[arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
Mike A. Salim
msalim at localweb.com
Wed Mar 14 17:51:28 EDT 2012
I am not familiar with the "invisible hand theory" J We are a small
ISP. We have IPv6 in production because several of our large customers
had, and still have, non-negotiable mandates to be live on IPv6 as of
June 15th, 2011. We did not get IPv6 because it was a luxury for us but
a business necessity. So I can't share your sentiment that small ISP's
don't need IPv6. And yes, there is no profit in IPv6 as far as we are
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
E: msalim at localweb.com
W: http://www.localweb.com <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.
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joseph Conti
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:32 PM
To: Jesse D. Geddis
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
If you apply the "invisible hand" theory here, then technically no ISP
(or at least small one) should be purchasing any IPv6 at all. IPv6 in
it's current state and fee structure doesn't generate any profit for
ISP's. The cost of it (by ARIN) should be little to none, until such a
time that the equilibrium you mention is possible.
Being a small ISP, if we had the choice of taking a /36 instead of a /32
and able to pay the same as we do in our x-small category we would have.
In-fact, we even asked for a smaller allocation in the first place, but
were denied (policy at the time).
Fact of the matter remains, if an ORG is in an x-small category for
IPv4, there should be an equivalent for IPv6 as right now it doubles the
annual fee and doesn't generate any revenue in it's current state.
What we are essentially doing now, is paying double for an allocation
that we will likely never outgrow. For larger ISP's this may be
On 2012-03-14, at 5:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
There are two layers of fees
1. Those charged by ARIN to the carriers.
2. Those charged by the carriers to their customers.
Layer 1 is not for profit as ARIN is, as I said, a steward. Saying ARIN
is a geographic monopoly misappropriates the term since it is not a for
profit organisation. ARIN's sole purpose is to delegate those resources
in a needs baser manner to other organisations.
Layer 2 is generally for profit. Here is where supply and demand comes
into play for address space. If you have limited ipv4 address space you
will charge your customer more. If you charge too much they will go
elsewhere until an equilibrium is found in the price. This is how the
'invisible hand' operates.
LA Broadband LLC
On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com>
On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
ARIN doesn't operate as a free enterprise and this is
not done for profit. ARIN is the steward, administrator, of the address
space. The fees are to pay for administration and advocacy. The fees
charged in the marketplace for that address space is dictated by the
free market as it should be. Not by ARIN.
I'm not understanding what you're saying. ARIN is a geographic
monopoly. The fees are not dictated by a free market. They are
dictated by ARIN.
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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-discuss