[arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

[Dmitry Kohmanyuk]

On Mar 13, 2012, at 5:21 PM, John Curran wrote:

> On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> 
>> By the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that that
>> currently an ISP which has an allocation of a /22 of IPv4 space
>> (extra-small) that gets the default-smallest-ISP-allocation of IPv6
>> address space (a /32) suddenly becomes "small" - which results in
>> their yearly ARIN fees doubling.  $1250/year may not sound like a lot,
>> but when you're an organization of that size every penny is watched
>> carefully and it can be a tough sell to management, who may not see
>> the cost/benefit proposition.
[...]
> Indeed.  Based on feedback expressed on the mailing lists and 
> at the Public Policy and Member meetings, the ARIN Board has 
> expressed to me the strong desire to minimize fees for the 
> smallest members, and not create a disincentive for adopting 
> IPv6 in the process.  I am working with the Board's Finance 
> Committee on proposals that will meet those expectations.

Well, there are at least two ways to do it:

1) do not change Small IPv6 boundaries but lower its fees (from $2250 to matching X-Small IPv4 $1250)

2) introduce X-small IPv6 at /32 with $1250 fees (must also change other fee bands as /31 is Medium)

We (Intuix LLC) have /22 IPv4 and /32 IPv6 and going IPv6 meant doubling our ARIN address allocation fees.
Hardly an incentive, indeed - and there are other members just like us, definitely.  Thanks for your attention.