[arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories

[Bob Atkins]

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. <http://www.digilink.net>*
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:
>  <https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/aup.html>
>  
> 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20100204/a58e7cbd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DigiLink_esig_logo.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23605 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20100204/a58e7cbd/attachment.jpg>