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

[John Brown]

Could you see calling a /32 Extra-Small ??


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:59 PM
> To: Mike A. Salim
> Cc: arin-discuss
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> 
> 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.
> >
> > P 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.