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

[Brent Sweeny]

I like this suggestion.  it has good combinations of incentives for the
right Good Behaviors, what seem like reasonable charges, and a
reasonable sunset.
	Brent Sweeny, Indiana University

On 3/14/2012 7:05 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 3/14/12 16:26 CDT, Robert Marder wrote:
>> I would agree with this.
>>
>> The smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv4 (the /22) should
>> cost the same as the smallest allocation available to ISP's under IPv6
>> (the /32).
>>
>> That just seems like common sense to me.
>>
>> Changing the smallest allocation available under IPv6 isn't very fair to
>> those that adopted IPv6 early - early adopters shouldn't be stuck with
>> higher fees because the goal posts were moved.
> 
> I agree that there shouldn't be an early adopter TAX on X-small ISPs
> that moved forward with a /32 before the /36 option was available, if
> anything they should get some kind of benefit.  Therefore, I think my
> preferred solution is a grandfather clause in the fee structure, or a
> permanent fee waiver so to speak, for any ISPs that currently has an
> X-small IPv4 allocation that receives a /32 IPv6 allocation before
> December 31, 2012 can continue to be eligible for the X-small IPv6
> allocation rate as long as they don't grow their IPv4 allocation beyond
> X-small, or their IPv6 allocation beyond /32.
> 
> Then starting January 1, 2013 if you want to remain an X-small ISP you
> will have to select a /36 allocation.
> 
> I'm suggesting December 31, 2012 to hopefully create a small incentive
> for X-small ISPs that haven't move forward to get their IPv6 allocation,
> to do so yet this year.  Basically, for a limited remaining time, get a
> /32 for the price of a /36 deal to get the smaller guys moving.
> 
> Also I would like to remind everyone who grumbles about Legacy IPv4,
> that it is equally unfair to create an early adopter TAX for Legacy
> IPv4.  However, I equally believe it is time for Legacy IPv4 holders to
> step up to the plate and at least to start minimally contributing to the
> upkeep of the system too.  I think the current Legacy RSA and its flat
> Org ID based fee structure is a pretty reasonable compromise.
>