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

Jesse D. Geddis jesse at la-broadband.com
Wed Mar 14 19:29:32 EDT 2012


Thanks so much for your careful read of the invisible hand statement and you're right, it directly applies to IPv6.


The financial impact is at the very core of the discussion so one cannot simply set it aside. I suspect there are many carriers like mine so I'll throw this out there. I picked up a /32 for two reasons:

  1.  Because it was free with my IPv4 allocation.
  2.  Because I wanted to put all my residential customers on IPv6 address space as a matter of responsibility.

If #1 weren't the case I wouldn't have done it, flat out. IPv6 was not monetized for me and will not be for the foreseeable future. Now I'm faced with a fee hike for the next bill. The question asked is "does this make sense". Most appear to agree it does not. So we're left with the following competing interests:

  1.  We all seem to agree the goal is to encourage widespread adoption of IPv6
  2.  There is still very few compelling reasons for end users to adopt it
  3.  If it's too low will ARIN get flooded with silly requests? Perhaps Mr. Curran can speak to that from experience.

Taking the approach of IPv4 will all run out eventually so it doesn't matter isn't proactive and is very disruptive, technically. This is Joseph's reference to the "stick".

Taking the approach that was effectively "ARIN should just charge a bazillian dollars for IPv4 allocations" is simply an furtherance of the stick approach which, I would argue, has been relatively unsuccessful thus far. Attempting to link it with supply/demand principals is a reach far outside ARIN's scope and role.

David Farmer's suggestion that the original adopters of the /32's I think is a very interesting one. I think it's spot on. Continue to peg the /32 of the early adopters at their /22 yearly price until they either grow beyond their /22 or /32.

I think making allocations of /36's for free may also help get IPv6 out there. The point, I think, is to reduce the barriers for entry for business. The financial one is almost the only tool ARIN has in it's quiver outside of process oriented ones to make things easier.

Regarding continued mention of ARIN as a regional monopoly I'll post ARIN's mission statement below so we can, hopefully, end the conversation on whether or not ARIN is or should be a for profit player in the free market. ARIN is not and I think it's more constructive to have a conversation based in reality than fantasy :)

Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach.

Jesse D. Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

From: Joseph Conti <joseph at media-hosts.com<mailto:joseph at media-hosts.com>>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:55:11 -0400
To: Alec Ginsberg <alec at ionity.com<mailto:alec at ionity.com>>
Cc: Jesse Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com<mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com>>, "arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>" <arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

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<mailto: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<mailto:joseph at media-hosts.com>>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:32:21 -0400
To: "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com<mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com>>
Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>" <arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto: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/a35568f4/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list