[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

[John Curran]

On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Adam Greene <agreene at webjogger.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have not been following this issue closely, so my comment may be obvious or may otherwise already have been considered. We are a small ISP (less than 700 subscribers), with (2) /22 IPv4 assignments. We're currently paying $1250/yr for them. I understand the proposed July 2013 fee schedule will reduce our fees $250/yr, which is great. But we would very much like to start ramping up IPv6. The main obstacle to our requesting an IPv6 assignment has been cost. If we could get an IPv6 assignment of the same relative size as our IPv4 assignment without paying more, we would do it in a heartbeat. If ARIN wants to make a /32 the smallest assignment that ISPs obtain, then I think it should allow a small ISP to obtain a /32 at a minimum without having to increase its fees. In our case, that would mean making an X-Small assignment include a /32 block.

Adam - 
 
  Presently, the smallest allocation under IPv6 is /36, which
  would result in no increase in fees.  Does this suffice for
  your needs, or do you anticipate that a /32 would be needed
  due to the amount of customers/infrastructure?

> I recognize my point of view is limited as a small ISP. I just wanted to make sure it was heard at least. 

  Your input is highly valued, and you should not hesitate to 
  provide it at any time!

> John Curran's comment from a few days ago, "We just follow the policy that you folks develop and support via this mailing list and the Public Policy meetings" inspired me to participate.

  Excellent - also note that we have a Public Policy Meeting coming 
  up next week, and even if you can't attend in person, you can 
  participate in the discussions remotely - 
  <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-31/remote.html>

Thanks again!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN