From owen at delong.com Tue Feb 2 23:39:18 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:39:18 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories Message-ID: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed the LRSA. I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. Owen Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: Owen, This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ********************************************* 2010.1 01-18-2010 16:58:30 ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Keith at jcc.com Thu Feb 4 14:06:34 2010 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:06:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> Message-ID: <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> I support Owen's suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment fees be waived for legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. Keith Hare 192.84.218.0/24 ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com USA ______________________________________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:39 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed the LRSA. I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. Owen Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: Owen, This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ********************************************* 2010.1 01-18-2010 16:58:30 ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Thu Feb 4 14:09:53 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:09:53 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> Message-ID: <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> I have a question on this. If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services here? Aaron From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I support Owen's suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment fees be waived for legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. Keith Hare 192.84.218.0/24 ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com USA ______________________________________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:39 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed the LRSA. I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. Owen Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: Owen, This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ********************************************* 2010.1 01-18-2010 16:58:30 ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tony at lava.net Thu Feb 4 14:13:40 2010 From: tony at lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:13:40 -1000 (HST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Aaron Wendel wrote: > If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get > resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services > here? 1 class: those who sign :) Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: tony at lava.net From john at citylinkfiber.com Thu Feb 4 14:15:22 2010 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:15:22 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiverfor IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories Message-ID: >From what I can tell, If you have have pre-arin resources and you DO NOT sign the agreement, then you get nothing from ARIN. What does that do to your status and those pre-ARIN resources is unclear. If you do sign the agreement then you are "legit" in ARIN's eyes and can be a member of the club. From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 12:10 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiverfor IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I have a question on this. If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services here? Aaron From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I support Owen's suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment fees be waived for legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. Keith Hare 192.84.218.0/24 ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com USA ______________________________________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:39 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed the LRSA. I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. Owen Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: Owen, This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ********************************************* 2010.1 01-18-2010 16:58:30 ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mmoreno at socaltelephone.com Thu Feb 4 14:12:36 2010 From: mmoreno at socaltelephone.com (Martin Moreno) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 11:12:36 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> Message-ID: <007601caa5ce$032a4bb0$097ee310$@com> HOW do I get off this list its driving me NUTS!!!!! From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:10 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I have a question on this. If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services here? Aaron From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I support Owen's suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment fees be waived for legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. Keith Hare 192.84.218.0/24 ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com USA ______________________________________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:39 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed the LRSA. I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. Owen Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: Owen, This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ********************************************* 2010.1 01-18-2010 16:58:30 ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty at akamai.com Thu Feb 4 14:33:37 2010 From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:33:37 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial FeeWaiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <007601caa5ce$032a4bb0$097ee310$@com> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com><084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <007601caa5ce$032a4bb0$097ee310$@com> Message-ID: It's kind of ironic, but all you have to do is read it. [ H i n t: Read the below, find the arrow ] > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > <--------------------- > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From scottleibrand at gmail.com Thu Feb 4 14:45:09 2010 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:45:09 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> Message-ID: <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> If you have a legacy allocation and need additional number resources from ARIN, you have to sign a regular RSA to get them. The LRSA only covers the legacy resources themselves. So the IPv6 resources this fee waiver suggestion would apply to would be covered by the RSA. It would not be an ongoing distinction, though, as it would only waive the initial assignment fee, not ongoing maintenance fees. -Scott On 2/4/2010 11:09 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > > I have a question on this. > > If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to > get resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting > services here? > > Aaron > > *From:* arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Keith W. Hare > *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:07 PM > *To:* arin-discuss at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver > for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories > > I support Owen's suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment fees be > waived for legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. > > Keith Hare > > 192.84.218.0/24 > > ______________________________________________________________ > > Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. > > keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road > > Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 > > Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 > > http://www.jcc.com USA > > ______________________________________________________________ > > *From:* arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Owen DeLong > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:39 PM > *To:* arin-discuss at arin.net > *Subject:* [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for > IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories > > I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the > BoT waive initial > > assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource > holder that has signed > > the LRSA. > > I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy > IPv4 holders to migrate > > to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. > > ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's > finance committee > > agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an > opinion on the > > matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a > message to this list. > > Owen > > Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion > I submitted: > > Owen, > > > This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number > 2010.1. > > Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee > related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments > for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration > Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the > ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. > > Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current > IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 > is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be > 25% waived. > In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients > requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of > address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees > related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover > the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas > maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining > objects in the database. > > Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with > both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee > based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource > maintenance fee. > > ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the > community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and > service. > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ********************************************* > > 2010.1 > 01-18-2010 16:58:30 > > ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to > receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial > fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: > 02/04/10 01:35:00 > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Feb 4 15:23:34 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:23:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> Message-ID: <52156EB5-72DE-41F5-ACCE-2F13329C50E3@arin.net> On Feb 5, 2010, at 5:09 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: I have a question on this. If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services here? You ask about "resources" and "services" for legacy holders. I'll answer for services first: At present, ARIN provides services to those with an RSA agreement and all legacy holders. Once you sign an LRSA, you have a contractual set of rights to those services, such as in-addr and WHOIS. In any case, any new number resources requested by an legacy holder require a standard RSA to be signed before any new resources are issued under that RSA. A good place for more information (including a list of frequently asked questions and answers) is on ARIN's Legacy RSA agreement page: /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Feb 4 15:54:43 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:54:43 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> Message-ID: <4B6B3413.1020003@ipinc.net> I am not in favor of an across-the-board, non-time limited fee cut. I would be in favor of waiving the /31 to /30 and smaller fees for the next couple of years. I would not be in favor of any fee waviers after IPv4-runout at this time. I am therefore not in favor of this suggestion since there is no expiration date or time limit. My problem with fee cuts for the large legacy holders is twofold: a) Legacy holders of that size generally aren't motivated by ARIN fees, they spend far more in labor to convert to IPv6 than the fee savings. b) Legacy holders of that size have TREMENDOUS financial incentive to be early-IPv6 adopters. The earlier they adopt, and insert NAT into their IPv4 infrastructure, the more IPv4 they can free up and then turn around and sell on the transfer market when the prices are higher. They do not need even more monetary icing on the cake, as it were. I would be more than willing to review my position after a few years have elapsed past IPv4-runout, and if it appears that IPv6 adoption is still stalled at that time, to consider fee incentives. I would also be willing to give ARIN authority to waive IPv6 fees for the large holders on a case-by-case basis. Meaning, if a large holder with justification for a /22 or some such were to approach ARIN and commit to switching to IPv6 and thus releasing a large block of legacy IPv4 that ARIN could write a contract with them that waives the $36K fee in exchange for a written contract to abandon a large legacy holding (like an /8 or some such) But not this across-the-board handout to the large holders with no strings attached. Thus, Ted Owen DeLong wrote: > I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial > assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed > the LRSA. > > I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate > to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. > > ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee > agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the > matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. > > > Owen > > > Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: > > Owen, > > > This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. > > Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. > > Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. > In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. > > Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. > > ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ********************************************* > > 2010.1 > 01-18-2010 16:58:30 > > ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From marty at akamai.com Thu Feb 4 16:05:40 2010 From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:05:40 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6B3413.1020003@ipinc.net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <4B6B3413.1020003@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <1D52519F-3938-40B9-8D37-2E3DE9A7D59F@akamai.com> On Feb 4, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > I am not in favor of an across-the-board, non-time limited fee cut. > > In the interest of fostering uptake, I agree, it's reasonable to remove roadblocks, but removing roadblocks and increasing the cost of delivering service at the expense of the membership is like implementing a tax. It is in none of our interests. I guess we can call this one the Owen Tax. :) Best, Martin From owen at delong.com Thu Feb 4 16:02:50 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:02:50 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> However, the ongoing maintenance fees for assignments are $100/year which you are already paying if you signed the LRSA, so, there is actually no additional ongoing cost, either. Owen On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > If you have a legacy allocation and need additional number resources from ARIN, you have to sign a regular RSA to get them. The LRSA only covers the legacy resources themselves. So the IPv6 resources this fee waiver suggestion would apply to would be covered by the RSA. It would not be an ongoing distinction, though, as it would only waive the initial assignment fee, not ongoing maintenance fees. > > -Scott > > On 2/4/2010 11:09 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: >> >> I have a question on this. >> >> If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services here? >> >> Aaron >> >> >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare >> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:07 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories >> >> I support Owen?s suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment fees be waived for legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. >> >> Keith Hare >> 192.84.218.0/24 >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> >> Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. >> keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road >> Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 >> Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 >> http://www.jcc.com USA >> ______________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong >> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:39 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories >> >> I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial >> assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed >> the LRSA. >> >> I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate >> to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. >> >> ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee >> agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the >> matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. >> >> >> Owen >> >> >> Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: >> >> Owen, >> >> >> This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. >> >> Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. >> >> Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. >> In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. >> >> Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. >> >> ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. >> >> Regards, >> >> Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> ********************************************* >> >> 2010.1 >> 01-18-2010 16:58:30 >> >> ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Feb 4 16:00:47 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:00:47 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> Message-ID: <1CF3F1B5-4461-43A8-A525-5380DBF16F2F@delong.com> For any new resources you would have to sign the current RSA. The proposal here is to allow holders of legacy IPv4 space who sign the LRSA (legacy registration services agreement) the opportunity to obtain an IPv6 assignment (which would be covered by RSA, not Legacy RSA) from ARIN without paying additional fees. Owen On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Aaron Wendel wrote: > >> If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get >> resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services >> here? > > 1 class: those who sign :) > > Antonio Querubin > 808-545-5282 x3003 > e-mail/xmpp: tony at lava.net > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Thu Feb 4 16:12:27 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:12:27 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> Message-ID: <08c901caa5de$c58215c0$50864140$@net> Okay, so if I have a legacy assignment and sign an LRSA, then get more IPs and sign an RSA for those I still only pay the $100 a year for everything or do I pay ARIN's regular fees since I