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

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:

> Joseph,
> 
> Thanks so much for your careful read of the invisible hand statement and you're right, it directly applies to IPv6.
> 
> Alec,
> 
> 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:
> Because it was free with my IPv4 allocation.
> 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:

I want to be very clear about this because this seems to be a common misconception.


Nobody is talking about a fee hike on anyone's next bill.

The question is whether or not your annual fee (if you are an X-Small IPv4 and IPv6 organization) should be reduced from $2,250/year (small-category fee for IPv4 and/or IPv6) to $1,250/year (x-small category fee for IPv4 and/or IPv6).

Since it sounds like you are in the Small category for IPv4 (based on your statement that IPv6 was free), there is no fee hike contemplated and your /32 even in the worst case being discussed would continue to cost you $2,250/year.  Since you are in the small category for IPv4 and you pay the greater of your IPv4 or IPv6 fees, it sounds like even if the IPv6 /32 price were reduced to $1,250 as "x-small", you would still be paying $2,250/year based on your IPv4 and your IPv6 would still be essentially free.

The comments about early adopters paying higher fees are related to the question of how widely the proposed fee reduction for x-small should be applied. So far, the following possibilities have been discussed:

	1.	Apply it to all prefix holders /32-/36
		I think this is the next best choice from a fairness perspective, but, I would be concerned about
		the possibility that it may have a significant revenue impact on ARIN when providers that are in
		higher IPv4 fee tiers start returning their IPv4 allocations to ARIN and suddenly drop from
		Small or Medium to X-Small. I think it's not likely this is a significant problem, but, without the
		data, I'm not willing to make the assumption.

	2.	Apply it only to /36
		I think this is the cleanest approach from a pure accounting perspective, but it does have a
		fairness problem for early adopters.

	3.	Apply it to all existing prefix holders <= /32 and to new /36 prefix holders.
		I think this is the best option from a fairness perspective, but, I am not sure how much extra
		accounting complexity it would create for ARIN so I don't know if it is feasible.

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

I don't think 3 is a problem at all so long as it is at least $500/year and the fees go up if you get beyond a /32.

> 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".
> 

I agree. At this point, the sooner IPv4 runs out, the sooner we as an industry can move on with the business of deploying an internet with a future.

> 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.
> 

Agreed.

> 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.

We tried giving away /32s a few years back. There weren't that many takers and very few of the takers actually bothered to get them routed.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120314/92b34d3b/attachment.html>