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

John Brown john at citylinkfiber.com
Wed Mar 14 15:33:32 EDT 2012 

Then lets call /32 Extra-Small, keep the costs the same for those smaller providers and move forward ;)

I think having legacy /32's as XS and new /32's as S  creates disharmony.

For those small ISP's  a /32 will be the only prefix they will probably ever need.
Poof they have instant control over their future and have their own IPv6 space.
And at a cost point that won't prevent sooner adoption.

If you have a /32 and it becomes priced as XS then that's what you pay.  You don't force them to renumber or vacate a portion of the space.
All that will cause is them vacating the existing space completely and coming back for space under the new policy.

I don't think ARIN has a fiscal issue.  More automation (which they are working on) should create LOWER OpEx for them.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:24 PM
> To: John Brown
> Cc: arin-discuss
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> 
> Pretty easily.
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:14 PM, John Brown wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list