now have an RSA for my new allocation? From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:03 PM To: Scott Leibrand Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories However, the ongoing maintenance fees for assignments are $100/year which you are already paying if you signed the LRSA, so, there is actually no additional ongoing cost, either. Owen On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: If you have a legacy allocation and need additional number resources from ARIN, you have to sign a regular RSA to get them. The LRSA only covers the legacy resources themselves. So the IPv6 resources this fee waiver suggestion would apply to would be covered by the RSA. It would not be an ongoing distinction, though, as it would only waive the initial assignment fee, not ongoing maintenance fees. -Scott On 2/4/2010 11:09 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: I have a question on this. If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services here? Aaron From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I support Owen's suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment fees be waived for legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. Keith Hare 192.84.218.0/24 ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com USA ______________________________________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:39 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed the LRSA. I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. Owen Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: Owen, This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ********************************************* 2010.1 01-18-2010 16:58:30 ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Thu Feb 4 16:24:21 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:24:21 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> Message-ID: <08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> To address Owen's suggestion directly, I am not opposed to fee waivers to encourage v6 adoption, however, I think ARIN should avoid, at all costs, doing favors for one segment of address holders and not another. If the suggestion was just for a blanket fee waiver then I don't see a problem with it. It's up to ARIN to decide whether they can take the financial hit. Since I have a draft proposal on the table currently I'm becoming very educated to the different "camps" that exist in the ARIN community. You would be amazed at how these conversations are shaped by people who don't even hold address space. ARIN needs to be careful to make sure the needs to its overall membership are serviced before it caters to any specific group or even anonymous individuals posting on PPML. Aaron From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:03 PM To: Scott Leibrand Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories However, the ongoing maintenance fees for assignments are $100/year which you are already paying if you signed the LRSA, so, there is actually no additional ongoing cost, either. Owen On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: If you have a legacy allocation and need additional number resources from ARIN, you have to sign a regular RSA to get them. The LRSA only covers the legacy resources themselves. So the IPv6 resources this fee waiver suggestion would apply to would be covered by the RSA. It would not be an ongoing distinction, though, as it would only waive the initial assignment fee, not ongoing maintenance fees. -Scott On 2/4/2010 11:09 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: I have a question on this. If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services here? Aaron From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:07 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I support Owen's suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment fees be waived for legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. Keith Hare 192.84.218.0/24 ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com USA ______________________________________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:39 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed the LRSA. I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. Owen Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: Owen, This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ********************************************* 2010.1 01-18-2010 16:58:30 ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Feb 4 16:34:58 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:34:58 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> <08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> Message-ID: <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> Aaron Wendel wrote: > To address Owen's suggestion directly, I am not opposed to fee waivers to > encourage v6 adoption, however, I think ARIN should avoid, at all costs, > doing favors for one segment of address holders and not another. I agree - however ARIN already is HEAVILY stacked in favor of the large holders. Check out the cost-per-IP address, it drops like a rock as the number of IP addresses you obtain from ARIN grows. Since we are already stacked in favor of the large holders, adjusting the initial fee to bear more heavily on the large holders as I advise actually brings ARIN to LESS of a point of favoring one segment of address holders over another. > If the > suggestion was just for a blanket fee waiver then I don't see a problem with > it. It's up to ARIN to decide whether they can take the financial hit. A blanket fee waiver continues to bias the costs more towards the smaller orgs with less numbers, which is what you claim you want to avoid - your logic is highly inconsistent here. Either you just don't realize the cost issues involved or your being disingenuous. Ted > > > > Since I have a draft proposal on the table currently I'm becoming very > educated to the different "camps" that exist in the ARIN community. You > would be amazed at how these conversations are shaped by people who don't > even hold address space. ARIN needs to be careful to make sure the needs to > its overall membership are serviced before it caters to any specific group > or even anonymous individuals posting on PPML. > > > > Aaron > > > > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:03 PM > To: Scott Leibrand > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 > assignments to LRSA signatories > > > > However, the ongoing maintenance fees for assignments are $100/year which > you are already > > paying if you signed the LRSA, so, there is actually no additional ongoing > cost, either. > > > > Owen > > > > On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > > > > > If you have a legacy allocation and need additional number resources from > ARIN, you have to sign a regular RSA to get them. The LRSA only covers the > legacy resources themselves. So the IPv6 resources this fee waiver > suggestion would apply to would be covered by the RSA. It would not be an > ongoing distinction, though, as it would only waive the initial assignment > fee, not ongoing maintenance fees. > > -Scott > > On 2/4/2010 11:09 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > > I have a question on this. > > > > If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get > resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services > here? > > > > Aaron > > > > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:07 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 > assignments to LRSA signatories > > > > I support Owen's suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment fees be waived for > legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. > > > > Keith Hare > > 192.84.218.0/24 > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. > > keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road > > Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 > > Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 > > http://www.jcc.com USA > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:39 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 > assignments to LRSA signatories > > > > I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT > waive initial > > assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that > has signed > > the LRSA. > > > > I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 > holders to migrate > > to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. > > > > ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance > committee > > agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion > on the > > matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to > this list. > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I > submitted: > > > > Owen, > > > This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number > 2010.1. > > Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to > request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders > that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this > relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee > agenda for 2010. > > Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 > waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% > fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. > In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting > assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and > thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the > Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related > to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are > designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. > > Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both > ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on > the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance > fee. > > ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the > community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and > service. > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ********************************************* > > 2010.1 > 01-18-2010 16:58:30 > > ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to > receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The > applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 > 01:35:00 > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 > 01:35:00 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From lambert at psc.edu Thu Feb 4 16:19:41 2010 From: lambert at psc.edu (Michael Lambert) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:19:41 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <1CF3F1B5-4461-43A8-A525-5380DBF16F2F@delong.com> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <1CF3F1B5-4461-43A8-A525-5380DBF16F2F@delong.com> Message-ID: On 4 Feb 2010, at 16:00, Owen DeLong wrote: > For any new resources you would have to sign the current RSA. > > The proposal here is to allow holders of legacy IPv4 space who sign the LRSA (legacy > registration services agreement) the opportunity to obtain an IPv6 assignment (which > would be covered by RSA, not Legacy RSA) from ARIN without paying additional > fees. And I would want to limit the fee waiver to a block no larger than a /32 (with the usual justifications for the space). Michael From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Thu Feb 4 16:49:02 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:49:02 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> <08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <090101caa5e3$df46aa70$9dd3ff50$@net> Your ARIN fees pay for registration services. It takes just as long and as much effort for someone to record the registration information for a /14 as it does for a /24 so in reality the big guys are getting screwed because they pay more for the same service the small guys get. As you so strongly promote in other posts, IPs are not property so you are not "buying" them. Cost per IP has nothing to do with it. It's the registration services. You really seem to have an axe to grind about everything. Have you ever considered therapy or maybe crack? Maybe you just need a good woman... or man if that's what you're into. (Not judging anyone) I hope the rest of your life is happier than it seems to be here. Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:35 PM To: Aaron Wendel Cc: 'Owen DeLong'; 'Scott Leibrand'; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories Aaron Wendel wrote: > To address Owen's suggestion directly, I am not opposed to fee waivers to > encourage v6 adoption, however, I think ARIN should avoid, at all costs, > doing favors for one segment of address holders and not another. I agree - however ARIN already is HEAVILY stacked in favor of the large holders. Check out the cost-per-IP address, it drops like a rock as the number of IP addresses you obtain from ARIN grows. Since we are already stacked in favor of the large holders, adjusting the initial fee to bear more heavily on the large holders as I advise actually brings ARIN to LESS of a point of favoring one segment of address holders over another. > If the > suggestion was just for a blanket fee waiver then I don't see a problem with > it. It's up to ARIN to decide whether they can take the financial hit. A blanket fee waiver continues to bias the costs more towards the smaller orgs with less numbers, which is what you claim you want to avoid - your logic is highly inconsistent here. Either you just don't realize the cost issues involved or your being disingenuous. Ted > > > > Since I have a draft proposal on the table currently I'm becoming very > educated to the different "camps" that exist in the ARIN community. You > would be amazed at how these conversations are shaped by people who don't > even hold address space. ARIN needs to be careful to make sure the needs to > its overall membership are serviced before it caters to any specific group > or even anonymous individuals posting on PPML. > > > > Aaron > > > > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:03 PM > To: Scott Leibrand > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 > assignments to LRSA signatories > > > > However, the ongoing maintenance fees for assignments are $100/year which > you are already > > paying if you signed the LRSA, so, there is actually no additional ongoing > cost, either. > > > > Owen > > > > On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > > > > > If you have a legacy allocation and need additional number resources from > ARIN, you have to sign a regular RSA to get them. The LRSA only covers the > legacy resources themselves. So the IPv6 resources this fee waiver > suggestion would apply to would be covered by the RSA. It would not be an > ongoing distinction, though, as it would only waive the initial assignment > fee, not ongoing maintenance fees. > > -Scott > > On 2/4/2010 11:09 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > > I have a question on this. > > > > If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get > resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services > here? > > > > Aaron > > > > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:07 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 > assignments to LRSA signatories > > > > I support Owen's suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment fees be waived for > legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. > > > > Keith Hare > > 192.84.218.0/24 > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. > > keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road > > Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 > > Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 > > http://www.jcc.com USA > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:39 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 > assignments to LRSA signatories > > > > I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT > waive initial > > assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that > has signed > > the LRSA. > > > > I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 > holders to migrate > > to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. > > > > ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance > committee > > agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion > on the > > matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to > this list. > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I > submitted: > > > > Owen, > > > This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number > 2010.1. > > Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to > request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders > that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this > relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee > agenda for 2010. > > Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 > waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% > fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. > In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting > assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and > thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the > Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related > to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are > designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. > > Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both > ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on > the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance > fee. > > ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the > community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and > service. > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ********************************************* > > 2010.1 > 01-18-2010 16:58:30 > > ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to > receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The > applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 > 01:35:00 > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 > 01:35:00 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 From bicknell at ufp.org Thu Feb 4 16:53:16 2010 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:53:16 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> Message-ID: <20100204215316.GA17277@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 08:39:18PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the > BoT waive initial > assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder > that has signed > the LRSA. I oppose this suggestion. I see no reason why IPv4 legacy holders should have any special status with respect to IPv6. I don't object to legacy holders getting a free ride on IPv4, they were innovators and pioneers. The innovators and pioneers in the IPv6 space also got a free ride for a while, ARIN issued fee wavors to those who wanted to innovate. Being a pioneer in once space does not automatically afford special benefits in another. Legacy holders should not get an IPv6 waver. IPv6 users who obtained and used their space when there was an IPv6 waver should not get a waver of their IPv4 fees. Neither group should receive any sort of waver the next time we do this (IPv10?), whenever that is down the road. If legacy holders wanted waved IPv6 fees they could have gotten IPv6 when the fees were waved, and contributed to the roll out of IPv6. