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

Greg Martin greg at rhservices.us
Wed Mar 14 17:49:05 EDT 2012

Adjusting the fee scale to align with IPv4 would help this.  We're paying an
extra $1250/yr over what we do for IPv4 resources.  Our demand for IPv6 is
low and costs twice the amount for something in higher demand.


From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Alec Ginsberg
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:37 PM
To: Joseph Conti; Jesse D. Geddis
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?


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'

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


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...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/7f9756b5/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list