[arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
dk at intuix.com
Tue Mar 13 20:43:38 EDT 2012
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.
More information about the ARIN-discuss