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marty at akamai.com Thu Feb 4 16:59:07 2010 From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:59:07 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <090101caa5e3$df46aa70$9dd3ff50$@net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com><08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> <090101caa5e3$df46aa70$9dd3ff50$@net> Message-ID: <9F05F693-24F0-4317-9C99-89E8FB207E30@akamai.com> On Feb 4, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > Your ARIN fees pay for registration services. It takes just as long > and as > much effort for someone to record the registration information for > a /14 as > it does for a /24 so in reality the big guys are getting screwed > because > they pay more for the same service the small guys get. > > As you so strongly promote in other posts, IPs are not property so > you are > not "buying" them. Cost per IP has nothing to do with it. It's the > registration services. > Not just registration. The depreciation of equipment servicing the registration database, the depreciation of hardware providing in-addr, the operational expense of offices, software, peoples, sheepls, internet access, colo and services, etc. etc. In other words. It ain't cheap, and it certainly ain't free. > > You really seem to have an axe to grind about everything. Have you > ever > considered therapy or maybe crack? Maybe you just need a good > woman... or > man if that's what you're into. (Not judging anyone) I hope the > rest of > your life is happier than it seems to be here. > My my. I'm all for collegial jabs and vigorous debate. This was not necessary. Please take it offline. Best, Martin From jcurran at arin.net Thu Feb 4 17:08:42 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:08:42 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <090101caa5e3$df46aa70$9dd3ff50$@net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> <08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> <090101caa5e3$df46aa70$9dd3ff50$@net> Message-ID: <26782948-37B8-4306-AE06-4CA02508E45F@arin.net> On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > Your ARIN fees pay for registration services. It takes just as long and as > much effort for someone to record the registration information for a /14 as > it does for a /24 so in reality the big guys are getting screwed because > they pay more for the same service the small guys get. > > As you so strongly promote in other posts, IPs are not property so you are > not "buying" them. Cost per IP has nothing to do with it. It's the > registration services. > > You really seem to have an axe to grind about everything. Have you ever > considered therapy or maybe crack? Maybe you just need a good woman... or > man if that's what you're into. (Not judging anyone) I hope the rest of > your life is happier than it seems to be here. Aaron - ARIN has multiple services, and the variable costs of providing them varies depending on the particular service. For example, the cost of an entry in WHOIS is relatively constant, regardless of whether its reflecting a /20 in IPv4 or /32 IPv6... For comparison, the cost of processing an request for assignment of an additional AS number is very low, and whereas the effort to process a request for an additional IPv4 or IPv6 allocation can be very, very large, depending on the size of the previous allocation and organization of the request supporting materials. It may be a transaction cost rather than registration services subscription model is a more appropriate mechanism, but that is not presently how ARIN charges. We're working on a more granular understanding of these costs, so we can evolve the fee schedule towards equitable recovery. I expect to have more information on possible cost recovery models at the Fall ARIN meeting this year. One more item: If you are going to continue to discuss these matters on ARIN's mailing lists, you must cease postings containing "personal character attacks" and/or postings which "show disrespect for other participants". Refer to the ARIN Mailing List AUP if needed, available here: Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Thu Feb 4 17:25:01 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:25:01 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <26782948-37B8-4306-AE06-4CA02508E45F@arin.net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> <08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> <090101caa5e3$df46aa70$9dd3ff50$@net> <26782948-37B8-4306-AE06-4CA02508E45F@arin.net> Message-ID: <092101caa5e8$e84a9c80$b8dfd580$@net> I'm glad I edited my last post then. It was far, far worse. Since he's essentially called me a liar or an idiot 4 times in the last week I guess I felt it was time to "punch him in the face" so to speak. I'll refrain from stooping to his level again. Aaron -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:09 PM To: Aaron Wendel Cc: ARIN Discussion List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > Your ARIN fees pay for registration services. It takes just as long and as > much effort for someone to record the registration information for a /14 as > it does for a /24 so in reality the big guys are getting screwed because > they pay more for the same service the small guys get. > > As you so strongly promote in other posts, IPs are not property so you are > not "buying" them. Cost per IP has nothing to do with it. It's the > registration services. > > You really seem to have an axe to grind about everything. Have you ever > considered therapy or maybe crack? Maybe you just need a good woman... or > man if that's what you're into. (Not judging anyone) I hope the rest of > your life is happier than it seems to be here. Aaron - ARIN has multiple services, and the variable costs of providing them varies depending on the particular service. For example, the cost of an entry in WHOIS is relatively constant, regardless of whether its reflecting a /20 in IPv4 or /32 IPv6... For comparison, the cost of processing an request for assignment of an additional AS number is very low, and whereas the effort to process a request for an additional IPv4 or IPv6 allocation can be very, very large, depending on the size of the previous allocation and organization of the request supporting materials. It may be a transaction cost rather than registration services subscription model is a more appropriate mechanism, but that is not presently how ARIN charges. We're working on a more granular understanding of these costs, so we can evolve the fee schedule towards equitable recovery. I expect to have more information on possible cost recovery models at the Fall ARIN meeting this year. One more item: If you are going to continue to discuss these matters on ARIN's mailing lists, you must cease postings containing "personal character attacks" and/or postings which "show disrespect for other participants". Refer to the ARIN Mailing List AUP if needed, available here: Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Feb 4 18:29:35 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:29:35 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <092101caa5e8$e84a9c80$b8dfd580$@net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> <08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> <090101caa5e3$df46aa70$9dd3ff50$@net> <26782948-37B8-4306-AE06-4CA02508E45F@arin.net> <092101caa5e8$e84a9c80$b8dfd580$@net> Message-ID: <4B6B585F.1050309@ipinc.net> Aaron, It was not the intent of my post to embarrass or ridicule you, or get you in trouble on the list, and I am sorry it came across that way. Ted Aaron Wendel wrote: > I'm glad I edited my last post then. It was far, far worse. > > Since he's essentially called me a liar or an idiot 4 times in the last week > I guess I felt it was time to "punch him in the face" so to speak. I'll > refrain from stooping to his level again. > > Aaron > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:09 PM > To: Aaron Wendel > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 > assignments to LRSA signatories > > On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > >> Your ARIN fees pay for registration services. It takes just as long and > as >> much effort for someone to record the registration information for a /14 > as >> it does for a /24 so in reality the big guys are getting screwed because >> they pay more for the same service the small guys get. >> >> As you so strongly promote in other posts, IPs are not property so you are >> not "buying" them. Cost per IP has nothing to do with it. It's the >> registration services. >> >> You really seem to have an axe to grind about everything. Have you ever >> considered therapy or maybe crack? Maybe you just need a good woman... or >> man if that's what you're into. (Not judging anyone) I hope the rest of >> your life is happier than it seems to be here. > > Aaron - > > ARIN has multiple services, and the variable costs of providing > them varies depending on the particular service. > > For example, the cost of an entry in WHOIS is relatively constant, > regardless of whether its reflecting a /20 in IPv4 or /32 IPv6... > > For comparison, the cost of processing an request for assignment > of an additional AS number is very low, and whereas the effort > to process a request for an additional IPv4 or IPv6 allocation > can be very, very large, depending on the size of the previous > allocation and organization of the request supporting materials. > It may be a transaction cost rather than registration services > subscription model is a more appropriate mechanism, but that is > not presently how ARIN charges. > > We're working on a more granular understanding of these costs, > so we can evolve the fee schedule towards equitable recovery. > I expect to have more information on possible cost recovery > models at the Fall ARIN meeting this year. > > One more item: > > If you are going to continue to discuss these matters > on ARIN's mailing lists, you must cease postings > containing "personal character attacks" and/or postings > which "show disrespect for other participants". Refer > to the ARIN Mailing List AUP if needed, available here: > > > Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 > 01:35:00 > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From bob at digilink.net Thu Feb 4 18:23:47 2010 From: bob at digilink.net (Bob Atkins) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:23:47 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <26782948-37B8-4306-AE06-4CA02508E45F@arin.net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> <08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> <090101caa5e3$df46aa70$9dd3ff50$@net> <26782948-37B8-4306-AE06-4CA02508E45F@arin.net> Message-ID: <4B6B5703.9010907@digilink.net> John, If I may interject. Your statement: '...whereas the effort to process a request for an additional IPv4 or IPv6 allocation can be very, very large, depending on the size of the previous allocation and organization of the request supporting materials.' Is /_*way*_/ over the top in regards to IPv6 allocations. The cost for an IPv6 allocation is about as close to $0 as one can get from a management standpoint. The sheer magnitude of available IPv6 address space is such that if all you had was an automated website without any form of controls - we would all be long dead before even a small portion of the IPv6 address space had been delegated - even if you had practically every person on planet earth applying for space. Generally, I am pleased with the IPv6 allocation fees being waived currently - it is quite simply why we applied for an IPv6 block. However, when I look at what is being proposed for IPv6 address charges - they are outrageous when you take into consideration that IPv6 is a virtually unlimited resource. IPv6 is a license for ARIN to print money. We are all going to be operating with IPv4 and IPv6 address space for a /_*long*_/ time - that very fact will substantially increase ARIN's revenue based on the current fee structure. As a small ISP I find this very fact very troubling. Just as the market is eating itself alive from competitive pressure - when we must spend more in ARIN fees, equipment and training to deploy IPv6 and it will be virtually impossible to for us to recover any additional revenue from the use and delegation (to our customers) of IPv6 space. ARIN is maintaining what I call an IPv4 /_*scarcity*_/ fee structure for IPv6 space which is totally at odds with the monumental amount of address space that is available. IPv6 fees for a /32 should be about $100/year - at most! Larger blocks could be sold on an economy of scale basis rather than a linear multiplier of the cost of a /32 block. The entire process should be fully automated - requiring minimal support staff. An even better solution would be to create some competition in the IPv6 address management arena by allowing the existence of multiple IPv6 registrars in the same way that is done for domain names. -- *Bob Atkins * /President/CEO/ *DigiLink, Inc. * Business Inter-net-working */The Cure for the Common ISP!/* Phone: (310) 577-9450 Fax: (310) 577-3360 eMail: bob at digilink.net John Curran wrote: > On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > > >> Your ARIN fees pay for registration services. It takes just as long and as >> much effort for someone to record the registration information for a /14 as >> it does for a /24 so in reality the big guys are getting screwed because >> they pay more for the same service the small guys get. >> >> As you so strongly promote in other posts, IPs are not property so you are >> not "buying" them. Cost per IP has nothing to do with it. It's the >> registration services. >> >> You really seem to have an axe to grind about everything. Have you ever >> considered therapy or maybe crack? Maybe you just need a good woman... or >> man if that's what you're into. (Not judging anyone) I hope the rest of >> your life is happier than it seems to be here. >> > > Aaron - > > ARIN has multiple services, and the variable costs of providing > them varies depending on the particular service. > > For example, the cost of an entry in WHOIS is relatively constant, > regardless of whether its reflecting a /20 in IPv4 or /32 IPv6... > > For comparison, the cost of processing an request for assignment > of an additional AS number is very low, and whereas the effort > to process a request for an additional IPv4 or IPv6 allocation > can be very, very large, depending on the size of the previous > allocation and organization of the request supporting materials. > It may be a transaction cost rather than registration services > subscription model is a more appropriate mechanism, but that is > not presently how ARIN charges. > > We're working on a more granular understanding of these costs, > so we can evolve the fee schedule towards equitable recovery. > I expect to have more information on possible cost recovery > models at the Fall ARIN meeting this year. > > One more item: > > If you are going to continue to discuss these matters > on ARIN's mailing lists, you must cease postings > containing "personal character attacks" and/or postings > which "show disrespect for other participants". Refer > to the ARIN Mailing List AUP if needed, available here: > > > Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DigiLink_esig_logo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23605 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Feb 4 19:20:30 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:20:30 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6B5703.9010907@digilink.net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> <08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> <090101caa5e3$df46aa70$9dd3ff50$@net> <26782948-37B8-4306-AE06-4CA02508E45F@arin.net> <4B6B5703.9010907@digilink.net> Message-ID: <5196084E-5CD0-490F-AD42-0C791E8528E5@arin.net> On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Bob Atkins wrote: John, If I may interject. Your statement: '...whereas the effort to process a request for an additional IPv4 or IPv6 allocation can be very, very large, depending on the size of the previous allocation and organization of the request supporting materials.' Is way over the top in regards to IPv6 allocations. The cost for an IPv6 allocation is about as close to $0 as one can get from a management standpoint. The sheer magnitude of available IPv6 address space is such that if all you had was an automated website without any form of controls - we would all be long dead before even a small portion of the IPv6 address space had been delegated - even if you had practically every person on planet earth applying for space. For initial allocations, I agree 100%. The criteria for an *initial* IPv6 allocation are quite modest, and hence it should relatively simply to process and assign. Generally, I am pleased with the IPv6 allocation fees being waived currently - it is quite simply why we applied for an IPv6 block. However, when I look at what is being proposed for IPv6 address charges - they are outrageous when you take into consideration that IPv6 is a virtually unlimited resource. IPv6 is a license for ARIN to print money. We are all going to be operating with IPv4 and IPv6 address space for a long time - that very fact will substantially increase ARIN's revenue based on the current fee structure. As a small ISP I find this very fact very troubling. Just as the market is eating itself alive from competitive pressure - when we must spend more in ARIN fees, equipment and training to deploy IPv6 and it will be virtually impossible to for us to recover any additional revenue from the use and delegation (to our customers) of IPv6 space. ARIN is maintaining what I call an IPv4 scarcity fee structure for IPv6 space which is totally at odds with the monumental amount of address space that is available. Given the size of the IPv6 allocations, and present need-basis requirements that must be assessed before an *additional* allocation, it is quite likely that an ISP that comes in with an *additional* allocation request would presently need to supply a very significant amount of documentation that would need to be reviewed. I'm not saying this is "good" or "bad", but simply reflects what actions ARIN will need to take based on present policy. If this is recovered via ongoing fee schedule, then everyone will pay their share regardless of whether they make additional IPv6 requests or not. If it is transaction-based, then just the party asking for the additional block will be paying for those costs. IPv6 fees for a /32 should be about $100/year - at most! Larger blocks could be sold on an economy of scale basis rather than a linear multiplier of the cost of a /32 block. The entire process should be fully automated - requiring minimal support staff. An even better solution would be to create some competition in the IPv6 address management arena by allowing the existence of multiple IPv6 registrars in the same way that is done for domain names. One of the reasons that ARIN is investing significantly in automation is precisely to aim for lower costs (and hence lower fees) for those items which can be automated. The current roadmap is available online here: Automation of maintenance will go far in reducing the ongoing costs and allowing fee schedules which meet expectations of the community. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Thu Feb 4 20:06:38 2010 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:06:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6B5703.9010907@digilink.net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> <08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> <090101caa5e3$df46aa70$9dd3ff50$@net> <26782948-37B8-4306-AE06-4CA02508E45F@arin.net> <4B6B5703.9010907@digilink.net> Message-ID: <246460.84503.qm@web63301.