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

[Joel Jaeggli]

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 <owen at delong.com> 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.
>>>
>