[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[rlc at usfamily.net]

Divide ARIN's revenue needs by the number of IPv4 ip addresses they are
currently administrating.  Then compare that to the current fee schedule and
tell me again how ARIN loves market-based solutions, at least as it 
pertains to
encouraging IPv6 adoption.  I am certainly not the only one over the years who
has repeatedly suggested per-ip pricing partly for simple fairness 
reasons (big
ISP's have always been able to "afford" to dole out large subnets where small
ISP's have always been at a market disadvantage in that regard) and to
encourage IPv6 adoption.

The per-ip pricing seems to be taboo.

Maybe I am missing something, but I kind of think we are STILL in the early
adoption phase of IPv6 (hence, why aren't they still free)?  How do I 
know?  We
have never had a single customer ask about IPv6.  Not one.  Not ever.  
Granted,
we are not a large ISP, but right now, there is no demand in my world.




Quoting John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>:

> On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:15 PM, rlc at usfamily.net wrote:
>
>> Quite in fact, they should have been handing out IPv6 space for free 
>> to early
>> adopters who were already paying for IPv4 and gradually ratcheting up the
>> per-ip cost of IPv4, if their goal was to expedite IPv6 adoption, which it
>> clearly isn't.
>
> In fact, you describe exactly what we we've been doing ARIN had an IPv6
> fee waiver for many years and ramped it up to similar fees to IPv4 over
> time.
>
>> More to the point, there seems to be a peculiar distaste for market-based
>> solutions.
>
> Could you elaborate some on the above point?  I believe ARIN was the first
> RIR to have a formal transfer policy supporting market-based mechanisms...
>
> Thanks,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>