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

[Scott Morris]

I think #3 is the best choice, and looking at date assignments should be
a simple check to put in to a database to determine the earlier adopters.

#1 is fine as well, but my guess is that will be seen as a
longer-reaching economic impact, so #3 would become more feasible.

Scott


On 3/14/12 8:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> 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:
>>
>>  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:
>
> 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.
>
>>  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.
>>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.