[arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
joseph at media-hosts.com
Wed Mar 14 17:55:11 EDT 2012
You don't think aligning the fees to will help adoption rates?
At the current time it costs small organizations money to pick up v6. And there are a lot more "small" organizations out there than large.
To make an informed decision you can't ignore the money factor here.
--- Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-03-14, at 5:37 PM, Alec Ginsberg <alec at ionity.com> wrote:
> It would be nice if everyone would cease to worry about revenue (For the moment), and start to consider methods to increase the IPv6 adoption rate (on a global scale), so that it can actually be usable end-to-end on the Internet so that we don't have this IPv4 problem going on forever and ever and ever.
> From: Joseph Conti <joseph at media-hosts.com>
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:32:21 -0400
> To: "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com>
> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" <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 different.
> Joseph Conti
> Media-Hosts Inc.
> 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.
>> Jesse Geddis
>> LA Broadband LLC
>> ASN 16602
>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com> wrote:
>>> 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