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

[Robert E. Seastrom]

Dmitry Kohmanyuk <dk at intuix.com> writes:

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

Not necessarily.  It would be possible, for instance, to leave out
Small and Medium as sizes that can be meaningfully set by IPv6
holdings.

Consider the following statement:

   One COULD BE x-small based on the totality of the evidence (v4 and v6)
   if you have a /32 which is the standard minimum allocation
   notwithstanding the historical /35 and the current /36) 

   BUT

   There is NO WAY you are Small or even Medium if you have more than a
   /32."  For instance, you could say /28 makes you at minimum Large and
   /24 makes you at minimum X-Large.  This follows the ranges where they
   currently reside and represents my advocacy for sliding the subnet
   mask in nybble quanta.

I suspect based on the IPv4 holdings of organizations that could
credibly qualify for that amount of space, there would be no change in
their payments if we went with that model.

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

Four bits, divisible by 16, and yeah, not just the boundaries for
billing but for allocation.  There are leftovers from IPv4 austerity
model thinking that we all have to get over, in the way we think about
IPv6 space.

> So, I see those action points:
>
> 1) consider whether ARIN can afford to lose $400K right now (with
> potential to lose more in 2013.)

I'm sure that won't be a problem, but leave that to the fincom.

> 2) if 1 is yes - move on adjusting fee for Small category now to
> march X-small IPv4 (see impact above.)

Not necessarily necessary, see the model I espouse 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.

Opposed in general to the notion of a /36, but specifically opposed to
any model that incents organizations to request a /36.  That smells
like slow-start, which is not the IPv6 way.

> 4) optional - revise other IPv6 boundaries - probably does not
> really have big fiscal impact, and deserves separate discussion.

I like nybbles.  Perhaps others will agree with me over time.

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

-r