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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Mar 13 23:27:31 EDT 2012

On Mar 13, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote:

> 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)

There is a 3 that you left out.

Recent policy changes created the ability for an X-Small organization that truly wants to stay X-Small to
specifically request a /36 ISP allocation.

So, ARIN could introduce a /36 category X-Small for $1250 without disrupting current subscribers or revenue.

That was the main reason for including the /36 possibility in the policy while having the policy specifically
state that the default minimum is /32 so that an X-small organization that wanted a /32 didn't have to prove
that they needed 4 nibbles worth of pops*end-sites to get it.

> 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.

Clearly not enough of a disincentive to prevent you from adopting IPv6. ;-)

The organizations that are of greatest concern, IMHO, are the ones that are delaying or deferring IPv6 because of the costs.


More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list