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Bob Atkins quotes John Curran: > > '...whereas the effort to process a request for an additional IPv4 or > > IPv6 allocation can be very, very large, depending on the size of the > > previous allocation and organization of the request supporting materials.' > Is way over the top in regards to IPv6 allocations. The cost for an IPv6 > allocation is about as close to $0 as one can get from a management > standpoint. The sheer magnitude of available IPv6 address space is such > that if all you had was an automated website without any form of > controls - we would all be long dead before even a small portion of the > IPv6 address space had been delegated - even if you had practically > every person on planet earth applying for space. A request for an additional IPv6 allocation has to be evaluated against the criteria set by the community for additional IPv6 address space. See https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six52 There was community consensus on this policy. If you think ARIN should evaluate requests for additional IPv6 space based on different criteria, you should submit a policy proposal: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > However, when I look at what is being proposed for IPv6 address > charges - they are outrageous when you take into consideration that > IPv6 is a virtually unlimited resource. Note that organizations paying annual renewal fees for IPv4 allocations pay only the larger of the fees, and that the vast majority of organizations will fit into X-Small or Small, unlike in IPv4. Also note that ARIN operates a number of services for the community. >From a long-ago post of mine: So, what do you get for the money? Not just the benefits of engineering: * IP address (IPv4 and IPv6) space allocation, transfer, and record maintenance * ASN allocation, transfer, and record maintenance * Maintain WHOIS database * Maintain Internet Routing Registry * Maintain reverse DNS * Facilitate the public policy development process, including: o Maintaining mailing lists o Facilitating elections o Holding at least two public policy meetings per year, with remote participation * Publishing, disseminating information * Education and training * Working with other organizations, like the other RIRs and IANA * Outreach to other organizations, like ITU and IGF * Outreach at other industry events, like NANOG, IETF, and various conferences * R&D on potential new services like a RPKI, ARIN Online, etc. (original post at http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-September/011845.html) > An even better solution would be to create some competition in the > IPv6 address management arena by allowing the existence of multiple > IPv6 registrars in the same way that is done for domain names. Switching from finance to engineering. . . You may also be following the debate on PPML about ARIN's role and effect on routing. If everyone can get a /32 (or as many /32s as they request), there would be pressure on network operators to limit the prefixes they would carry. In other words, smaller networks would be unreachable from any network they didn't pay. Sounds bad. The point we choose between "all address allocations should be hierarchical to a single Tier 0" and "everyone should get as many prefixes as they want" is a matter for public policy discussion, preferably on PPML. Competition would only breed a race to the policy bottom. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Feb 4 20:35:09 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:35:09 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <1D52519F-3938-40B9-8D37-2E3DE9A7D59F@akamai.com> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <4B6B3413.1020003@ipinc.net> <1D52519F-3938-40B9-8D37-2E3DE9A7D59F@akamai.com> Message-ID: On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > On Feb 4, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> >> I am not in favor of an across-the-board, non-time limited fee cut. >> >> > As proposed, although the fee cut wouldn't necessarily be time-limited (although I have no opposition to placing a limit on it), since there is a limited amount of time that the LRSA is still being offered, I figured it was inherently limited that way. Something to consider is this might be a good way to encourage both IPv6 uptake _AND_ LRSA signatures, two items which I think are strongly in the community's interest. I think that the fees lost to such an offer will pale in comparison to the benefit to the community. Mostly we're looking at waiving end-user /48 one-time fees. That's $1,250/organization and last I heard only a few hundred organizations had signed the LRSA. > > In the interest of fostering uptake, I agree, it's reasonable to remove roadblocks, but removing roadblocks and increasing the cost of delivering service at the expense of the membership is like implementing a tax. It is in none of our interests. > I'll be surprised if this adds significantly to the cost of delivering service. I suspect that at best it will result in a few dozen additional end-user applications. > I guess we can call this one the Owen Tax. :) > Cute. Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Feb 5 01:45:25 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 22:45:25 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <1CF3F1B5-4461-43A8-A525-5380DBF16F2F@delong.com> Message-ID: On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Michael Lambert wrote: > On 4 Feb 2010, at 16:00, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> For any new resources you would have to sign the current RSA. >> >> The proposal here is to allow holders of legacy IPv4 space who sign the LRSA (legacy >> registration services agreement) the opportunity to obtain an IPv6 assignment (which >> would be covered by RSA, not Legacy RSA) from ARIN without paying additional >> fees. > > And I would want to limit the fee waiver to a block no larger than a /32 (with the usual justifications for the space). > Frankly, I'd be surprised if any end-user organization could justify more than a /40, so I have no problem with such a limitation, but, could you explain what scenario you envision would require it? (given that this only applies to end-user assignments and not ISP allocations which already have a 50% fee waiver for IPv6 in place)? Owen > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Fri Feb 5 01:53:58 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 22:53:58 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <08c901caa5de$c58215c0$50864140$@net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> <08c901caa5de$c58215c0$50864140$@net> Message-ID: Aaron, I think your are confusing terms here. Assignments apply to end users. Allocations apply to ISPs/LIRs. If you are an end user and have a legacy assignment, sign an LRSA, you pay $100/year. If you then turn around and get an additional assignment under RSA, you pay whatever initial fee for that additional assignment and continue to pay $100/year for everything. (This includes ASNs as well, btw). This does not include ARIN membership which you can obtain by paying an additional $500/year. If you are an LIR/ISP then the fee structure is more complicated. There are no fees for additional allocations, but, the amount of address space you added in each year is used to determine whether your "usage tier" increases or not. You pay the annual subscription fee for your usage tier, and this includes ARIN membership. Make sense? OK, now that we have all of that clear, the suggestion in question is for entities which have a legacy assignment (end-users) and sign the LRSA, the initial fee ($1250 for a /48, most likely) is waived. They would continue paying $100/year for their IPv4 legacy and IPv6 RSA resources as well as any ASN resources or other RSA resources they may also have. In contrast, there has, for several years, been a fee reduction in place for IPv6 for ISP/LIR organizations which this year is down to a 50% reduction and IIRC drops to 25% next year. Owen On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > Okay, so if I have a legacy assignment and sign an LRSA, then get more IPs and sign an RSA for those I still only pay the $100 a year for everything or do I pay ARIN?s regular fees since I now have an RSA for my new allocation? > > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:03 PM > To: Scott Leibrand > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories > > However, the ongoing maintenance fees for assignments are $100/year which you are already > paying if you signed the LRSA, so, there is actually no additional ongoing cost, either. > > Owen > > On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > > If you have a legacy allocation and need additional number resources from ARIN, you have to sign a regular RSA to get them. The LRSA only covers the legacy resources themselves. So the IPv6 resources this fee waiver suggestion would apply to would be covered by the RSA. It would not be an ongoing distinction, though, as it would only waive the initial assignment fee, not ongoing maintenance fees. > > -Scott > > On 2/4/2010 11:09 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > I have a question on this. > > If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services here? > > Aaron > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:07 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories > > I support Owen?s suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment fees be waived for legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. > > Keith Hare > 192.84.218.0/24 > > ______________________________________________________________ > > Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. > keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road > Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 > Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 > http://www.jcc.com USA > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:39 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories > > I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial > assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed > the LRSA. > > I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate > to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. > > ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee > agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the > matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. > > > Owen > > > Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: > > Owen, > > > This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. > > Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. > > Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. > In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. > > Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. > > ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ********************************************* > > 2010.1 > 01-18-2010 16:58:30 > > ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Fri Feb 5 05:53:10 2010 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 02:53:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> <08c901caa5de$c58215c0$50864140$@net> Message-ID: <47974.52059.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Owen DeLong said: > OK, now that we have all of that clear, the suggestion in > question is for entities which have a legacy assignment > (end-users) and sign the LRSA, the initial fee ($1250 for > a /48, most likely) is waived. They would continue paying > $100/year for their IPv4 legacy and IPv6 RSA resources > as well as any ASN resources or other RSA resources they > may also have. Is there a distinction between end-users and ISPs in legacy address assignments/allocations? I don't know how it might affect opinion on this suggestion, but I would like to point out that the Legacy Registration Services Agreement (LRSA), which defines certain rights for signers, will not be available after June 30, 2010. https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20100115.html If this suggestion were adopted, there would be a limited time for organizations to sign the LRSA, though early signers would still be eligible. > In contrast, there has, for several years, been a fee reduction > in place for IPv6 for ISP/LIR organizations which this year is > down to a 50% reduction and IIRC drops to 25% next year. Yes, you're right: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers Note that organizations issued (or transferred) both IPv4 and IPv6 allocations by ARIN under a single Org ID pay the larger of the two annual renewal fees. Lee On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: Okay, so if I have a legacy assignment and sign an LRSA, then get more IPs and sign an RSA for those I still only pay the $100 a year for everything or do I pay ARIN?s regular fees since I now have an RSA for my new allocation? > > > >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong >Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:03 PM >To: Scott Leibrand >Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories > >However, the ongoing maintenance fees for assignments are $100/year which you are already >paying if you signed the LRSA, so, there is actually no additional ongoing cost, either. > >Owen > >On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > > >If you have a legacy allocation and need additional number resources from ARIN, you have to sign a regular RSA to get them. The LRSA only covers the legacy resources themselves. So the IPv6 resources this fee waiver suggestion would apply to would be covered by the RSA. It would not be an ongoing distinction, though, as it would only waive the initial assignment fee, not ongoing maintenance fees. > >-Scott > >On 2/4/2010 11:09 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: >I have a question on this. > >If I have a legacy allocation do I not have to sign a regular RSA to get resources from ARIN? Do we have 2 classes of IP holders getting services here? > >Aaron > > >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare >Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:07 PM >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories > >I support Owen?s suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment fees be waived for legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. > >Keith Hare >192.84.218.0/24 > >______________________________________________________________ > >Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. >keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road >Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 >Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 >http://www.jcc.com/ USA >______________________________________________________________ > > > >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong >Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:39 PM >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories > >I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial >assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed >the LRSA. > >I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate >to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. > >ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee >agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the >matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. > > >Owen > > >Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: > >Owen, > > >This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. > >Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. > >Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. >In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. > >Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. > >ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. > >Regards, > >Member Services >American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > >********************************************* > >2010.1 >01-18-2010 16:58:30 > >ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 > >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 02/04/10 01:35:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Feb 5 08:22:40 2010 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 13:22:40 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver forIPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580513B8E5@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > I support Owen's suggestion that IPv6 initial assignment > fees be waived for legacy resource holders who have signed the LRSA. I agree. Anything that we can do to get legacy resource holders on board with ARIN is good. We need all network operators to cooperate and participate in ARIN, partly because the IPv6 transition looks like it will be a bumpy ride, and partly because, going forward, being a network operator means being a critical part of the world's economic infrastructure. Note that I did not say communications infrastructure, because when most retail and wholesale commercial transactions depend on the Internet, then we are part of the ECONOMIC infrastructure, much like banks. If we don't want regulation imposed on us, then we all need to cooperate in a forum like ARIN, and for that forum to be taken seriously by legislators, we need to be as close to all-inclusive as we can possibly get. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Feb 5 08:28:19 2010 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 13:28:19 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial FeeWaiverfor IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580513B8F9@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > If you have have pre-arin resources and you DO NOT sign the > agreement, then you get nothing from ARIN. > > What does that do to your status and those pre-ARIN resources > is unclear. It marginalises you. ARIN does not mandate any particular routing practices, but I can see the increasing likelihood that as IPv6 usage grows, many ISPs will be looking to simplify their routing tables and one easy way would be to filter any routes that are not legit in the eyes of the RIRs. > If you do sign the agreement then you are "legit" in ARIN's > eyes and can be a member of the club. And being in the club gives you a say in how you are regulated. Make no mistake, ARIN is becoming as important a regulatory body as the FCC. This is an opportunity for the whole industry to show the rest of the world how it is done. In fact, it would not surprise me to see the FCC, or some parts of it's regulatory activities, be restructured into a similar bottom up, stakeholder managed, self regulatory organization. