<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 26, 2021, at 12:02 , Richard Laager <<a href="mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com" class="">rlaager@wiktel.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/26/21 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:%3CD031BED5-C06C-4A09-8D97-2B12AB186A33@delong.com%3E" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" class="">
And it continues to go up until eventually reaching a total of
$4,250 vs. a single RSA total of MAX(IPv6,IPv4) of $4,000.</blockquote><p class="">At the breakeven point, the organization could combine under a
single RSA to avoid paying more.</p></div></div></blockquote>However, at that point, if they choose to do that, they are abandoning the fee protection that may well be one of the few</div><div>things that incented them to sign ANY RSA.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">If they do not, then that's either because:</p><p class="">A) they are not aware they can, or</p><p class="">B) they are making a rational choice, e.g. that LRSA fee
protections against potential future increases have some current
value that, in their view, exceeds the cost delta.<br class="">
</p><p class="">If scenario A is a concern, then I support ARIN notifying
organizations in that situation.<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Far more likely that it is option B, however, certain behaviors of ARIN have lead to significant buyers remorse on the LRSA TBH.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Unfortunately, there’s no way back out once you step into that trap.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:%3CD031BED5-C06C-4A09-8D97-2B12AB186A33@delong.com%3E" class="">So
ARIN is inflicting a financial penalty on the RSA side against
those holding on to their LRSA fee protections.</blockquote><p class="">Alternatively: ARIN is honoring the different contractual terms.
Sometimes (right now) that is a benefit and sometimes (later) that
is a cost. Anyone unhappy with that difference is still permitted
to move to the RSA scenario (albeit irreversibly) so they have the
option of keeping all the benefits now then moving to a single RSA
to avoid the costs later. That's a great deal!<br class="">
</p><p class="">From the perspective of someone without an LRSA, this is already
inequitable. Two resource holders with e.g. a v4 /22 and a v6 /48
should be treated the same, not differently based on what year
that /22 was issued.<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote>That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that those legacy holders who were community minded enough to be willing to pay some (at the time nominal) fees with a promise of protection against future increases and a belief (based on the fee structure at the time, which was pay-per-org and flat-rate for end-users, which meant that your IPv4 LRSA + IPv6 RSA were no additional cost vs. your IPv6 RSA alone have gotten a nasty unexpected surprise that has only gotten worse with each subsequent new fee structure.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>In the mean time, legacy holders smart enough to avoid the LRSA scam continue to pay nothing for their legacy resources.</div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:%3CD031BED5-C06C-4A09-8D97-2B12AB186A33@delong.com%3E" class="">
<div class="">This should stop.</div>
</blockquote><p class="">Why should LRSA holders receive an additional benefit (fee
increase protections) over RSA holders not just now, but even
after price harmonization occurs for them, at no cost?<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div></div>Because that’s essentially the expectation they were given as an inducement to sign the LRSA prior to the bait and switch from fee-per-org to fee-per-resource.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>