[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[John Curran]

Dmitry - 

  Thanks for that excellent post summarizing this recent change at RIPE.
  I noted this in a similar discussion on the PPML mailing list recently
  <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2013-April/026586.html> but 
  appreciate your message's additional, helpful background information.

  While it is very important that each region establish its own fees based 
  on its services and requirements, there is nothing wrong with comparing 
  the structural aspects of other regions schedules as examples of possible 
  frameworks to consider...

Thanks again for your note!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Dmitry Kohmanyuk <dk at intuix.com> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> here are my few comments on a new hot topic for this spring :)
> 
> Disclaimer: I am also on NRO NC as representative from RIPE region, so I know a bit about RIPE's policies and can compare some.
> ...
> While we can debate here whether there should be cost dependent on total size of IP address blocks allocated ("tax the rich"),
> or should tiers be narrower ("16 ranks of IP consumption"), I would also like to bring attention to new RIPE policy which just became
> effective after last year General Meeting - 
> 
> RIPE NCC Members (LIRs, equivalent of ISPs) used to pay a fee depending on their tier, calculated using a formula doing a weighted
> sum of allocated address blocks depending on their age ("charging scheme") used as a scope and then sorting all members by that score,
> and then dividing them by categories so each class had certain percentage of total members.  Thus, fees were not exactly predictable
> as they depended not just on a member paying them, but on total distribution of membership allocations and their ages ("seniority".)
> 
> Here is current schema, and historical data for reference (5 fee bands):
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-566
> 
> So, RIPE members voted for flat fee structure, where each member pays exactly same amount of money, plus fixed fee per each PI object.
> AS numbers are excluded from fee calculation.  So, one obtains addresses on need, and money is not a concern at all.
> ...
> So, if we make everybody to pay same amount of $ for IP address regardless size of allocation, it would discourage address resale
> and hoarding, at a cost of increasing fees of "big, bad" ISPs by factor of thousands.  Is that a good way to solve a problem? (Methinks, no.)
> 
> My suggestion would be to make it easier to obtain initial allocation (and perhaps make it smaller - say, /23 - and perhaps remove restriction on
> multihoming - allowing new ISPs with no immediate need of /22 to get started on their own IP space.
> 
> Tying IPv4 requests to existing customer base of IPv6 users is interesting idea, but it may be different to quantify in policy.
> 
> -- dk@