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Feb 5 08:34:52 2010 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 13:34:52 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial FeeWaiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <007601caa5ce$032a4bb0$097ee310$@com> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580513B916@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > HOW do I get off this list its driving me NUTS!!!!! The best way is to contact the legal/regulatory department within your company and ask them to take on the responsibility of monitoring and participating in ARIN activities. Then the new person can subscribe here And you can unsubscribe here . For your password, check the reminder email that was last sent to you on Friday the 1st of Feb. The subject line of the password reminder email is as follows: arin.net mailing list memberships reminder Simples, --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Feb 5 08:46:54 2010 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 13:46:54 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580513B947@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > I agree - however ARIN already is HEAVILY stacked in favor of > the large holders. Check out the cost-per-IP address, it > drops like a rock as the number of IP addresses you obtain > from ARIN grows. > > Since we are already stacked in favor of the large holders, > adjusting the initial fee to bear more heavily on the large > holders as I advise actually brings ARIN to LESS of a point > of favoring one segment of address holders over another. Are you nuts? He who pays the piper calls the tune. If we "adjusted" fees so that the members with the biggest allocations paid a fee per IP address, then a few large organizations would control ARIN to their benefit. All other ISPs would get table scraps if anything. In fact, they will probably just eliminate the small fry altogether. Talk about serving up your own head on a platter... > A blanket fee waiver continues to bias the costs more towards > the smaller orgs with less numbers, which is what you claim > you want to avoid - your logic is highly inconsistent here. > > Either you just don't realize the cost issues involved or > your being disingenuous. There are no cost issues. ARIN has enough money. ARIN can afford to waive IPv6 fees for LRSA signers precisely because there are no material cost and funding issues. However, what ARIN does need are more members with legacy resources in order to ensure that all stakeholders are represented in the organization. --Michael Dillon From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Fri Feb 5 10:01:39 2010 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:01:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial FeeWaiverfor IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580513B8F9@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580513B8F9@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <301199.25319.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Michael Dillon said: > > If you do sign the agreement then you are "legit" in ARIN's > > eyes and can be a member of the club. > And being in the club gives you a say in how you are regulated. You do not have to sign an RSA (or LRSA) to participate in the policy development process. You have to subscribe to PPML, and/or attend Public Policy Meetings. https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/index.html https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/index.html Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bob at FiberInternetCenter.com Fri Feb 5 10:16:27 2010 From: bob at FiberInternetCenter.com (bob at FiberInternetCenter.com) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:16:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580513B947@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemh ost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580513B947@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <57607.75.36.132.23.1265382987.squirrel@bobevans.net> >> I agree - however ARIN already is HEAVILY stacked in favor of >> the large holders. Check out the cost-per-IP address, it >> drops like a rock as the number of IP addresses you obtain >> from ARIN grows. You bring up a point that members often wonder about every time they type ARIN.net in a browser. I see that you are correct that IP address overall costs are lower when an organization uses more...but that at doesn't "stack" anything related to control and your ability to obtain more addresses. As one's vote doesnt count more or less in relationship to ip address space used. An organization with a /20 gets the same vote weight as a member with several /18s. If I am wrong about that - "Someone please tell me how the votes are stacked". I think the fees for IPv6 shall continue to be waived...and then explored again in 12 or 24 months. bob evans From bob at digilink.net Fri Feb 5 14:50:17 2010 From: bob at digilink.net (Bob Atkins) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:50:17 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <5196084E-5CD0-490F-AD42-0C791E8528E5@arin.net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> <08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> <090101caa5e3$df46aa70$9dd3ff50$@net> <26782948-37B8-4306-AE06-4CA02508E45F@arin.net> <4B6B5703.9010907@digilink.net> <5196084E-5CD0-490F-AD42-0C791E8528E5@arin.net> Message-ID: <4B6C7679.7040709@digilink.net> John, John Curran wrote: > On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Bob Atkins wrote: > >> Generally, I am pleased with the IPv6 allocation fees being waived >> currently - it is quite simply why we applied for an IPv6 block. >> However, when I look at what is being proposed for IPv6 address >> charges - they are outrageous when you take into consideration that >> IPv6 is a virtually unlimited resource. IPv6 is a license for ARIN to >> print money. We are all going to be operating with IPv4 and IPv6 >> address space for a /_*long*_/ time - that very fact will >> substantially increase ARIN's revenue based on the current fee >> structure. As a small ISP I find this very fact very troubling. Just >> as the market is eating itself alive from competitive pressure - when >> we must spend more in ARIN fees, equipment and training to deploy >> IPv6 and it will be virtually impossible to for us to recover any >> additional revenue from the use and delegation (to our customers) of >> IPv6 space. ARIN is maintaining what I call an >> IPv4 /_*scarcity*_/ fee structure for IPv6 space which is totally at >> odds with the monumental amount of address space that is available. > > Given the size of the IPv6 allocations, and present need-basis > requirements that must be assessed before an *additional* > allocation, it is quite likely that an ISP that comes in with an > *additional* allocation request would presently need to supply > a very significant amount of documentation that would need > to be reviewed. I'm not saying this is "good" or "bad", but > simply reflects what actions ARIN will need to take based on > present policy. If this is recovered via ongoing fee schedule, > then everyone will pay their share regardless of whether they > make additional IPv6 requests or not. If it is transaction-based, > then just the party asking for the additional block will be paying > for those costs. Given the enormous amount of IPv6 address space that is available I don't understand why there would be the need for a rigorous, IPv4 level of review, which you seem to imply the need for a significant amount of staff to handle such reviews. I would think that basic delegation analysis would likely suffice and I do understand that some personnel are necessary. However, its not like doling out another /32 to /22 IPv6 allocation is going to have much of an impact on the reserves of IPv6 space. With our /32 IPv6 allocation, I don't expect to need another IPv6 allocation until we have grown about 1000 times larger than we are which, (sadly) is unlikely to occur in my lifetime. :-( I suspect that this would be the case for virtually all regional ISPs the world over leaving just a handful of very large telcos that may need another allocation after their initial /22 - perhaps by the year 2150... ;-) Given the existing 'standard' that almost 99% of enterprise customers have of using NAT for IPv4 based on the 'security' benefits that NAT offers - we rarely assign much more than a /29 of IPv4 space to our enterprise customers. The typical IT geek is often horrified by the idea of having 'real' IP address space internally. While we ISPs are being asked to head down the IPv6 path, I find it likely that we may end up using _/*microscopic*/_/_**_/ amounts of it assigned to customer router interfaces that just want to NAT everything internally to private IPv4 space. I don't think I'm alone in this observation and I really think that it may be /_*decades*_/ before IPv6 utilization rises to the level of present day IPv4 utilization so I kinda doubt there are going to be very many additional IPv6 allocation requests any time in the next say, 20 or 30 years. > >> IPv6 fees for a /32 should be about $100/year - at most! Larger >> blocks could be sold on an economy of scale basis rather than a >> linear multiplier of the cost of a /32 block. The entire process >> should be fully automated - requiring minimal support staff. An even >> better solution would be to create some competition in the IPv6 >> address management arena by allowing the existence of multiple IPv6 >> registrars in the same way that is done for domain names. > > One of the reasons that ARIN is investing significantly > in automation is precisely to aim for lower costs (and > hence lower fees) for those items which can be > automated. The current roadmap is available online > here: > Automation of maintenance will go far in reducing the > ongoing costs and allowing fee schedules which meet > expectations of the community. Thanks - its good to see this happening. > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN -- *Bob Atkins * /President/CEO/ *DigiLink, Inc. * Business Inter-net-working */The Cure for the Common ISP!/* Phone: (310) 577-9450 Fax: (310) 577-3360 eMail: bob at digilink.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DigiLink_esig_logo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23605 bytes Desc: not available URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Fri Feb 5 14:59:45 2010 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:59:45 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6C7679.7040709@digilink.net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <668dd2039c45a15fc5a65b1274debf6b4b6b1ace@jcc.com> <084201caa5cd$a36b5700$ea420500$@net> <4B6B23C5.2070102@gmail.com> <3FA3ADC3-1214-4342-A42F-F07B412AB96A@delong.com> <08e601caa5e0$6bb7deb0$43279c10$@net> <4B6B3D82.8080105@ipinc.net> <090101caa5e3$df46aa70$9dd3ff50$@net> <26782948-37B8-4306-AE06-4CA02508E45F@arin.net> <4B6B5703.9010907@digilink.net> <5196084E-5CD0-490F-AD42-0C791E8528E5@arin.net> <4B6C7679.7040709@digilink.net> Message-ID: <4B6C78B1.4000609@gmail.com> On 2/5/2010 11:50 AM, Bob Atkins wrote: > Given the enormous amount of IPv6 address space that is available I > don't understand why there would be the need for a rigorous, IPv4 > level of review, which you seem to imply the need for a significant > amount of staff to handle such reviews. I would think that basic > delegation analysis would likely suffice and I do understand that some > personnel are necessary. However, its not like doling out another /32 > to /22 IPv6 allocation is going to have much of an impact on the > reserves of IPv6 space. > > With our /32 IPv6 allocation, I don't expect to need another IPv6 > allocation until we have grown about 1000 times larger than we are > which, (sadly) is unlikely to occur in my lifetime. :-( I suspect > that this would be the case for virtually all regional ISPs the world > over leaving just a handful of very large telcos that may need another > allocation after their initial /22 - perhaps by the year 2150... ;-) > > Given the existing 'standard' that almost 99% of enterprise customers > have of using NAT for IPv4 based on the 'security' benefits that NAT > offers - we rarely assign much more than a /29 of IPv4 space to our > enterprise customers. The typical IT geek is often horrified by the > idea of having 'real' IP address space internally. While we ISPs are > being asked to head down the IPv6 path, I find it likely that we may > end up using _/*microscopic*/_ amounts of it assigned to customer > router interfaces that just want to NAT everything internally to > private IPv4 space. I don't think I'm alone in this observation and I > really think that it may be /_*decades*_/ before IPv6 utilization > rises to the level of present day IPv4 utilization so I kinda doubt > there are going to be very many additional IPv6 allocation requests > any time in the next say, 20 or 30 years. Bob (and everyone else), If you're not already, I would encourage you to participate in the public policy process, which sets the policy (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six) for how rigorous the requirements are for getting IPv6 space. There are a number of policy proposals and draft policies under consideration (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/) that would simplify those requirements. Your participation (https://www.arin.net/participate/how_to_participate.html) would be highly valuable in considering whether to adopt those changes, and for considering any other policy ideas you might have. Thanks, Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Feb 5 15:57:25 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:57:25 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <4B6B3413.1020003@ipinc.net> <1D52519F-3938-40B9-8D37-2E3DE9A7D59F@akamai.com> Message-ID: <4B6C8635.7070900@ipinc.net> Owen DeLong wrote: > On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> On Feb 4, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >>> I am not in favor of an across-the-board, non-time limited fee >>> cut. >>> >>> > As proposed, although the fee cut wouldn't necessarily be > time-limited (although I have no opposition to placing a limit on > it), since there is a limited amount of time that the LRSA is still > being offered, I figured it was inherently limited that way. > It's always risky to not be explicit and create dependencies like this that are not spelled out. If you want the cut to be dependent on the LRSA then say that, otherwise if the LSRA were to be modified by a future policy proposal to be permanent, then the fee cut is now without an expiration. If you want the fee cut to be limited to the current LSRA expiration date then put duplicate the expiration language in the LSRA in your suggestion. By saying nothing your intentions are not known and then anything can happen. I'll get off my soapbox now. :-) > Something to consider is this might be a good way to encourage both > IPv6 uptake _AND_ LRSA signatures, two items which I think are > strongly in the community's interest. I think that the fees lost to > such an offer will pale in comparison to the benefit to the > community. Mostly we're looking at waiving end-user /48 one-time > fees. That's $1,250/organization and last I heard only a few hundred > organizations had signed the LRSA. > I don't know if it will encourage it or not, it might. Like you, I also think that not a lot of orgs will take advantage of it so the impact isn't going to be significant. It's probably not going to be significant enough to be able to track if it's effective or not, so as long as it's got some time and size limits on it we can probably just assume it will have some effect and that it's a Good Thing and just do it. >> I guess we can call this one the Owen Tax. wouldn't that be "Owen tax writeoff" ;-) Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Feb 5 17:02:06 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580513B947@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580513B947@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <4B6C955E.8080000@ipinc.net> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> I agree - however ARIN already is HEAVILY stacked in favor of >> the large holders. Check out the cost-per-IP address, it >> drops like a rock as the number of IP addresses you obtain >> from ARIN grows. >> >> Since we are already stacked in favor of the large holders, >> adjusting the initial fee to bear more heavily on the large >> holders as I advise actually brings ARIN to LESS of a point >> of favoring one segment of address holders over another. > > Are you nuts? He who pays the piper calls the tune. > If we "adjusted" fees so that the members with the biggest > allocations paid a fee per IP address, then a few large > organizations would control ARIN to their benefit. All other > ISPs would get table scraps if anything. In fact, they will > probably just eliminate the small fry altogether. > And immediately run afoul of the Sherman anti-trust laws (at least in the US) and anti-trust laws elsewhere. Why do you think that Microsoft injected 100 million into Apple a few years ago when Apple was about ready to tank? Apple is a competitor of theirs!!! The large players in any industry have discovered over the last 50 years that when you try a scorched earth policy, the governments will kill you, or come very close to. Microsoft learned that when the DoJ came within inches of splitting the company in half, that is why years later they were propping up their competitor. The other think the large players have learned is that they are a lot better at marketing than at creating. They need the small companies out there to act as "skunkworks" for new ideas. Every year there are hundreds of small companies who create new products and only a handful of those new products ever catch on - whereupon they are immediately purchased by the large companies, who then turn around and market them to the world and make a mint. It's much cheaper than the large companies running their own R&D. Name me ONE innovation in the last 10 years on the Internet of any consequence that started at a large ISP instead of a VC-funded startup or small org. Name me FIVE Internet companies in the last 10 years who started in a garage and are the size of Google now. You'll find it very hard to do because the Internet has operated as a professional market for at least a decade now. You have to go back in time when the Internet was operating like an amateur club to find innovations that were born in a garage and grown into huge companies. > Talk about serving up your own head on a platter... > Not at all. The large companies need the small companies for innovations, the small companies need the large companies to force customers into a standardized market. It is a symbiotic relationship. Have you ever wondered why milk all over the US is either 1%, 2% or 3.8% fat? Why not sell milk that is 2.5% fat or 5% fat? It is because the large players all agreed on the standards, and they did it so that when a company manufactures a food product with milk in it, they are assured that the ingredient is unchanged from month to month, so they are not having to fiddle with their recipies all the time. IPv6 is just such an example, it's why anyone proposing an "extended IPv4" or some such is quashed - the large players decided to standardize on IPv6 so that's where we are going. It wasn't that an "extended IPv4" wouldn't work, it probably would. It's because everyone on the Internet needs a unified standard so years ago back in a smoke-filled room a bunch of network wonks smoking ceegars decided that we are gonna put the Internet on IPv6, and the check-signers running large companies may not know the difference between IPv6 and IPv4 but they know they need a standard. > >> A blanket fee waiver continues to bias the costs more towards >> the smaller orgs with less numbers, which is what you claim >> you want to avoid - your logic is highly inconsistent here. >> >> Either you just don't realize the cost issues involved or >> your being disingenuous. > > There are no cost issues. ARIN has enough money. ARIN can afford > to waive IPv6 fees for LRSA signers precisely because there are > no material cost and funding issues. > For small ones, yes. I'm not disputing that. > However, what ARIN does need are more members with legacy resources > in order to ensure that all stakeholders are represented in the > organization. > And the large orgs with large legacy IPv4 allocations who need the giant IPv6 allocations do not need any monetary incentive to go to IPv6 since they know they need to go there for the reasons I just outlined. Thus, there is no reason to hand it to them for free since they have plenty of incentive already. You yourself have argued before that the large orgs are the ones who need IPv6 due to subnet mathematics so why on earth are you arguing that they need "extra" incentive like a fee waiver? geeze! Ted > --Michael Dillon > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From kreg at directcom.com Fri Feb 5 17:12:12 2010 From: kreg at directcom.com (Kreg Roenfeldt) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:12:12 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6C955E.8080000@ipinc.