[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

[Randy Carpenter]

I've been reading all of the discussion about the fee schedule and proposal 2013-3.

This is the first suggestion that makes sense to me. I think it is a great detriment to the deployment of IPv6 to hand out anything smaller than /32 to ISPs. I also think that the proposed fee schedule does potentially have an unintended side-effect of encouraging bad behavior.

Disclaimer: This potentially would affect my company and my customers. Although, I do not have any problem at all paying (or suggesting to my ISP customers that they should be paying) the rates set forth by the pending fee schedule. I would always choose a /32 for an ISP, as that is the proper thing to do.

thanks,
-Randy


----- Original Message -----
> Hi,
> 
> Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy
> 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's
> proposed fee schedule.  Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows
> for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category.  However, the
> current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the
> "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in
> the XX-small category.
> 
> See the tables here for more info:
> 
> https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html
> 
> Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a
> disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6.  A policy proposal (2013-3)
> has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as
> small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP,
> some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without
> justification.
> 
> However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of
> number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have
> been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive
> of that discussion.  Briefly summarized:
> 
> o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit
> into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it.
> This, in turn leads to two consequences:
> 
> o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes
> increasingly parsimonious with address space.
> o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less
> likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing,
> and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its
> space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if
> that space is from a single aggregable /32.
> 
> I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows:
> 
> "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32
> will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on
> their IPv4 allocation.  All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be
> calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or
> IPv6 allocation."
> 
> This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or
> XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation.  ISPs and end sites with
> allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay
> the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee.
> 
> It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined
> with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of
> the /32 for that ISP anyway.  I believe this tweak still allows for a
> sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to
> provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need
> to be revisited anyway.
> 
> I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak.  I realize
> the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to
> get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions,
> please create a separate thread).  However, I would like to know if
> there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing.
> 
> Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not
> impact myself nor my current or previous employers.
> 
> Michael Sinatra
> Energy Sciences Network
> LBNL/DOE Office of Science
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
>