[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Jesse D. Geddis
jesse at la-broadband.com
Mon Apr 15 22:14:04 EDT 2013
LA Broadband LLC
On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:42 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:
>> 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...)
John, the only reason I suggested /32 vs /48 is because it seemed to me that the /36 and /48 allocations weren't particularly popular with the members on this list. Their future is unclear to me and I had to pick something :)
> Working quickly (from the historical stats online) -
> 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.
I got that, the number I didn't know is the allocations per specific block size. Thank you
>> 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.
Now that is truly fascinating. John, I hate to ask for one more thing but if you were to pick someone at random in the x-large, what would that do to their fees? What impact do you and others think that would have on their current end user IP allocation policy? What harm do you think would come from making people pay per x sized block instead of the current tiered model which I think disproportionately favours them?
Just questions, I think are worth answering. I don't see the need for a few people's intense disregard for looking at other completely different models which John himself suggested we consider.
My goal here, and some of this may be lost in how aggressively I've had to reiterate due to a few folks personal remarks is that we get IPv6 out there and implemented as fast as possible. A couple other things that I'm interested in is removing ARIN as an inadvertent but formidable barrier to entry for businesses.
>> 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.
> John Curran
> President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-discuss