[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Jesse D. Geddis
jesse at la-broadband.com
Tue Apr 16 01:57:36 EDT 2013
You're speaking to my core issue. I don't like the cut off at the top. This is not dissimilar to what I was suggesting, just using a different unit of measurement to achieve what I think is the right goal.
Commercially/economically, here's the net effect of current fees. In order to start a business you have to beg some IP admin like Matthew with no experience as a business owner for address space who will then effectively decide whether or not you can start a company. This IP admin isn't paying for these addresses and his company is charging an arm and a leg to the customer for those IPs while his org is getting them for fractions of a cent. Then that business has to jump through all these hoops to pay out the nose for a tiny allocation. This skews things both in fees and in policy heavily towards the larger providers. I think the scale should be linear because the consumption is linear. I don't think ARINs costs per org are a good barometer for fees because its highly situational and will vary vastly from org to org.
Ultimately, the end user always pays for the IPs. Why should one org get them cheaper than everyone else and then have policy and fees geared to keep it that way.
When I look at a company like telus and compare them to my own or to Owen's employer we have rolled out ipv6 100% on our networks as have many people on this list. What's telus's excuse for failing to make any meaningful inroads there? Matthew, what I think would be a very useful contribution from you is why hasn't telus done it and how can we help you get beyond that? As far as your input on fees, I'm not sure what you can add there. Fees aren't your issue and you aren't paying them (personally) anyway.
LA Broadband LLC
On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:07 PM, "Randy Carpenter" <rcarpen at network1.net> wrote:
> 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.
>> 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
>> This not only has foundation, it's been proven by ARIN.
> 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