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

Bill Prince bill at SkylineBroadbandService.com
Wed Mar 14 16:11:16 EDT 2012

In the world of supply and demand, IPv6 space should be less expensive
because there is more of it than people want.  IPv4 space should be more
expensive because there is a dwindling supply.

On 3/14/2012 1:02 PM, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:27:15PM -0400, Jean-Francois Laforest wrote:
>> I agree with Mike too. We are expanding on the commercial side of the 
>> business, considerably, but these costs would be hammering our clients 
>> with a very high cost for IPs. Therefore reducing our ipv6 
>> footprint/efforts due to costs. Client adoption of the technology 
>> requires sane pricing.
> I agree.  In my very small corner of the market, the business people
> don't care at all about IPv6.  "Maybe later."   The Engineers want it, 
> and eh, if they are my customers, I throw it in for free.  But as far 
> as I can tell, the business types don't see a business case for IPv6
> other than keeping their nerds happy.  
> I mean, sure, I'd pay three grand a year for a v6 allocation, no problem;
> I spend that much on stuff I evaluate and end up throwing out, even at my
> size. 
> but I only have an actual business case for this because my core customer 
> base is the nerds that wanna play with this.  (And for them?  there is a 
> very rational business model.   At some point, a spike in IPv6 interest 
> is very, very likely, and at that point, having a few years of experience 
> under your belt likely will make you rather more valuable.)  Even for
> the nerds, it's a second-tier network.  If v6 breaks it's not nearly
> the hair on fire big deal that a broken v4 is.  
> I only mention this because yeah, three grand a year isn't a lot
> for even a small company, but I think anything more than 'comes free with
> the IPv4'  is going to get a thumbs down from most of the business people
> I know.  
> Personally, I think you want to make it a whole lot easier to get IPv6
> allocations.   Right now, most IPv6 installations (again, at my very 
> small corner of the market.)  are still in the 'the nerds are playing 
> with it' stage, and the business people, generally speaking, wish they'd
> spend less time on it.   E.g. the best way to enable this is to let
> the nerds go ahead without making them talk to the business people
> much, which means IPv6 needs to come free with IPv4 or something else the
> business people already approved.  
> I mean, at least temporarily, I think it might make sense to let people 
> get IPv6 PI space before they can get IPv4 PI space.   If your IPv6 space 
> causes you less headaches than your IPv4 space (and PI space causes 
> vastly fewer headaches than PA space)  that's a pretty valid reason
> for the business people to start moving more stuff over.   
> Of course, that needs to be balanced against the routing table cost of
> more PI blocks, which is why I say 'temporarily'  or something.  (I 
> mean, obviously you can't take these things back, but you could say
> something like the first X v6 PI blocks are at the reduced price, 
> after which the rules revert to normal.) 
> But my main point is that from where I stand, the business people don't
> care much at all about IPv6, so you are best off slipping it in for free
> whenever anyone gets any IPv4.   Certainly for the foreseeable future,
> there isn't any problem giving everyone with a IPv4 PI block of any size
> a /32 rather than a /40 or whatever.  The limit on IPv6 is going to 
> be routing table size, right?  not address space?  so as far as our real
> resource constraints go, a /40 of v6 PI space "costs" just as much as a 
> /32 of PI space, so if we are going to give out a pi block, why not give 
> people a /32?

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list