[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

Randy Carpenter rcarpen at network1.net
Tue Apr 16 03:07:08 EDT 2013

Replies inline...

----- Original Message -----
> Randy,
> 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.

What you are suggesting is that an org with a /8 should pay 65,000 times more than one with a /24. My quick brainstorm showed an example where it would be 17 times more. In both cases, we are talking about a single org with a single entry in the registry. The /8 org certainly has more overhead in the beginning, but certainly not 65,000 times more, and not much more at all on an ongoing basis.

I would say that qualifies as dissimilar.

> 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.

I am not sure how assumptions about specific people's experience and pejorative comments help your arguments at all. It is not constructive whatsoever.

> 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.

What you are talking about here is a serious issue. I agree wholeheartedly that ARIN needs to fix the chicken/egg problem that currently exists with new entities. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with your argument above. If a organization is being denied IPs from their upstream provider, it means that the upstream provider is dumb. They either are not properly managing their IP space, or are simply refusing because they feel like it. Do you think that changing the upstream providers fees from $32,000/year to $1,000,000/year is going to change that?

Let me throw out a quick suggestion for a potential policy proposal:

Change NRPM to remove the references to "upstream provider" from section 4.2, and instead allow new entities that can provide proper justification the ability to apply for a /22 of initial space. In other words, make all initial allocations fall under the current rules for multi-homed orgs. (Obviously, a proper policy proposal would require a more thorough investigation, and proper wording and such, but you get the idea.)

There is a simple idea that I think many people can agree on, at least in concept.

> 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.

It sounds like you think IPs are a commodity. They aren't. They are a finite and unique resource which require reasonable stewardship. Can we all please stop trying to attach a unit price to single IP addresses? It doesn't make much sense in IPv4, and with IPv6 becomes absolutely ludicrous.

> 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?

Again, you are calling out a specific entity. I have no experience with Telus, so I don't really have much comment other than: If you think they are doing it wrong, do you think raising their fees by an order of magnitude will somehow change 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.
> Jesse Geddis
> LA Broadband LLC

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. Fees are an issue for me. I am directly involved with several orgs that pay fees to ARIN.


More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list