[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Jesse D. Geddis
jesse at la-broadband.com
Mon Apr 15 20:25:54 EDT 2013
I may have been unclear due to the complexity of the discussion as well as there being multiple concurrent discussions.
I make no assumption. In fact I'm saying the opposite. In summary what I'm saying is I don't think making an 'ARIN man hours model' is fair because the resulting fee schedule will likely be arbitrary.
So my question is what would the fee be if we eliminated all tiers and took a minimum block size to calculate a flat fee based on.
The follow up question would be: armed with that information what impact do we all think that would have on adoption and waste.
Even further. What if we kept the initial /32 free for everyone (who requests it) with an IPv4 assignment to encourage rollouts for the time being?
I'm using myself as an example here, I rolled out ipv6 natively in my company specifically because I was incentivised by ARINs ipv6 fee waiver. I think it's good policy.
Someone pointed out earlier that we have at best a 2.4% adoption rate. I think that number is high but regardless. We need to do better.
LA Broadband LLC
On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:17 PM, "David Conrad" <david at cloudflare.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:
>> In other words, x-large takes more ARIN time and more provider time.
> You appear to be making two assumptions:
> 1) there is a linear relationship between the time it takes to provide allocation service and the size of allocation
> 2) the direct costs of providing allocation services are what make up a majority of the fees charged to members
> Both of these assumptions are suspect.
> My (ancient) experience relevant to (1) is that a far more direct relationship is found in the inverse of frequency of contact as folks who contact the RIR frequently have a greater familiarity with processes and have likely automated much of the justification generation. As a result, they generally require less time than folks who show up very infrequently, regardless of the size of request.
> As for (2), I'm guessing that the person-hour cost of doing the justification analysis for an allocation (the only part of the allocation process that is significantly impacted by the size of request) is pretty inconsequential compared to all the other costs that make up the ARIN's yearly expenses.
More information about the ARIN-discuss