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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

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