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

[Dmitry Kohmanyuk]

On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
[.. skipping discussion of lowering fees for new IPv6 allocations of smallest size ...]
>> 
>> 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.

This would indeed be a good way to handle it.  There is enough space in such allocation.

> 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.

I was not aware of this recent change. Current Small IPv6 boundaries are from /40 to /32 would have to be changed then.
By the way, there is a disparity of sizes for IPv4 - they go from XS to XL while IPv6 is S to XXL.

>> 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.

It was not a big concern to us -- but the current fee band schedule (even with /36 allowed) is "IPv6 Penalty for Small ISPs".