[arin-discuss] ARIN registration fee data (was: Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?)

[Dmitry Kohmanyuk]

On Mar 15, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Looks to me like the current scope of the problem is limited to $406,000
> in reduced revenue with an overall scope limit of $1,229,000+growth
> total scope.
> 
> By that, I mean that if we simply declared /32 to be x-small and set the
> fee at $1,250, the loss to ARIN in revenue from current holders 
> would be limited to the 406 currently paying based on their IPv6
> small status (or less) and that there is no possibility of it applying
> to more than the 1,229 x-small IPv4 members (+growth) even if
> everyone were to take up IPv6 resources tomorrow.
> 
> Would that be an accurate conclusion from the data, John?
> 
> If that is the total impact, then, I would actually support declaring /32
> to be extra-small and would support subsequent policy to eliminate
> the /36 as moot.

Well, we have to have X-small and Small categories, right?

And somebody suggested to put IPv6 category limits on nibble boundaries (divisible by 4.)

So, I see those action points:

1) consider whether ARIN can afford to lose $400K right now (with potential to lose more in 2013.)
2) if 1 is yes - move on adjusting fee for Small category now to march X-small IPv4 (see impact above.)
3) optional - introduce X-Small IPv6 at /36 and set its fees to match X-small IPv4, adjusting Small IPv6 up - from Jan1,2013.
4) optional - revise other IPv6 boundaries - probably does not really have big fiscal impact, and deserves separate discussion.

Now, I guess we can all benefit from John Curran opinion on point 1, at least.

-- dk@