[arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
Nathaniel B. Lyon
nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net
Wed Mar 14 21:45:39 EDT 2012
Agreed, wording does seem a bit confusing. We were an early adopter of a /32, a /36 was not available to us. The early adopters of the /32'ers should be grandfathered into the X-Small category.
Nathaniel B. Lyon
President and Founder
NorthfieldWiFi - Leave the Cable Behind!
nate . lyon @ nfldwifi .net
www . northfieldwifi .com
The information in this e-mail is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use of, or reliance on, the contents of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying back to the sending e-mail address, and delete this e-mail message from your computer.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse D. Geddis " < jesse @la-broadband.com>
To: "< sweeny @ indiana . edu >" < sweeny @ indiana . edu >
Cc: arin -discuss@ arin .net
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:11:17 PM
Subject: Re: [ arin -discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
On Mar 14, 2012, at 5:57 PM, "Brent Sweeny " < sweeny @ indiana . edu > wrote:
> 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.
Maybe I'm misreading this wording but this implies to me the suggestion is that people who adopted a /32 when that's all that was available should be forced to renumber onto a /36. If that's the case I don't think that's a reasonable expectation of anyone who took the time to get the address space and roll it out. I, for example, addressed all my infrastructure on ipv6 to the exclusion of ipv4. Saying in order to maintain a specific rate I have to swap out my /32 for a /36.
I think the /32s issued before the /36's were available should be charged at the xsmall rate. I didn't respond to Owen earlier but in my case my ipv4 is xsmall but my ipv6 (which was the smallest I could get) is "small" so orgs like mine will be getting a defacto rate increase as I will be charged for my ipv6 small and not my ipv4 extra small. Ipv6 is not monetized by most people but I will be paying an extra 1200 for it because the goal posts were moved as someone earlier mentioned.
>> 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.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss@ arin .net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http ://lists. arin .net/mailman/ listinfo / arin -discuss
> Please contact info@ arin .net if you experience any issues.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss@ arin .net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http ://lists. arin .net/mailman/ listinfo / arin -discuss
Please contact info@ arin .net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-discuss