[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
owen at delong.com
Mon Apr 15 22:15:16 EDT 2013
What fraction of the cost should IPv4 represent vs. IPv6?
Are you suggesting just treat /24 and /32 as equivalent for cost computation?
Not that I dislike the incentives this creates (hand back all your IPv4 as fast as possible), but it
would create an interesting situation for IPv6 pricing as this occurred...
The faster IPv4 was deprecated as a result, the faster IPv6 fees would increase. Both the
rate and interim amounts of increase would be completely unpredictable as they are a function
of externalities not easily modeled and not under ARIN's control.
OTOH, if this were adopted, it would certainly do nice things if it were applied to my end-user
fees since I have 3 /24s and 1 /48 for a total of 3..000015258 units in that case and the cost
per unit is likely to be relatively low.
On Apr 15, 2013, at 15:41 , 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
> ARIN's yearly costs
> 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?
> 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 Geddis
> LA Broadband LLC
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:23 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks so much for finally breaking this down. I've asked for this a few
>> Jesse -
>> We've provided this information already; you did you review the referenced fee presentation?
>>> Here is how the data you pasted breaks out in fees collected in aggregate
>>> by those groups based on your numbers.
>>> X-Small 948 $1,185,000
>>> Small 2,240 $5,600,000
>>> Medium 630 $2,835,000
>>> Large 106 $954,000
>>> XLarge 73 $1,314,000
>> Per page 13 of the above presentation, here are the 2011 actual
>> costs as broken down by the existing fee categories:
>> X–Small $1,245,000 11.51%
>> Small $4,506,000 41.65%
>> Medium $2,835,000 26.21%
>> Large $ 909,000 8.40%
>> X–Large $1,323,000 12.23%
>>> My next question, John, is would you kindly superimpose the resources
>>> consumed in each category? What I want to know specifically is what how
>>> many IP's are currently allocated to each "class". For example, the small
>>> category can only possibly be allocated 18,345,600 IPv4's at the very most.
>> We have not done the above calculation, but it can be derived from the
>> whois data if you desire to do so.
>>> Here's what I find particularly interesting about these numbers:
>>> The entire group of "Small" are using in total less IP's than many SINGLE
>>> customers in X-Large. However, they are collectively paying 5x more. In
>>> other words. 2,240 customers are collectively paying $5.6million dollars
>>> for what 1 customer is paying $18k for! What the heck?
>> That is not surprising at all, and I will note that under IPv6, this effect is
>> even more pronounced (a single ISP with a /20 of IPv6 space will likely exceed
>> the total IPv6 holdings of thousands of ISP's with smaller address holdings.)
>> 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