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

[Owen DeLong]

I don't believe anyone is discussing increasing current IPv6 fees.

What is under discussion, I believe, is the exact manner in which to make it possible to get an IPv6 allocation without having it cause an increase over what current subscribers are paying for IPv4.

If you were an X-Small IPv4 subscriber, then when you got your /32, you moved into the small category and went from paying $1250/year to paying at least $2250/year (nearly doubling your fees) except to the extent that you've been receiving a fee waiver as has been the case so far for all IPv6 subscribers. (not IPv6 end users).

I'm not privy to what the board and the finance committee have been discussing, but, what has been discussed on this list so far that I recall are these three possibilities:

1.	Lower fees for existing /32 and smaller subscribers to equivalent to IPv4 X-Small ($1,250/year)
2.	Leave existing /32 and larger subscribers with their current fees ($2,250+/year) and create the X-Small
	category for /36 subscribers only at $1,250/year.
3.	Change the fee for the small category to $1,250/year, but leave the boundary between small and medium at /40.

Personally, I think 3 is absurd. I just can't see calling an organization with a /40 "extra small".

Your second paragraph is not clear as to whether you are advocating 1 or 2 or some different mixture of the two.

I would be OK with extending X-Small up to and including /32 and I agree that is the best alternative if it can be done without too much of a revenue hit to ARIN.

I would also be OK with treating existing /32 subscribers as x-small and marking new /32s as small, though ARIN may not want the accounting overhead associated with that.

I don't think that anyone should be forced to renumber or pay higher fees than they are already paying as part of this. However, I'm not sure that people who want to have their existing fees lowered by $1,000/year shouldn't have to vacate 15/16ths of their address space to receive that fee reduction. I'm undecided on this issue as I don't have full knowledge of the impact of the various alternatives on ARIN's financial state.

Owen

On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:

> This is a good discussion.  We are currently utilizing our /32 IPv6 space.  If we are forced to go to a smaller allocation at this point we would be forced to renumber, and it would cause issues for us and for our customers.  And I totally concur that an increase in IPv6 fees at this early stage of IPv6 adoption will be counter productive.
> 
> I suggest that if XS or smaller allocations are introduced, that existing allocations be grandfathered without a price change.  There is enough IPv6 space that this should not be a problem.
> 
> Best regards
> Mike
> 
> A. Michael Salim
> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> American Data Technology, Inc.
> PO Box 12892
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> P: (919)544-4101 x101
> F: (919)544-5345
> E: msalim at localweb.com
> W: http://www.localweb.com
> 
> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
> Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:47 PM
> To: arin-discuss 
> Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> 
> 
> What is the status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure so that it matches the current policy of allocating based on nibble boundaries? This has been discussed in the past, but I have not heard anything lately. Jumping from $2,250 right to $9,000 doesn't make much sense.
> 
> thanks,
> -Randy
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.