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

Randy Carpenter rcarpen at network1.net
Wed Mar 14 15:46:33 EDT 2012 

I think the following is perfect:

/36 - x-small
/32 - small
/28 - medium
/24 - large
/20 - x-large

Something would have to be decided for existing ISPs' aggregates in-between, of course, but all future allocations should fall on the above boundaries.

The larger size categories could have an affect on ARIN's finances depending on how many there are. If the fees for each category stay around the same, each of the levels above small fall into a lower category.

I don't think /32 needs to change at all, but I know of several ISPs who are big enough to justify a /28, and currently have about a /16 in IPv4 space. Moving to IPv6 right now is a choice between getting a /32, and squeezing into it, or getting a /28 and paying double the annual fee.

-Randy

----- Original Message -----
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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