[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

[Tim St. Pierre]

I think if we get beyond 4 billion ISPs in the world, we are going to
have other problems much more important that address space.

-Tim

On 13-04-11 11:43 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am in agreement with Michael Sinatra's tweak.  This seems to be a fair and balanced suggestion and only affects X-S and XX-S ISPs and who also have a /32 IPv6 allocation.  There is no affect for ISPs who are S or larger, nor for ISPs who are X-S or XX-S and have a /36 IPv6 allocation or no IPv6 allocation.
>
> On the topic of /32 vs /36, I do not understand why a /32 should not be the smallest allocation that ARIN carves out.  This is a very convenient size that readily allows ISPs to aggregate and accommodate IPv4 addressing.  A /32 still allows for up to 4 billion allocations.  Is there a chance that we will need more than 4 billion allocations any time soon (e.g. more than 4 billion ISPs wanting allocations)?  If so, how about reserving or setting aside some portion to carve into /36 if we ever need to, and only allocating /32 for now.
>
> Mike
>
> A. Michael Salim
> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> American Data Technology, Inc.
> PO Box 12892
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> P: (919)544-4101 x101
> F: (919)544-5345
> E: msalim at localweb.com
> W: http://www.localweb.com
>
> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Sinatra
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 12:18 AM
> To: arin-discuss
> Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


-- 
--
Tim St. Pierre
System Operator
Communicate Freely
289 225 1220 x5101
tim at communicatefreely.net
www.communicatefreely.net