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580513B947@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <4B6C955E.8080000@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <4B6C97BC.60505@directcom.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Feb 5 17:14:43 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:14:43 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <57607.75.36.132.23.1265382987.squirrel@bobevans.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580513B947@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <57607.75.36.132.23.1265382987.squirrel@bobevans.net> Message-ID: <4B6C9853.30903@ipinc.net> bob at FiberInternetCenter.com wrote: >>> I agree - however ARIN already is HEAVILY stacked in favor of >>> the large holders. Check out the cost-per-IP address, it >>> drops like a rock as the number of IP addresses you obtain >>> from ARIN grows. > > You bring up a point that members often wonder about every time they type > ARIN.net in a browser. > > I see that you are correct that IP address overall costs are lower when an > organization uses more...but that at doesn't "stack" anything related to > control and your ability to obtain more addresses. As one's vote doesnt > count more or less in relationship to ip address space used. An > organization with a /20 gets the same vote weight as a member with several > /18s. > > If I am wrong about that - "Someone please tell me how the votes are > stacked". > I didn't say votes. I said ARIN. ARIN is an operational cost for all ISPs with direct assignments (ie: all ISPs and Internet-connected orgs of any significant size) it is a required cost. That isn't the problem. The problem is that it is a cost burden that is unevenly applied to the ISP industry, and it falls most heavily on those with less IP numbering. If you really wanted to be fair then ARIN fees would be logrithmic for every allocation of IP addresses. The reason why is that most of the expense incurred by ARIN is for making allocations of IP numbers. ARIN incurs little expense for orgs who are not obtaining allocations but are just using what they have. In other words, if you obtained a /20 the first year you would pay $1000. The second year you held the /20 you would pay $900, the third year you would pay $800 and so on until the cost dropped to some small maintainence fee like say $400. If you got an additional /20 you would then pay $1400, then the next year $1300, and so on and so on until it leveled off at $800. I understand that few billing systems work like this which is why they aren't doing it. But, I'm not asking for a flat fee-per-IP across the board, either. It is just the discrepancy on a per-IP basis for the smallest orgs and the largest orgs is enormous. ISP's do not receive more revenue from customers just because they are smaller and have fewer IP addresses. Ted From owen at delong.com Fri Feb 5 19:35:57 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:35:57 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6C8635.7070900@ipinc.net> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <4B6B3413.1020003@ipinc.net> <1D52519F-3938-40B9-8D37-2E3DE9A7D59F@akamai.com> <4B6C8635.7070900@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>>> I am not in favor of an across-the-board, non-time limited fee >>>> cut. >> As proposed, although the fee cut wouldn't necessarily be >> time-limited (although I have no opposition to placing a limit on >> it), since there is a limited amount of time that the LRSA is still >> being offered, I figured it was inherently limited that way. > > It's always risky to not be explicit and create dependencies like > this that are not spelled out. > > If you want the cut to be dependent on the LRSA then say that, otherwise > if the LSRA were to be modified by a future policy proposal to be > permanent, then the fee cut is now without an expiration. > The suggestion was to offer the cut to legacy holders that signed an LRSA. It doesn't get more explicit than that in my mind. I wasn't explicit about an expiration date because it hadn't occurred to me that one might be desirable (being as this is a cut of a one-time fee, not a recurring fee). However, I was attempting to point out that there was also somewhat of an inherent limit in the other combination of factors. > If you want the fee cut to be limited to the current LSRA expiration > date then put duplicate the expiration language in the LSRA in your > suggestion. > I don't care whether it is time limited or not. > By saying nothing your intentions are not known and then anything can > happen. > I tend not to say anything if I am indifferent until someone else brings up the subject. As I said, I don't care if it is time limited or not. If a time limit makes it more palatable to people I have no objection. Owen From joelja at bogus.com Fri Feb 5 20:47:21 2010 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:47:21 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories Message-ID: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> I'm surprised that the economists haven't weighed in on this proposal. At first glance I'm completely unclear on what benefit to deployment offering LRSA holders ipv6 prefixes achives. The existence of LRSA holders without ipv6 prefixes is a gating condition for what ipv6 deployment milestone? Owen DeLong wrote: > >On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>>>> I am not in favor of an across-the-board, non-time limited fee >>>>> cut. >>> As proposed, although the fee cut wouldn't necessarily be >>> time-limited (although I have no opposition to placing a limit on >>> it), since there is a limited amount of time that the LRSA is still >>> being offered, I figured it was inherently limited that way. >> >> It's always risky to not be explicit and create dependencies like >> this that are not spelled out. >> >> If you want the cut to be dependent on the LRSA then say that, otherwise >> if the LSRA were to be modified by a future policy proposal to be >> permanent, then the fee cut is now without an expiration. >> >The suggestion was to offer the cut to legacy holders that signed an LRSA. It doesn't >get more explicit than that in my mind. I wasn't explicit about an expiration date because >it hadn't occurred to me that one might be desirable (being as this is a cut of a one-time >fee, not a recurring fee). However, I was attempting to point out that there was also >somewhat of an inherent limit in the other combination of factors. > >> If you want the fee cut to be limited to the current LSRA expiration >> date then put duplicate the expiration language in the LSRA in your >> suggestion. >> >I don't care whether it is time limited or not. > >> By saying nothing your intentions are not known and then anything can >> happen. >> >I tend not to say anything if I am indifferent until someone else brings up the >subject. As I said, I don't care if it is time limited or not. If a time limit makes it >more palatable to people I have no objection. > >Owen > >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From tedm at ipinc.net Sat Feb 6 01:50:06 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:50:06 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> Message-ID: <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> The idea is that there's a cloud of legacy holders out there who are NOT LSRA holders at the current time. Being legacy holders, by definition, are IPv4 holders who are paying zilch yearly fees to ARIN, the thought had occurred to Owen that perhaps some of those legacy holders might not be too keen on moving from a status where their networks are running on IPv4 that is free to them, to mixed IPv4 and IPv6 which first of all costs them money, and second of all means they have to sign a LSRA that basically moves them from this legal limbo where ARIN has no control over them, to a defined legal status where ARIN has some control over them (although not enough to start charging them money), and last of all means they will have to start paying a yearly fee. It's like when you are out in the boondocks with a home that is plugged into a well and a septic tank. Your water and sewer costs you nothing, save the electricity to pump the water. You do know enough to know that the water table has been falling in your area for many years and eventually your IPv4 well is going to run dry, but that's likely going to be years in the future. Then one day along comes the city wanting to incorporate you and plug you into their new IPv6 water and septic system. Very likely you would be rather hesitant to want to move from a situation of free water and sewer to a situation of you pay for water and sewer, when your really not going to see much difference. Ted joel jaeggli wrote: > I'm surprised that the economists haven't weighed in on this > proposal. > > At first glance I'm completely unclear on what benefit to deployment > offering LRSA holders ipv6 prefixes achives. The existence of LRSA > holders without ipv6 prefixes is a gating condition for what ipv6 > deployment milestone? > > Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >>> Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>>>>> I am not in favor of an across-the-board, non-time limited >>>>>> fee cut. >>>> As proposed, although the fee cut wouldn't necessarily be >>>> time-limited (although I have no opposition to placing a limit >>>> on it), since there is a limited amount of time that the LRSA >>>> is still being offered, I figured it was inherently limited >>>> that way. >>> It's always risky to not be explicit and create dependencies like >>> this that are not spelled out. >>> >>> If you want the cut to be dependent on the LRSA then say that, >>> otherwise if the LSRA were to be modified by a future policy >>> proposal to be permanent, then the fee cut is now without an >>> expiration. >>> >> The suggestion was to offer the cut to legacy holders that signed >> an LRSA. It doesn't get more explicit than that in my mind. I >> wasn't explicit about an expiration date because it hadn't occurred >> to me that one might be desirable (being as this is a cut of a >> one-time fee, not a recurring fee). However, I was attempting to >> point out that there was also somewhat of an inherent limit in the >> other combination of factors. >> >>> If you want the fee cut to be limited to the current LSRA >>> expiration date then put duplicate the expiration language in the >>> LSRA in your suggestion. >>> >> I don't care whether it is time limited or not. >> >>> By saying nothing your intentions are not known and then anything >>> can happen. >>> >> I tend not to say anything if I am indifferent until someone else >> brings up the subject. As I said, I don't care if it is time >> limited or not. If a time limit makes it more palatable to people I >> have no objection. >> >> Owen >> >> _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You >> are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or >> manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact >> info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> From owen at delong.com Sat Feb 6 03:10:29 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 00:10:29 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <36537569-F44F-4195-BC94-C71911F47DB1@delong.com> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:50 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > The idea is that there's a cloud of legacy holders out there who > are NOT LSRA holders at the current time. Being legacy holders, > by definition, are IPv4 holders who are paying zilch yearly > fees to ARIN, the thought had occurred to Owen that perhaps > some of those legacy holders might not be too keen on moving > from a status where their networks are running on IPv4 that is > free to them, to mixed IPv4 and IPv6 which first of all costs > them money, and second of all means they have to sign a > LSRA that basically moves them from this legal limbo where > ARIN has no control over them, to a defined legal status > where ARIN has some control over them (although not enough > to start charging them money), and last of all means they > will have to start paying a yearly fee. > Um, Ted, you are mistaken here. Those who sign LRSA do pay the annual $100 end user fee. Owen From joelja at bogus.com Sat Feb 6 03:36:32 2010 From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli) Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:36:32 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> If you're the holder of legacy assignments, that you haven't brought under an LRSA by now or have an RSA, having secured additional assignments since 1997, what's the motivation to do so now? it's pretty clear that you are signaling either: That you don't/haven't needed additional assignments. That you have not intention of doing so. If as legacy resource holder you happen to like the terms you got pre-1997 that's great but when you secure new resources you should do so on todays terms rather than create a new class of entity for those folks. I doubt very much that a mass of legacy holders that want ipv6 prefixes but have yet to consider securing them due to cost are retarding the progress of ipv6 deployment. Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > The idea is that there's a cloud of legacy holders out there who > are NOT LSRA holders at the current time. Being legacy holders, > by definition, are IPv4 holders who are paying zilch yearly > fees to ARIN, the thought had occurred to Owen that perhaps > some of those legacy holders might not be too keen on moving > from a status where their networks are running on IPv4 that is > free to them, to mixed IPv4 and IPv6 which first of all costs > them money, and second of all means they have to sign a > LSRA that basically moves them from this legal limbo where > ARIN has no control over them, to a defined legal status > where ARIN has some control over them (although not enough > to start charging them money), and last of all means they > will have to start paying a yearly fee. > > It's like when you are out in the boondocks with a home that > is plugged into a well and a septic tank. Your water and > sewer costs you nothing, save the electricity to pump the > water. You do know enough to know that the water table has > been falling in your area for many years and eventually your > IPv4 well is going to run dry, but that's likely going to be > years in the future. Then one day along comes the city wanting > to incorporate you and plug you into their new IPv6 water and > septic system. Very likely you would be rather hesitant to > want to move from a situation of free water and sewer to a > situation of you pay for water and sewer, when your really not > going to see much difference. > > Ted > > joel jaeggli wrote: >> I'm surprised that the economists haven't weighed in on this >> proposal. >> >> At first glance I'm completely unclear on what benefit to deployment >> offering LRSA holders ipv6 prefixes achives. The existence of LRSA >> holders without ipv6 prefixes is a gating condition for what ipv6 >> deployment milestone? >> >> Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>> >>>> Owen DeLong wrote: >>>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>>>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>>>>>> I am not in favor of an across-the-board, non-time limited >>>>>>> fee cut. >>>>> As proposed, although the fee cut wouldn't necessarily be >>>>> time-limited (although I have no opposition to placing a limit >>>>> on it), since there is a limited amount of time that the LRSA >>>>> is still being offered, I figured it was inherently limited >>>>> that way. >>>> It's always risky to not be explicit and create dependencies like >>>> this that are not spelled out. >>>> >>>> If you want the cut to be dependent on the LRSA then say that, >>>> otherwise if the LSRA were to be modified by a future policy >>>> proposal to be permanent, then the fee cut is now without an >>>> expiration. >>>> >>> The suggestion was to offer the cut to legacy holders that signed >>> an LRSA. It doesn't get more explicit than that in my mind. I >>> wasn't explicit about an expiration date because it hadn't occurred >>> to me that one might be desirable (being as this is a cut of a >>> one-time fee, not a recurring fee). However, I was attempting to >>> point out that there was also somewhat of an inherent limit in the >>> other combination of factors. >>> >>>> If you want the fee cut to be limited to the current LSRA >>>> expiration date then put duplicate the expiration language in the >>>> LSRA in your suggestion. >>>> >>> I don't care whether it is time limited or not. >>> >>>> By saying nothing your intentions are not known and then anything >>>> can happen. >>>> >>> I tend not to say anything if I am indifferent until someone else >>> brings up the subject. As I said, I don't care if it is time >>> limited or not. If a time limit makes it more palatable to people I >>> have no objection. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You >>> are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >>> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or >>> manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact >>> info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> > From Keith at jcc.com Sat Feb 6 21:43:44 2010 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 21:43:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> Message-ID: Joel Jaeggli wrote: >If you're the holder of legacy assignments, that you haven't brought under an >LRSA by now or have an RSA, having secured additional assignments since 1997, >what's the motivation to do so now The LRSA has only been available since November, 2007 -- a bit over two years. Prior to the LRSA, there was not an easy way for a holder of legacy assignments to sign an RSA. This suggestion is another nudge to get legacy resources under some sort of agreement and to promote adoption of IPv6. If this is not enough motivation to get a legacy resource holder to sign up, then it costs ARIN nothing. If this prompts a number of additional legacy resource holders to sign an LRSA and to start moving to IPv6 (with an RSA), it is a fee waiver well spent. Keith Hare From owen at delong.com Mon Feb 8 10:58:20 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:58:20 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> Message-ID: <358914D3-795B-4679-822F-6FB4DB7D5650@delong.com> On Feb 6, 2010, at 12:36 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > If you're the holder of legacy assignments, that you haven't brought > under an LRSA by now or have an RSA, having secured additional > assignments since 1997, what's the motivation to do so now? it's pretty > clear that you are signaling either: > > That you don't/haven't needed additional assignments. > > That you have not intention of doing so. > > If as legacy resource holder you happen to like the terms you got > pre-1997 that's great but when you secure new resources you should do so > on todays terms rather than create a new class of entity for those folks. > I'm not proposing creating any new terms other than waiving a one-time fee of $1250. They would still be expected to qualify for their IPv6 resources under current ARIN policy, sign the current ARIN RSA for their IPv6 resources, and, follow the same rules for any new IPv4 or ASN resources they choose to seek. They would still pay the same annual fee for their resources as anyone else. Owen From bicknell at ufp.org Mon Feb 8 11:13:35 2010 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:13:35 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <358914D3-795B-4679-822F-6FB4DB7D5650@delong.com> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> <358914D3-795B-4679-822F-6FB4DB7D5650@delong.com> Message-ID: <20100208161335.GA17380@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 07:58:20AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > I'm not proposing creating any new terms other than waiving a one-time > fee of $1250. They would still be expected to qualify for their IPv6 resources > under current ARIN policy, sign the current ARIN RSA for their IPv6 > resources, and, follow the same rules for any new IPv4 or ASN resources > they choose to seek. They would still pay the same annual fee for their > resources as anyone else. Qualify, as in section 6.5.8.1, right. As long as your not an IPv6 LIR, and you can show you've used your IPv4 efficiently (section 4.3.3, 50%) you get IPv6. So a small entity/individual who received an IPv4 "Class C" back in the days when they were actually Class C's need show only that they have used 50% of that space, which means they only need to address 64 devices (so that a /25 is required as the subnet size, and thus 50%) and they get an IPv6 /48, which with your suggestion would be free. In theory even, since 4.3.3 allows 25% day one, and 50% in one year you could even aruge you have 32 devices now, allocate a /26 to them as a result, meeting 25%, and "promise" to expand within a year. I have a lot of trouble giving anyone with 64 devices a cost free slot in the DFZ. If ARIN's policies now are holding up IPv6 deployment then we have a much, much bigger issue. I think you could propose a policy where you paid people $1250 to deploy IPv6 and it wouldn't make a hill of beans worth of difference. It's happening where it needs to happen, at the rate it needs to happen. We need to stop trying to goose it along and let it unfold. But, to be clear, I don't want my orgs registration fees going to subsidize legacy holders getting IPv6 space. That's what happens when they don't pay the initial allocation fee, but someone still has to pay for the staff time. I don't think it's good for the DFZ, I don't think it's good for the dynamics between the legacy holders and non-legacy holders. