[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule
Mike A. Salim
msalim at localweb.com
Sun Apr 14 22:32:45 EDT 2013
I am commenting on your statement
> "Umm... To be accurate, it would be more comparable if Jeep told you it would be without charge due to a 100% waiver, but that waiver would be retired over the next four years (100%, 75%, 50%, 25%) - "
Not to belabor the point, but in my particular case the waiver analogy would not be accurate. I originally applied for, and received, an IPv4 X-S allocation (/20). I also asked for an IPv6 allocation (I did not specify a size). I was given a /32 which I was fine with. I did not say "no I do not want a /36, I would prefer a /32". At the time ARIN was only handing out /32. I activated the /32 in my network and allocated it among my customers. There was no mention of my becoming a S instead of an X-S at that point.
Then some months later along came the news: I am now a S because I have a /32 IPv6, never mind that I have only a /20 IPv4, and was given the option of either handing the /32 back and renumbering to a /36, or consider myself "promoted" to a S with the associated higher fees.
If ARIN had stayed with a /32 as the smallest allocation that it deals out (even with a X-S or XX-S), all would have been fine. Since there was an established precedence of having given /32 to X-S, that should have been maintained, instead of suddenly telling X-S who already have a /32, "oops we did not mean to give you a /32, we changed our mind, hand it back or renumber into a /36".
Again, I am not lamenting the additional fee, it is a very small increment and I am OK to pay it. But I am discussing the principle of it.
BTW if I do pay the higher fee and accept that I am a S instead of a X-S, will I be automatically allocated another IPv4 /20 so I have a IPv4 /19 to go with my IPv6 /32 per the published fee schedule at https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#isps? If so, that would make it fair.
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
E: msalim at 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.
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 11:58 AM
To: Mike A. Salim
Cc: arin-discuss List
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule
On Apr 13, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Mike A. Salim <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:
> The analogy fails because after I have purchased and taken my Jeep home, Jeep Cherokee Corporation does not come back to me and say: "About that Jeep you we sold you for $1000, we need you to pay up another $1000 or exchange it for a lower model because we changed our mind and came out with a lower model at the $1000 price and raised the price on the one we sold you". Yet that is pretty much what ARIN is telling me.
Umm... To be accurate, it would be more comparable if Jeep told you it would be without charge due to a 100% waiver, but that waiver would be retired over the next four years (100%, 75%, 50%, 25%) -
(This is what the Board implemented in order to provide a predictable transition to the regular fee schedule after many years of no fees for
For those with /40 to /32 IPv6 holdings (x-small category), the annual fee would be $2250/year under the current fee schedule without any waiver (note that the Board also extended the 2012 25% waiver [net $1688] till the Revised fee schedule takes effect, to avoid having folks have to pay
$2250 under the regular fee schedule during the transition period.
You are correct that under the Revised fee schedule, an organization with
IPv6 holdings of /32 will see fees of $2000/year, but these are lower than the current fee schedule which is presently in place and was to take effect without any waiver in 2013.
> BTW we are not talking large $$ here - I am happy to pay $1000, $2000
> or $2200 for the allocation I have received. ARIN does a great job
> and it is in all our mutual interests to help ARIN continue to meets
> is fiscal goals. But it is an enjoyable philosophical discussion on
> the principles involved, nonetheless :-)
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-discuss