[arin-discuss] IPv6 Why as justification for IPv4?

[Drake Pallister]

Hello folks,

I don't get this twist on V6 holdings as justification for getting V4 allocations.

We were in a world of V4 which had to transition to something new because V4 (that would never run out, as thought 15 years ago) so 
we came up with V6.

If there are some creative intelligent people who built an infrastructure of all V6, I am amazed. They are Genius with a capital G 
because I am in awe of your doings.

But please tell me why that should be used as a criteria for dispersion of V4 IP numbers.

As more and more Genius providers connect more and more V6 customer base, then the need for V4 should decrease drastically.

I don't see the logic. Is it a reward for making use of V6?  Are we new suddenly rolling in newly unused V4 now because V6 is in 
such widespread use?

Time for an analogy?   If I go into a tavern and can successfully consume.... Well, Nope that analogy goes nowhere.

The summary of my thought pattern is straight forward.  If you need or want V6, you requisition for V6. If you need or want V4, you 
requisition for V4.

In the end, I was to believe a strive for a transition over to V6 with backward compatibility for the tiny quantity of V4 still in 
use.

Drake




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
To: "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com>
Cc: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?


> On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> Thank you. Here's my suggestion for fees. Comments are always welcome.
>>
>> Take the following pieces of data:
>> Total assigned /24 for IPv4
>> Total assigned /32 for IPv6
>
>  How do you wish to count ISP allocations and end-users assignments,
>  i.e. separately or together?
>
>  Also, why /32 for IPv6 and not /48?  (presuming 1 /48 per end-user
>  with IPv6, similar to 1 /32 IPv4 for end-user due to NAT use...)
>
>  Working quickly (from the historical stats online) -
>  <https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/historical.html>
>
>  Total ISP allocations from 1999 to 2012 is 1,920,900 (in /24 equivalents)
>
>> ARIN's yearly costs
>
>  Nearly the same as revenues, and per page 14 of the fee slide deck,
>  approximately $15.4 million.
>
>> Find the following:
>> Take ARINs yearly cost an divide it by the first two numbers. I think that should dictate fees per /24 or /32 regardless of 
>> whether or not that's allocated in a /20 (IPv6) or a /12 (IPv4).
>>
>> If we were to do that what would that cost per /32 or /24?
>
> If it were purely divided by ISP IPv4 allocations, then
> it would be approximately $8/year per /24 equivalent.
>
>> Also, regarding ARINs costs. I'm curious to know what the other options and their price was vs this retreat ARIN is doing to 
>> Trinidad... Is that really the best, most economical use of our fees? How many IPs are in use there? I was pretty appalled when I 
>> saw that show up in my inbox. Surely ARIN can find better uses for our funds than such extravagance...
>
>
> Jesse, ARIN serves more than 25 economies and the majority
> of these are in the Caribbean.  We even have number resource
> policies which are specific to ISPs in the Caribbean region -
> <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four9>  While most of
> our meetings are in the United States and Canada, we also
> try to meet periodically in the Caribbean, as there is no
> substitute for direct interaction with those who we serve.
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>