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Feb 8 11:26:36 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:26:36 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <20100208161335.GA17380@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> <358914D3-795B-4679-822F-6FB4DB7D5650@delong.com> <20100208161335.GA17380@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <8A61C112-4451-407B-AAE1-85508F60CE27@delong.com> On Feb 8, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 07:58:20AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I'm not proposing creating any new terms other than waiving a one-time >> fee of $1250. They would still be expected to qualify for their IPv6 resources >> under current ARIN policy, sign the current ARIN RSA for their IPv6 >> resources, and, follow the same rules for any new IPv4 or ASN resources >> they choose to seek. They would still pay the same annual fee for their >> resources as anyone else. > > Qualify, as in section 6.5.8.1, right. > Presumably, yes. > As long as your not an IPv6 LIR, and you can show you've used your > IPv4 efficiently (section 4.3.3, 50%) you get IPv6. > Correct. > So a small entity/individual who received an IPv4 "Class C" back > in the days when they were actually Class C's need show only that > they have used 50% of that space, which means they only need to > address 64 devices (so that a /25 is required as the subnet size, > and thus 50%) and they get an IPv6 /48, which with your suggestion > would be free. > Well, the initial assignment would be free. They'd still pay annual maintenance. Right... The only thing new here being that they get the /48 without paying a one-time $1250 fee. The rest is existing policy. > In theory even, since 4.3.3 allows 25% day one, and 50% in one year > you could even aruge you have 32 devices now, allocate a /26 to > them as a result, meeting 25%, and "promise" to expand within a > year. > Since we're only talking about legacy here, it's pretty hard to buy into that since by definition all legacy assignments are WELL over one year old (more than 10 years old, as a matter of fact). > I have a lot of trouble giving anyone with 64 devices a cost free > slot in the DFZ. > But they already have one in IPv4 and are allowed to keep it without paying even annual fees to ARIN if they choose not to sign the LRSA. Finally, ARIN doesn't give out DFZ slots, ISPs do, so, this argument is specious from the start. Personally, I think the benefit of getting legacy holders to accept and deploy IPv6 and sign the LRSA far outweighs the one-time $1250 that ARIN would be giving up. > If ARIN's policies now are holding up IPv6 deployment then we have > a much, much bigger issue. I think you could propose a policy where > you paid people $1250 to deploy IPv6 and it wouldn't make a hill > of beans worth of difference. It's happening where it needs to > happen, at the rate it needs to happen. We need to stop trying to > goose it along and let it unfold. > I don't think policies are holding up deployment and this isn't an attempt to alter policy. However, if you really think this won't make a difference, then, why are you so convinced it will do harm? Owen From bicknell at ufp.org Mon Feb 8 11:42:14 2010 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:42:14 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <8A61C112-4451-407B-AAE1-85508F60CE27@delong.com> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> <358914D3-795B-4679-822F-6FB4DB7D5650@delong.com> <20100208161335.GA17380@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <8A61C112-4451-407B-AAE1-85508F60CE27@delong.com> Message-ID: <20100208164214.GA20174@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 08:26:36AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > > I have a lot of trouble giving anyone with 64 devices a cost free > > slot in the DFZ. > > > But they already have one in IPv4 and are allowed to keep it without > paying even annual fees to ARIN if they choose not to sign the LRSA. This is giving them a new slot, in the IPv6 DFZ. Now, if you wanted to propose a program where an IPv4 legacy holder could return their IPv4 block to the free pool in exchange for getting an IPv6 block, then there might be enough benefit to community to make a fee waver a good idea. > However, if you really think this won't make a difference, then, why > are you so convinced it will do harm? I already said in my last message, I don't think it's fair to ask all other ARIN fee payers to subsidize a legacy holder getting an IPv6 block. The staff time to review the request is not free. I think the rest of ARIN has already been giving them a free ride for way too long, and the last thing we need to do is extend that in new directions. What is in this proposal for all the people who've been paying fees for the last 10 years, and paid their $1250 to get IPv6? You just said it wasn't to expand IPv6 development, so what does everyone else get out of this? A warm fuzzy feeling? -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ From Keith at jcc.com Mon Feb 8 14:21:53 2010 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:21:53 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <20100208164214.GA20174@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> <358914D3-795B-4679-822F-6FB4DB7D5650@delong.com> <20100208161335.GA17380@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <8A61C112-4451-407B-AAE1-85508F60CE27@delong.com> <20100208164214.GA20174@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <9aa5bff11ce1fa04c694dd2686fc6af74b70646b@jcc.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell > Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 11:42 AM > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for > IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories > > In a message written on Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 08:26:36AM -0800, Owen > DeLong wrote: > > > I have a lot of trouble giving anyone with 64 devices a cost free > > > slot in the DFZ. > > > > > But they already have one in IPv4 and are allowed to keep it without > > paying even annual fees to ARIN if they choose not to sign the LRSA. > > This is giving them a new slot, in the IPv6 DFZ. > > Now, if you wanted to propose a program where an IPv4 legacy holder > could return their IPv4 block to the free pool in exchange for > getting an IPv6 block, then there might be enough benefit to community > to make a fee waver a good idea. Returning IPv4 address space that is currently in use is going to be as easy for a IPv4 legacy holder to do as it is for any other IPv4 resource holder. > > However, if you really think this won't make a difference, then, why > > are you so convinced it will do harm? > > I already said in my last message, I don't think it's fair to ask > all other ARIN fee payers to subsidize a legacy holder getting an > IPv6 block. The staff time to review the request is not free. I > think the rest of ARIN has already been giving them a free ride for > way too long, and the last thing we need to do is extend that in > new directions. Two and a half years ago, I jumped into a "legacy holders are evil because they haven't paid their fair share" rant fest and asked how, as a legacy resource holder, I was supposed to pay? At the time, there was not a clear mechanism for a legacy resource holders to sign an RSA. So get off your high horse about legacy resource holders getting a free ride. Until the LRSA became available in mid November, 2007, there wasn't a mechanism available nor had ARIN asked legacy resource holders to sign up. > What is in this proposal for all the people who've been paying fees for > the last 10 years, and paid their $1250 to get IPv6? You just said it > wasn't to expand IPv6 development, so what does everyone else get out > of > this? A warm fuzzy feeling? > >From the outside, it looks to me like a mechanism to encourage legacy resource holders to sign an LRSA, with a side benefit of encouraging IPv6 thinking if not adoption. How many organizations would take advantage of this? Idunno. The cost of the IPv6 address allocation is a small part of the cost of implementing IPv6. If no organizations take advantage of this waiver, it doesn't cost ARIN anything. If a hundred organizations take advantage of the waiver, that's a hundred more organizations paying annual fees, and maybe implementing IPv6. How is this fee waiver so different from the current partial fee waiver in place for RSA signers? Keith Hare From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Feb 8 15:44:41 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:44:41 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Reminder that ARIN = US - was Re: Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <9aa5bff11ce1fa04c694dd2686fc6af74b70646b@jcc.com> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> <358914D3-795B-4679-822F-6FB4DB7D5650@delong.com> <20100208161335.GA17380@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <8A61C112-4451-407B-AAE1-85508F60CE27@delong.com> <20100208164214.GA20174@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <9aa5bff11ce1fa04c694dd2686fc6af74b70646b@jcc.com> Message-ID: <4B7077B9.3060207@ipinc.net> Keith W. Hare wrote: "...it doesn't cost ARIN anything...." Keith, I don't mean to single you out because Owen said exactly the same kind of thing, as did others, but I am taking this opportunity to mention that ARIN is NOT a profit-making entity, they CANNOT take a financial loss, there are no stockholders to deny dividends to, no owners. A fee waiver is a COST the same as paying for the electric bill for the WHOIS servers, and a lease on the building ARIN is in, and the cost of the chairs in that building that the ARIN staff's butts are sitting on. ALL MEMBERS OF ARIN that pay ANYTHING to ARIN - even if it's nothing more than a nominal $100 a year fee - are paying for those costs. The CORRECT SENTENCE is NOT "cost ARIN anything" The CORRECT SENTENCE is "cost YOU AND ME AND THE REST OF US anything" I think sometimes people get the feeling that there's this mythical pot of money at ARIN that has no connection to their wallets, I will remind everyone here that ARIN's expenses are OUR expenses. The question we need to be asking is will spending the money on a fee waiver get more flies to the IPv6 pot than spending the money on something else like outreach or education, or another Team ARIN comic? ;-) Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion..... Ted From owen at delong.com Tue Feb 9 03:41:06 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 00:41:06 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Reminder that ARIN = US - was Re: Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B7077B9.3060207@ipinc.net> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> <358914D3-795B-4679-822F-6FB4DB7D5650@delong.com> <20100208161335.GA17380@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <8A61C112-4451-407B-AAE1-85508F60CE27@delong.com> <20100208164214.GA20174@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <9aa5bff11ce1fa04c694dd2686fc6af74b70646b@jcc.com> <4B7077B9.3060207@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <8741F2E9-A19B-43D6-8E9F-9CEC2D216C59@delong.com> On Feb 8, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Keith W. Hare wrote: > > "...it doesn't cost ARIN anything...." > > Keith, I don't mean to single you out because Owen said exactly > the same kind of thing, as did others, but I am taking this > opportunity to mention that ARIN is NOT a profit-making entity, > they CANNOT take a financial loss, there are no stockholders > to deny dividends to, no owners. > > A fee waiver is a COST the same as paying for the electric > bill for the WHOIS servers, and a lease on the > building ARIN is in, and the cost of the chairs in that building > that the ARIN staff's butts are sitting on. > A fee waiver is only a COST if someone takes advantage of said fee waiver. The portion of Keith's sentence (and mine, IIRC) that you left off was "If nobody uses it, then..." as in "If nobody uses it, it doesn't cost ARIN anything". Yes, ARIN is us. What costs ARIN costs us. Agreed. > ALL MEMBERS OF ARIN that pay ANYTHING to ARIN - even if it's > nothing more than a nominal $100 a year fee - are paying for those > costs. > And the theory behind this proposal is to increase the number of participants that would be paying ARIN $100 on a continuing annual basis at the equivalent cost of 12.5 years of service. > The CORRECT SENTENCE is NOT "cost ARIN anything" > > The CORRECT SENTENCE is "cost YOU AND ME AND THE REST OF US anything" > Respectfully, I disagree. While ARIN is funded entirely by its resource holders (note: resource holders != members although there is significant overlap). You can be an ARIN member without resources and you can be a resource holder without being a member. Anyway, ARIN is funded by its resource holders, but, from a liability perspective, it is an independent entity. If ARIN absorbs too many costs and does not collect sufficient fees from its resource holders, the resource holders do not become liable for ARIN's debts. ARIN becomes insolvent. > I think sometimes people get the feeling that there's this > mythical pot of money at ARIN that has no connection to their > wallets, I will remind everyone here that ARIN's expenses are > OUR expenses. > Sure, just like an ISP's expenses are passed along to its customers. ARIN = US from a policy perspective. From a funding perspective, it's a bit more indirect. > The question we need to be asking is will spending the money on > a fee waiver get more flies to the IPv6 pot than spending the money > on something else like outreach or education, or another Team ARIN > comic? ;-) > Well, the answer is that if it doesn't, then, we didn't spend the money. If it attracts 5 flies, then, it only costs $6,250. If it attracts 10 flies, then, it costs $12,500 in uncollected fees. However, most of those organizations would not be paying anything currently and still receiving services from ARIN for their IPv4 and ASN resources. So, the usual net is that we pay out $1,250 per fly attracted and receive $100/year from each attracted fly for a likely long time. We also gain the ability to reclaim said fly's space if they stop paying $100/year, which, I would argue is an even greater value proposition. To address some specific corner case concerns from Leo, I'd even be willing to see the BoT modify the suggestion so it only included LRSA signatories that could qualify for IPv4 under existing policy at the time of their IPv6 application. I'm really not trying to create an end-run around the process or give away free slots in the DFZ. I'm really looking for a way to strengthen ARIN by embracing and encompassing as many legacy holders into the LRSA as possible and simultaneously promoting IPv6 adoption. FWIW, I could have been in a position to benefit strongly from this policy, but, I already signed the LRSA, already justified my existing space, and, already qualified, paid for, and received an IPv6 /48 which is actively routed and used. IOW, I'm not looking for a freebie, I'm looking to address a situation which I regard as detrimental to ARIN as an organization... The vast number of legacy holders who have not yet signed the LRSA and for whom we cannot account for the status of their resources. Owen From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Feb 9 17:23:22 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:23:22 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Reminder that ARIN = US - was Re: Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <8741F2E9-A19B-43D6-8E9F-9CEC2D216C59@delong.com> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> <358914D3-795B-4679-822F-6FB4DB7D5650@delong.com> <20100208161335.GA17380@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <8A61C112-4451-407B-AAE1-85508F60CE27@delong.com> <20100208164214.GA20174@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <9aa5bff11ce1fa04c694dd2686fc6af74b70646b@jcc.com> <4B7077B9.3060207@ipinc.net> <8741F2E9-A19B-43D6-8E9F-9CEC2D216C59@delong.com> Message-ID: <4B71E05A.2020806@ipinc.net> Owen DeLong wrote: > On Feb 8, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> Keith W. Hare wrote: >> >> "...it doesn't cost ARIN anything...." >> >> Keith, I don't mean to single you out because Owen said exactly >> the same kind of thing, as did others, but I am taking this >> opportunity to mention that ARIN is NOT a profit-making entity, >> they CANNOT take a financial loss, there are no stockholders >> to deny dividends to, no owners. >> >> A fee waiver is a COST the same as paying for the electric >> bill for the WHOIS servers, and a lease on the >> building ARIN is in, and the cost of the chairs in that building >> that the ARIN staff's butts are sitting on. >> > A fee waiver is only a COST if someone takes advantage of said > fee waiver. The portion of Keith's sentence (and mine, IIRC) that > you left off was "If nobody uses it, then..." as in > > "If nobody uses it, it doesn't cost ARIN anything". > > Yes, ARIN is us. What costs ARIN costs us. Agreed. > >> ALL MEMBERS OF ARIN that pay ANYTHING to ARIN - even if it's >> nothing more than a nominal $100 a year fee - are paying for those >> costs. >> > And the theory behind this proposal is to increase the number of > participants