[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[Randy Carpenter]

I agree that a flat cost per an equal unit of space doesn't make sense, as it gets pretty ridiculous at both ends of the scale.

One of the places I can see where things seem a little arbitrary is right on the borders of the categories. If you have a /16 plus a /24, you pay twice as much as someone who has just a /16.

I wonder if it should be more like a flat fee per "bit."

For example, you could define that a /24 is the base amount, and go from there. A /23 is twice as much as a /24, a /22 3 times as much, etc.

So if you have a /22, you pay for 3 units.

/20 = 5 units
/16 = 9 units
/8 = 17 units

If you have a /20 and a /22, you pay for 8 units, thus putting a bit of extra cost per IP space, due to the additional registry entries, and additional staff resources needed to allocate and maintain 

That seems like it would be fairly similar to the current system, but more smoothly progressive.

-Randy
 
> Bottom line, as has been repeatedly stated, ARIN's costs do not scale
> linearly with the size of the blocks being distributed or the aggregate
> total address space distributed, so it is unbalanced to have their fees do
> so.
> 
> This not only has foundation, it's been proven by ARIN.
> 
> Owen