[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Mon Apr 15 22:36:13 EDT 2013

On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:

>> 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
>>> 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?

It would change the fees for x-large dramatically.  

> What impact do you and others think that would have on their current end user IP allocation policy?

It would not change end-user allocation policy, that
is up to the community.  What change would you propose?

> 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?

As was noted earlier, you are allocating based on "per x block",
and actual costs are probably quite different in distribution.
Is your goal aiming for "perfect" equitable cost-recovery, or
recovering costs pro-rated against perceived value?

> 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.

Any cost-recovery model is going to be imperfect, but each will
have strengths in meeting certain goals (such as equitable when
compared to the effort to support the member, or comparable to 
value as perceived, etc.)  

> 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. 

If that's the case, then the ratio of fees between IPv4 and IPv6 
becomes all important.  Unfortunately, if you skew things to be 
a great benefit to IPv6 over the short-term, then you also create
significant uncertainty over the long-term, since not is very likely
not sustainable.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list