that would be paying ARIN $100 on a continuing annual > basis at the equivalent cost of 12.5 years of service. > >> The CORRECT SENTENCE is NOT "cost ARIN anything" >> >> The CORRECT SENTENCE is "cost YOU AND ME AND THE REST OF US anything" >> > Respectfully, I disagree. While ARIN is funded entirely by its > resource holders (note: resource holders != members although > there is significant overlap). You can be an ARIN member without > resources and you can be a resource holder without being a member. > > Anyway, ARIN is funded by its resource holders, but, from a liability > perspective, it is an independent entity. If ARIN absorbs too many > costs and does not collect sufficient fees from its resource holders, > the resource holders do not become liable for ARIN's debts. ARIN > becomes insolvent. > A non-profit like ARIN would have to be extraordinarily mis-managed to become insolvent like this. In fact it would literally take criminal mismanagement. To do it would mean ARIN would have to run at an enormous budget deficit for decades. ARIN would quite literally have to become a government agency to manage this. If ARIN runs at a loss in year 2011 then at years end it can raise fees for 2012 high enough to cover not just the expected increased costs of 2012, but pay back any debt incurred in 2011. Yes, it is true that some orgs who were members of ARIN in 2011 may themselves go insolvent in 2012, and yes some new orgs can join in 2012 who never had ARIN incur expenses in 2011. BUT, the ARIN members in 2012 are all gonna pay those debts from 2011 EVEN IF they never had a hand in incurring them, and EVEN IF some of the orgs who incurred them get out of paying for those expenses in 2012. The only possible legitimate way ARIN can go insolvent is if there are debts from prior years and all of the sudden there's no need for ARIN services on the Internet, and ARIN never has any chance of expectation of receiving enough funding in the future to pay back old debts. If you can imagine such a scenario, spit it out, I cannot. This is exactly why we use the non-profit corporate structure for orgs like ARIN. A private company with fiduciary duty to it's stockholders would be obligated to raise IP number registration fees as high as they possibly could do so - meaning for as long as orgs would pay them. And I think a lot of deep-pocket orgs out there would be able to pay millions of dollars a year in registration fees. In such a case it becomes economically viable for a 3rd party to enter into the picture and produce competition that COULD cause such a collapse. But with the current structure, since ARIN makes no margin, a competitive org simply cannot afford to get traction. Internet consumers learned from the mess that was made with the DNS system when it was privatized that the customer gains nothing when this is done, and as long as the DNS system stays as it is, privatization of the IP numbering registries is going to remain an ultraconservative's wet dream. Anytime anyone brings it up, there's so many examples of DNS messes that it will be shot down. >> I think sometimes people get the feeling that there's this >> mythical pot of money at ARIN that has no connection to their >> wallets, I will remind everyone here that ARIN's expenses are >> OUR expenses. >> > Sure, just like an ISP's expenses are passed along to its customers. > > ARIN = US from a policy perspective. From a funding perspective, it's > a bit more indirect. > >> The question we need to be asking is will spending the money on >> a fee waiver get more flies to the IPv6 pot than spending the money >> on something else like outreach or education, or another Team ARIN >> comic? ;-) >> > Well, the answer is that if it doesn't, then, we didn't spend the money. > If it attracts 5 flies, then, it only costs $6,250. If it attracts 10 flies, then, > it costs $12,500 in uncollected fees. However, most of those > organizations would not be paying anything currently and still receiving > services from ARIN for their IPv4 and ASN resources. So, the usual > net is that we pay out $1,250 per fly attracted and receive $100/year > from each attracted fly for a likely long time. We also gain the ability > to reclaim said fly's space if they stop paying $100/year, which, I would > argue is an even greater value proposition. > In my humble opinion Owen, it is exactly this kind of financial speculation/discussion that was missing from your original suggestion, which is why this discussion went down the "is it Moral" discussion path. I would encourage you to expand on this aspect of your suggestion. I definitely would prefer that the ARIN Board make a decision on this suggestion based on it's financial impact, instead of the moral/political aspects. > To address some specific corner case concerns from Leo, I'd even > be willing to see the BoT modify the suggestion so it only included > LRSA signatories that could qualify for IPv4 under existing policy at > the time of their IPv6 application. I'm really not trying to create an > end-run around the process or give away free slots in the DFZ. I'm > really looking for a way to strengthen ARIN by embracing and > encompassing as many legacy holders into the LRSA as possible > and simultaneously promoting IPv6 adoption. > > FWIW, I could have been in a position to benefit strongly from this > policy, suggestion, not policy > but, I already signed the LRSA, already justified my existing > space, and, already qualified, paid for, and received an IPv6 /48 which > is actively routed and used. IOW, I'm not looking for a freebie, I'm > looking to address a situation which I regard as detrimental to ARIN > as an organization... The vast number of legacy holders who have > not yet signed the LRSA and for whom we cannot account for the > status of their resources. > I wonder if they even know they are legacy holders? Ted > > > Owen > > From owen at delong.com Wed Feb 10 17:04:44 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:04:44 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Reminder that ARIN = US - was Re: Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <4B71E05A.2020806@ipinc.net> References: <24CC8D9B-DE64-4B50-892B-3F25F96A2602@delong.com> <4B6D111E.3000606@ipinc.net> <4B6D2A10.4090401@bogus.com> <358914D3-795B-4679-822F-6FB4DB7D5650@delong.com> <20100208161335.GA17380@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <8A61C112-4451-407B-AAE1-85508F60CE27@delong.com> <20100208164214.GA20174@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <9aa5bff11ce1fa04c694dd2686fc6af74b70646b@jcc.com> <4B7077B9.3060207@ipinc.net> <8741F2E9-A19B-43D6-8E9F-9CEC2D216C59@delong.com> <4B71E05A.2020806@ipinc.net> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Feb 8, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>> Keith W. Hare wrote: >>> >>> "...it doesn't cost ARIN anything...." >>> >>> Keith, I don't mean to single you out because Owen said exactly >>> the same kind of thing, as did others, but I am taking this >>> opportunity to mention that ARIN is NOT a profit-making entity, >>> they CANNOT take a financial loss, there are no stockholders >>> to deny dividends to, no owners. >>> >>> A fee waiver is a COST the same as paying for the electric >>> bill for the WHOIS servers, and a lease on the >>> building ARIN is in, and the cost of the chairs in that building >>> that the ARIN staff's butts are sitting on. >>> >> A fee waiver is only a COST if someone takes advantage of said >> fee waiver. The portion of Keith's sentence (and mine, IIRC) that >> you left off was "If nobody uses it, then..." as in >> "If nobody uses it, it doesn't cost ARIN anything". >> Yes, ARIN is us. What costs ARIN costs us. Agreed. >>> ALL MEMBERS OF ARIN that pay ANYTHING to ARIN - even if it's >>> nothing more than a nominal $100 a year fee - are paying for those >>> costs. >>> >> And the theory behind this proposal is to increase the number of >> participants that would be paying ARIN $100 on a continuing annual >> basis at the equivalent cost of 12.5 years of service. >>> The CORRECT SENTENCE is NOT "cost ARIN anything" >>> >>> The CORRECT SENTENCE is "cost YOU AND ME AND THE REST OF US anything" >>> >> Respectfully, I disagree. While ARIN is funded entirely by its >> resource holders (note: resource holders != members although >> there is significant overlap). You can be an ARIN member without >> resources and you can be a resource holder without being a member. >> Anyway, ARIN is funded by its resource holders, but, from a liability >> perspective, it is an independent entity. If ARIN absorbs too many >> costs and does not collect sufficient fees from its resource holders, >> the resource holders do not become liable for ARIN's debts. ARIN >> becomes insolvent. > > A non-profit like ARIN would have to be extraordinarily > mis-managed to become insolvent like this. In fact it would literally > take criminal mismanagement. To do it would mean ARIN would have > to run at an enormous budget deficit for decades. ARIN would > quite literally have to become a government agency to manage this. > Ted, You're going deep down a rat hole here. My point was that the finances are more indirect than the governance. To be clear, I like the RIR system, I think domain registration _IS_ a mess, and I do not support the idea of "privitization" of address policy. (I don't think DNS is so much a mess as domain registration, which is what I think you were referring to) > >>> I think sometimes people get the feeling that there's this >>> mythical pot of money at ARIN that has no connection to their >>> wallets, I will remind everyone here that ARIN's expenses are >>> OUR expenses. >>> >> Sure, just like an ISP's expenses are passed along to its customers. >> ARIN = US from a policy perspective. From a funding perspective, it's >> a bit more indirect. >>> The question we need to be asking is will spending the money on >>> a fee waiver get more flies to the IPv6 pot than spending the money >>> on something else like outreach or education, or another Team ARIN >>> comic? ;-) >>> >> Well, the answer is that if it doesn't, then, we didn't spend the money. >> If it attracts 5 flies, then, it only costs $6,250. If it attracts 10 flies, then, >> it costs $12,500 in uncollected fees. However, most of those >> organizations would not be paying anything currently and still receiving >> services from ARIN for their IPv4 and ASN resources. So, the usual >> net is that we pay out $1,250 per fly attracted and receive $100/year >> from each attracted fly for a likely long time. We also gain the ability >> to reclaim said fly's space if they stop paying $100/year, which, I would >> argue is an even greater value proposition. > > In my humble opinion Owen, it is exactly this kind of financial > speculation/discussion that was missing from your original suggestion, > which is why this discussion went down the "is it Moral" discussion > path. > I'm pretty sure that the board and FINCOM, specifically, have a pretty good understanding of this. I do take your point that I should have included such information in my earlier posts on this subject. I made the mistake of thinking it was self-evident. > > suggestion, not policy > Yes... In spite of my efforts to clarify this with others, I do keep tripping over that myself. >> but, I already signed the LRSA, already justified my existing >> space, and, already qualified, paid for, and received an IPv6 /48 which >> is actively routed and used. IOW, I'm not looking for a freebie, I'm >> looking to address a situation which I regard as detrimental to ARIN >> as an organization... The vast number of legacy holders who have >> not yet signed the LRSA and for whom we cannot account for the >> status of their resources. >> > > I wonder if they even know they are legacy holders? > I'm pretty sure that most of the reachable legacy holders are aware that they are legacy holders. As to the legacy resources with unreachable contacts, that's going to be an interesting question which I am hoping that some recent policies (specifically section 12 or the NRPM and the recent whois POC cleanup efforts). Owen > Ted > >> Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjohnson at drtel.com Thu Feb 25 09:27:34 2010 From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:27:34 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> Message-ID: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701CEE23A@ex01.drtel.lan> I oppose this proposal as it maintains the current divide between legacy space and "regular" space. If a legacy holder wants IPv6 space, they would need to sign a regular RSA and join the rest of us. - Brian From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:39 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6assignments to LRSA signatories I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed the LRSA. I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. Owen Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: Owen, This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ********************************************* 2010.1 01-18-2010 16:58:30 ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From swm at emanon.com Sat Feb 27 00:18:02 2010 From: swm at emanon.com (Scott Morris) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:18:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701CEE23A@ex01.drtel.lan> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701CEE23A@ex01.drtel.lan> Message-ID: <4B88AB0A.7050700@emanon.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sat Feb 27 06:16:27 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:16:27 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701CEE23A@ex01.drtel.lan> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701CEE23A@ex01.drtel.lan> Message-ID: <3F6B4116-C379-498D-9772-C6219DB84A58@delong.com> Brian, The IPv6 space under this suggestion would be subject to regular RSA, not LRSA. Only the legacy space would be covered by the LRSA. With that clarification, do you still oppose the suggestion? (I'll note that the suggestion relates to reducing fees, ARIN policy already provides for them to get the space on these terms). Owen On Feb 25, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Brian Johnson wrote: > I oppose this proposal as it maintains the current divide between legacy space and ?regular? space. If a legacy holder wants IPv6 space, they would need to sign a regular RSA and join the rest of us. > > - Brian > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:39 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6assignments to LRSA signatories > > I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial > assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed > the LRSA. > > I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate > to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. > > ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee > agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the > matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. > > > Owen > > > Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: > > Owen, > > > This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. > > Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. > > Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. > In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. > > Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. > > ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ********************************************* > > 2010.1 > 01-18-2010 16:58:30 > > ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjohnson at drtel.com Sat Feb 27 15:59:01 2010 From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:59:01 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6assignments to LRSA signatories In-Reply-To: <3F6B4116-C379-498D-9772-C6219DB84A58@delong.com> References: <0D9FF6B3-9FB9-4FDA-BD2F-909767CDF228@delong.com> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701CEE23A@ex01.drtel.lan> <3F6B4116-C379-498D-9772-C6219DB84A58@delong.com> Message-ID: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701CEE34B@ex01.drtel.lan> Owen, I would still be opposed under the idea that they would deserve special rates. This would perpetuate the idea of multiple classes of members / space holders that I would like to see diminished if not eliminated. - Brian From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 5:16 AM To: Brian Johnson Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6assignments to LRSA signatories Brian, The IPv6 space under this suggestion would be subject to regular RSA, not LRSA. Only the legacy space would be covered by the LRSA. With that clarification, do you still oppose the suggestion? (I'll note that the suggestion relates to reducing fees, ARIN policy already provides for them to get the space on these terms). Owen On Feb 25, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Brian Johnson wrote: I oppose this proposal as it maintains the current divide between legacy space and "regular" space. If a legacy holder wants IPv6 space, they would need to sign a regular RSA and join the rest of us. - Brian From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:39 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6assignments to LRSA signatories I have submitted a formal suggestion to the ACSP recommending that the BoT waive initial assignment fees for IPv6 when the applicant is a legacy resource holder that has signed the LRSA. I believe this helps remove most of the barriers to entry for legacy IPv4 holders to migrate to IPv6 and is in the best interests of the community. ARIN has informed me that the matter will be placed on the Board's finance committee agenda. As such, I would like to encourage members here who have an opinion on the matter to let the board know what you think, ideally by posting a message to this list. Owen Below is the message I received from ARIN and the original suggestion I submitted: Owen, This is in response to your suggestion noted below and assigned number 2010.1. Thank you for your suggestion relating to charging no initial fee related to request for an initial IPv6 allocation and/or assignments for Legacy Holders that have signed the ARIN Legacy Registration Service Agreement. As this relates to fees, this will be added to the ARIN Board's Finance Committee agenda for 2010. Some other information related to this suggestion is that the current IPv6 waiver for allocations for initial requests and renewals in 2010 is a 50% fee waiver. For requests in 2011, the allocation fees will be 25% waived. In terms of assignments, the initial fee is not waived. Clients requesting assignment resources pay an initial fee per request of address space and thereafter pay annual allocation or maintenance fees related to the Organizational ID as a whole. Initial fees are to cover the effort related to reviewing and analyzing the request, whereas maintenance fees are designed to cover the overhead of maintaining objects in the database. Recent changes were implemented in mid 2009 for organizations with both ARIN-issued and Legacy Resources. They are assessed an Annual Fee based on the ARIN-issued resources and not charged the Legacy resource maintenance fee. ARIN is reliant on its active membership to help it better serve the community and we want to commend you for your continuing activism and service. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ********************************************* 2010.1 01-18-2010 16:58:30 ARIN should offer legacy holders that sign the LRSA the opportunity to receive an appropriate IPv6 allocation or assignment for no initial fee. The applicable standard renewal fees would apply thereafter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: