[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

Drake Pallister drake.pallister at duraserver.com
Fri Apr 12 22:51:41 EDT 2013

Hello Folks,

May I offer some thoughts relative to this V6 xxx-small  fee schedule discussion?

I agree with a recent comment / clarification that I will paraphrase part. It may have been by John Curran, but was part of a 
posting of his and have seen it in many postings.

***"Hand back your /32 and renumber to a new /36 or pay a higher fee if you want to keep your /32".  Hence my comment.***

BTW. Let me clarify that I'm speaking about of  I.S.P./Provider non-end-user direct allocations (unless ARIN end-user direct 
assignments fall in here somehow)

To that extent, in my own words; if a resources holder purchased a /32 because that was the closest desirable available size at the 
time; then the resource holder bought himself a /32 of v6.

I diverse a moment:
Analogy:  I bought a 2012 Cherokee fully loaded with options I don't even need, because that was the only available package at the 
time, then 6 months later they post a blockbuster special price for the same vehicle with less options just as I originally wanted. 
Should Jeep have to buy mine back and sell me the current one that I really wanted?  Nope. I bought mine under my own free will and 
could have waited to see what becomes available next.

Back on subject:
I don't fully understand why the amount of hub-bub about this because we're "not" talking about tens-of thousands of dollars 
annually. The only reasoning logical to me would be the difficulty in reassignments and utilization (assignments, reallocations --  
getting usage onto the IP's) but that can be waived to a miniscule usage until the Internet is v6 Native enough. At 50 years old I 
begin to wonder if I'll ever see an entire Internet v4+v6 native environment and still be full active in this work.

Perhaps it would help those org's if ARIN set up a kiddy-simple share/split-up list where an org could list that they have a /32 and 
want to split it with someone. If the split up of the net was successful, then each party would be annually paying for whatever 
percentage of the /32 each one ended up with.  There might be guidelines limiting the minimum size to keep. /36 or /40 being the 
smallest to avoid 5XSmall stupid stuff. Then ARIN charges for a transfer fee, smaller because the bulk of the coordination would 
have been done by the org's via the split-up list, be it 2, 3, or more orgs. The orgs splitting and taking from offered split would 
each submit their paperwork to ARIN showing a matching split-up of all the orgs involved in that split-up. If they all match, then 
it's a done-deal.

I believe such a v6 (semi-self service) split-up list would make make the orgs work out their splits among themslves and submit the 
paperwork to ARIN for a look-over and approval. This is also intended to take much labor off of ARIN as well.

Re: New Prices/ Offerings
However, ARIN formally sets up offerings for XX-Small or even XXX-Small v6 direct allocations, then an orgainzation could buy in on 
one of those.
If an org doesn't need want a v6/32 and opt for a /36 or /40 (really pushing it), they're unlikely to need to come back for more v6 
IP's very quickly.

Suggestion, maybe wrong time/place:
Additionally, to spark the IPv6 fires of small service providers who have no v6 wholesale or retail customers, not knowing how well 
it will take hold with their customer base, I would be pleased to see ARIN offer a very small, no questions asked, "Kickstart" 
direct allocation of (maybe a v6 /40 smallest allowed) whereas the only requirements are that they are already a member, resource 
holder, but most important-- completely paid up to date. This Kickstart would still equate to additional revenue for ARIN plus help 
get some org's feet wet into the cold water of the IPv6 swimming pool. Then when that org has jumped into the v6 swimming pool and 
their customers learned to swim;  it would have to be ARIN's decision whether to allow them to keep the original  `IPv6/kickstart` 
and acquire a larger block-- or force return and renumbering.  Renumbering is pain in the neck, especially when you (the org) has to 
force it on its innocent downstream customers. If ARIN finds my phrase IPv6/Kickstart attractive, as an allocation name for v6 
resources or a v6 campaign name they may call it theirs without royalties. To others, it just became copyrighted when I hit the send 
button for this public posting.

Best regards,
Drake Pallister

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
To: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
Cc: "arin-discuss List" <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

> On Apr 12, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> wrote:
>>> 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.
> Thanks!
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> _______________________________________________
> 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. 

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list