[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Fri Apr 12 15:11:22 EDT 2013

On Apr 12, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>

>> Owen - 
>> It is very important to have a fee schedule which is "complete";
>> i.e. covers the entire range of possible address holdings.  It is
> Having a tier or tiers which is ≤/32 would do that just fine.
> In the case of tiers, it would be important that these not be differentiated
> based on smaller IPv6 holdings in order to avoid creating an incentive
> for harmful policy.

Owen - the community should be free to discuss and decide whether or 
not any given policy proposal is "harmful policy"...  

>> also good for the Board to be clear regarding the corresponding
>> fee expectations for all ranges. The fee schedule should not be
>> constraining the community discussion in any manner, and it would
>> not be appropriate for the ARIN Board to use the fee schedule to 
>> preempt discussion of policy, including the proposed change in 
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 "Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs" 
>> <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2013_3.html>.
> ...
> This perception is the reason that the initial version of 2013-3 proposed
> issuing /48s to ISPs. It wasn't until statements were made indicating that
> the board would be very likely amenable to moving the XX-Small
> boundary to /40 that acceptance of moving the policy proposal from /48
> to /40 began to gain acceptance.

My apologies at that initial confusion; as was pointed out be several
folks, having the xx-small category at /48 neither made sense nor did
it match the otherwise predictable linear progression that we were trying
to achieve.  The mistake was mine, and as previously noted, it is likely
to be corrected as a matter of record.  This does not mean that the Board
"wants" or "doesn't want" IPv6 allocation policy to change, only that we
want the community to have a predictable fee schedule as a backdrop for 
its policy considerations.

We already have policy allowing ISPs to opt to receive a /36 and hence 
have aligned that on Revised fee schedule to match the x-small category
(and are able to have lower fee for that x-small category because it is 
an opt-in category which is unlikely to consist of all ISPs.)

In truth, the community needs to consider the smallest IPv6 allocation 
that is technically sound for ISPs.  If there is no policy for /40 
allocations, then none will be made, and today's x-small category will 
effectively remain the smallest fee category in use.

One excellent aspect of this discussion is that it has raised a valid
question as to whether the fee structure that we have used since ARIN's 
inception (that of size categories) is the best structure going forward,
and that is an important question that the Board has looked at in the
past but should likely revisit in light of the increased interest by
the community and excellent suggestions for alternative structures...
For example, would a fee structure which is unrelated to address holdings 
be a better approach and prevent fee/policy interactions?  Would a fee
structure which is tied more directly to registry costs (e.g. registry
objects and/or transaction costs) be more appropriate?  I believe that 
these are some aspects of a longer discussion to be held on this topic.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list