.
<br>
<br>
-My own IPv4 space so I can go to any ISP that can provision
<br>
connectivity to my location whether they have IP space of their
<br>
own available or not. If one or both of the big guys in my
<br>
market ends up doing carrier grade NAT badly (especially by
<br>
surprise) or just starts price gouging for IP addresses the
<br>
independents will probably have a hard time getting enough
<br>
IPv4 space to take the exodus of customers at that point.
<br>
(It's even possible the transfer market could at some point
<br>
lock up with no blocks offered for stretches of time.) A guy
<br>
that's bringing his own space and just needs bandwidth will
<br>
be a lot easier to take on.
<br>
<br>
-Getting IPv6 before my local cable company gets around to
<br>
implementing it. Much easier to get dual stacked and slowly
<br>
transitioning stuff on my network and have time to get used
<br>
to everything than having to scramble to do it all at once
<br>
when/if things finally tip from glacial movement to rapid change.
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:38 PM ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">We are consulting
with the community regarding changes to the
<br>
ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January
<br>
of 2022. These changes are:
<br>
<br>
* Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance
<br>
fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Largely I'm OK with this as I recently converted to a registration
<br>
services plan myself as I was wanting to get IPv6 space as well so
<br>
it made more sense to have both and full voting membership under a
<br>
single $250 fee. (I just submitted a ticket asking about getting
<br>
a /40 yesterday morning,)
<br>
<br>
As one of "the smallest end users" I don't need more than a /24 of
IPv4
<br>
space and a /40 of IPv6 space. If the nature of what I do changed
<br>
enough that I needed more space than that I would probably by that
<br>
point be a big enough organization that I could handle the higher
<br>
fees for the larger chunks of IP space under the Registration
<br>
services plan.
<br>
<br>
Really this will only raise costs for end user organizations with
<br>
very large singular chunks of space. Generally an organization big
<br>
enough to actually need even a /22 is big enough it can afford to
<br>
pay the Registration Services Plan fees for it.
<br>
<br>
It won't impact us "smallest end users" with the possible exception
<br>
of holders of a single IP block. This could maybe be addressed by
<br>
making the "ASN-only" category in the proposed new fee structure a
<br>
"single resource only" category which would apply whether that
single
<br>
resource was an AS, a /24 of IPv4 or a /40 or smaller of IPv6.
<br>
<br>
The IPv4 only holders will eventually realize one day that they
<br>
need IPv6 as well to be visible to the whole internet and they
<br>
will upgrade then at their own pace. I'm pretty sure that anyone
<br>
that at this point has their own IPv6 space and no IPv4 space is
<br>
either running a hobby/experimental network or is thinking very
<br>
very long term about larger plans and is thinking it's easier to
<br>
get their resources now than down the road, either way they
<br>
probably aren't generating revenue with that IPv6 block right
<br>
now so for them every penny counts.
<br>
<br>
Finally having everyone under the registration services plan will
<br>
be simpler for new sign ups than having 2 different fee schedules.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;"> * Transitioning
Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource
<br>
maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining
the
<br>
annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase
$25
<br>
per year)
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
As long as the fee cap on LRSA holders remains (which I agree it
<br>
should for all of them and not just the early signers) that would
<br>
override the difference between the 2 current fee schedules anyways
<br>
which makes this change immaterial to them.
<br>
<br>
Legacy holders (including those that never signed an LRSA) will all
<br>
at some point need IPv6, so either they'll have to get it through
<br>
their ISPs or they'll have to pay RIR fees on those when the point
<br>
comes that they decide they need it.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;"> * Providing a
temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in
<br>
the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Generally I think this is a gimmick, it expires at the end of 2026.
<br>
Really if I needed more than a /40 of IPv6 space between now and
<br>
the end of 2026 I'd probably also need more IPv4 space and have
<br>
to move up size categories anyways. It almost looks like a trap
<br>
as anyone who takes the bigger space now but doesn't really need
<br>
it is baking in a doubling of fees when they renew in 2027 but if
<br>
their organization is still a very small one that doubling of fees
<br>
could be a strain on them. I myself did hold out for the 2020-3
<br>
to be implemented before requesting IPv6 space as $250/year I can
<br>
handle but $500 per year would be a strain.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;"> * Implementing a
$100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery
<br>
transactions
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Although I see this maybe being a thing for OrgRecovery as I imagine
<br>
most of these are for Orgs with legacy resources where there is a
<br>
strong incentive for someone to try hijacking the Org so an extra
<br>
level of scrutiny is probably needed....
<br>
<br>
However I'm thinking for OrgCreate for an entirely new Org if it's
<br>
taking $100 of labor to do this something is wrong with the process
<br>
and it needs to be streamlined somehow.
<br>
<br>
I mean for my .ca names I have to be Canadian to hold them but if
<br>
people had to start paying CIRA $100 to verify their Canadianness
<br>
before they could get a .ca name that wouldn't go over well. ^_-
<br>
<br>
So I would tend to oppose this fee at least fora brand new
OrgCeate.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;"> * Increasing the
transfer processing fee to $500
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This seems reasonable.
<br>
<br>
<span class="moz-txt-tag">-- <br>
</span>Glen A. Pearce
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gap@ve4.ca">gap@ve4.ca</a>
<br>
Network Manager, Webmaster, Bookkeeper, Fashion Model and Shipping
Clerk.
<br>
Very Eager 4 Tees
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ve4.ca">http://www.ve4.ca</a>
<br>
ARIN Handle VET-17
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Glen A. Pearce
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gap@ve4.ca">gap@ve4.ca</a>
Network Manager, Webmaster, Bookkeeper, Fashion Model and Shipping Clerk.
Very Eager 4 Tees
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ve4.ca">http://www.ve4.ca</a>
ARIN Handle VET-17</pre>
</body>
</html>