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

Thu Mar 15 00:25:20 EDT 2012

If you base the IPv6 as a 10 year use window then you'd be looking at 10 /21's over
the 10 year period. 

It is also going to be far lower than 65,536 for the X-Small ISP's if they have a network 
plan in place, there will be decent portion of the /32 in place for growth and will be 
segmented. I suspect that the first allocation to an ISP could result in a significantly 
lower number of usable /48's based on build out.

The other issue is how many ARIN members are X-Small? I haven't been able to find
that data. If it is somewhere please share :) If 40 percent of the ISP base is X-Small then
that would be a significant windfall which probably is not the intended effect.

Kevin Blumberg
T 416.214.9473 x31
F 416.862.9473
kevinb at thewire.ca

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Morris
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:07 AM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> 
> While an interesting thought about forecasting...  Even if you are looking to
> allocate a /48 to every customer, you do realize this gives you 65,536
> customers (well, ok, subtract a few for your internal
> networks) to deal with.
> 
> Even if coming off a /21 allocation in IPv4, the same number of customers
> would mean that you are giving 3/8 of an IP to each of those
> customers you are forecasting!  :)   So coming from 2,048 single IP
> addresses to 2^96 (79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 or 79 octillion
> addresses) seems to represent a REALLY aggressive growth factor!
> 
> Just my two cents (or apparently $1,000).
> 
> Scott
> 
> On 3/14/12 11:10 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
> > I wanted to chime in on a couple of items.
> >
> > 1) When selecting the correct allocation size for IPv6 you are looking
> > at forecasting a minimum of 5 years out. The allocation size you
> > choose is not what is needed today but what you will need years from
> now. This is in sharp contrast to IPv4 which at most is a 12 month forecast.
> This to me is one of the key issues that are jumping ISP's from the X-SMALL
> to SMALL category.
> >
> > 2) We are missing critical data in being able to see the whole
> > picture. If we go on the premise that ARIN wishes to be revenue
> > neutral with IPv6 then we need to know how many ISP's are in the
> > categories. It will take X number of years before IPv4 use lowers and
> > moves companies into lower tier category (I really don't see being
> > less than 5-8 years). If that is the case then you could bill people
> > based on there
> > IPv4 allocation and at such time as the pendulum swings ARIN could revise
> the fee schedule to account for the loss.
> >
> > 3) The initial allocation size for IPv6 and what is suggested as the
> > correct end user assignment have been moving targets. As an example if
> > the fee structure was set to be based on each end user getting a /64 or a
> /56 then a /32 as small or medium makes sense. If you are reserving a /48 for
> each end user as seems to be the current trend then you are already
> significantly lowering the number of customers you would fit into that /32.
> >
> > I truly believe that /32 should be set to X-Small and that once ARIN
> > see's revenue loss it can adjust accordinly based on the /36 use
> > concept that David made earlier. That would put the change out years into
> the future and has the benefit of only happening at a time when the
> pendulum swing will have occurred and IPv6 will not be an optional
> endevaour as some of the smaller companies are seeing it as.
> >
> > Kevin Blumberg
> > T 416.214.9473 x31
> > F 416.862.9473
> > kevinb at thewire.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> >> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Josh Coleman
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:00 PM
> >> To: David Farmer
> >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?
> >>
> >> I also agree with the below statement. I think it is very clear and
> >> precise to the point and not punish ISP's for rolling out IPv6 when
> >> the financial incentive is just not there.
> >>
> >> Josh Coleman
> >> Chief Architect
> >> Cell +1 510.585.6534
> >> Work +1 415.294.2240 X1010
> >> Email: jcoleman at centauricom.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 3/14/12 20:11 CDT, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 5:57 PM, "Brent Sweeny"<sweeny at 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 I may not have been as clear as I meant to be, my intent was
> >>> that for any new allocations to qualify for X-small fee would need
> >>> to select a /36 as of that date.  The idea is that /32s
> >>> grandfathered as X-small would remain X-small until they grew beyond
> >>> /32 or an X-small
> >>> IPv4 allocation.
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>> Yep, we intend the same thing, except I would to extend the ability
> >>> to get a /32 at the X-small fee until the end of this year.
> >>>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>> --
> >>> ===============================================
> >>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> >>> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information
> >>> Technology University of Minnesota
> >>> 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
> >>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> >>> ===============================================
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> >>> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Centauri Communications
> >> Light years ahead of the Internet.
> >> http://www.centauricom.com
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> >> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.