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

[Lee Howard]

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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20100204/d367e017/attachment.html>