[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

Brian Jankovich bjankovich at vaultnetworks.com
Tue Apr 16 09:56:21 EDT 2013

Hello All,

I would have to agree with Mike. As a small ISP owner who maintains the network and makes decisions that make the most business sense, I feel like Mike's got valid points in the fact that the revenues don't curb use or encourage adaption. My biggest fear is having customers looking to procure services from my ISP but I do not have any ips to give them causing my business to suffer. I'm sure there are many business owners on this list that may have had inklings like this at one time or another but haven't done anything about it. At this time, we(small ISPs) have the same voting power as the GIANTS to change the way big ISPs procure ips.

Besides it's somewhat pointless to charge the rich more as they have the money to pay the fees. Also if we vote to charge more than those fees will likely result in a rate increase of some sort directly to the consumer. So at the end of the day the plan is just making more inflation in our economy.  

What ARIN's policies need is reform on how and what IPv4 ips can be used for. It shouldn't be acceptable to put a public ip on a printer or desktop PC anymore. We have firewalls and NAT. We all saw where adaption led us with the health care industry in the past decade. It wasn't until a mandate was passed by govt that forced people to move to electronic medical records that the masses started using them. This is going to be the same for IPv6 adaption till someone puts their foot down. 

My thought process is the start reforming at places where IPv4 is not required. I also believe this is where a BULK of our IPv4 address space is being used. WHY do all the millions of cell phones, wireless cards, cable/DSL models need IPv4 ips on them when there is no hosting involved with their services AND they support ipv6? Why can't LARGE carriers do some 6-to-4 natting or something creative to get their networks on IPv6 and open up IPv4 ips to Hosting companies who actually need the ips? Just as one concept.

FOR EXAMPLE: If we pass policies where an ISP of X,Y,Z sorts who just has people surfing the net and no real resource requirements, then you have to meet these certain IPV6 transition guidelines otherwise ARIN will not allow approve new allocations of transfers of other's allocation. Such guides can be measures at 6mo, 12mo, 18mo and final full implementation of IPv6 at 24mos with the intention of giving back v4 ranges to ARIN for other to use. If ISP does not meet requirements at the time of review then they are no longer able to procure IPv4 from ARIN. 

This type of reform mandate will jumpstart adaption at the backbone and subscribers areas we need it to be at AND open up ipv4 space at the hosting/datacenter levels where we need it. It will also encourage business to dual-stack their offerings as they know there are many subscribers out there that are IPv6 native.  If this is possible, I think that raising costs of allocations is the right thing to do as ARIN will likely need to hire more staff to audit this process. Afterall it's for the better of the internet.

Brian Jankovich
President | vaultnetworks

305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com
skype: brianvaultnet

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike A. Salim [mailto:msalim at localweb.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:14 AM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

Hello all,

I noticed that this has become a hot topic for many folks as of yesterday.  I am curious:  Are ARIN fees really that unfair or onerous?  Or is there a motivation among some, that the big guys need to be charged much more just because they are big guys, no matter what?

Maybe I am reading the emails wrong but some of the conversation seems to be along the lines of "the big guys need to pay a whole lot more because ...".  I just do not see any obvious justification for that line of argument.

Since (IMHO and probably in the opinion of many, or most, ARIN members) the fees are not all that unfair, and since ARIN appears to be balancing its budget just fine with no pending budget crisis and no sudden need of a large cash infusion, why the big hubbub about fees?  Or did I miss something? (and apologies if I did).

I think the adage applies:  if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  A minor tweak or two is fine but I am hearing some major changes being suggested.

(As a disclaimer, being a S or X-S, I do not consider myself one of the big guys - yet).

Best regards

A. Michael Salim
VP and Chief Technology Officer,
American Data Technology, Inc.
PO Box 12892
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
P: (919)544-4101 x101
F: (919)544-5345
E: msalim at localweb.com
W: http://www.localweb.com

PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 
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 mailing list