[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Jesse D. Geddis
jesse at la-broadband.com
Mon Apr 15 16:36:34 EDT 2013
I've been arguing for a flat rate for about a year now. Your point about
large ISP's being able to comparatively drop huge subnets to customers is
well taken. You mentioned one reason for this, the other reason is because
there is waste/fraud literally into the allocation process. The more you
dole out the more you can ask for the more you ask for the more you
offload your fees onto everyone below you. This goes on and on until you
have a few dozen folks paying $1.3mil to use more than 80% the space while
everyone else pays $9.4mil for the leftovers of what the larger guys
literally piss it all away to the extent that we're now out of IP's. I
still don't buy that it takes 16mil IP's to make cialis!
I have yet to see anyone make a solid argument against it and find it
particularly misleading that people keep referencing the current fee model
as an allocation based one. It isn't. Lets stop pretending.
LA Broadband LLC
On 4/15/13 1:15 PM, "rlc at usfamily.net" <rlc at usfamily.net> wrote:
>Divide ARIN's revenue needs by the number of IPv4 ip addresses they are
>currently administrating. Then compare that to the current fee schedule
>tell me again how ARIN loves market-based solutions, at least as it
>encouraging IPv6 adoption. I am certainly not the only one over the
>has repeatedly suggested per-ip pricing partly for simple fairness
>ISP's have always been able to "afford" to dole out large subnets where
>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
>adoption phase of IPv6 (hence, why aren't they still free)? How do I
>have never had a single customer ask about IPv6. Not one. Not ever.
>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
>>> per-ip cost of IPv4, if their goal was to expedite IPv6 adoption,
>>> 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
>>> More to the point, there seems to be a peculiar distaste for
>> Could you elaborate some on the above point? I believe ARIN was the
>> RIR to have a formal transfer policy supporting market-based
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>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:
>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-discuss