[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
eric at a5.com
Tue Apr 16 13:26:35 EDT 2013
Jesse's right----there is a hybrid model here that works against encouraging ipv6 adoption by the larger community (mostly small operators)---(I believe that is still the underlying goal of this discussion?)
There is a scale on org costs but not one that is complete. That imbalance has created a bit of cart/horse issue. There is no compelling business case from a client-demand perspective that we see currently (echoed by others) to motivate us at this point on ipv6.
The reality is that these larger orgs likely won't pay on the same scale, which forces the financial burden onto the smaller providers (where the scale exists). That logic continues through to the ipv6 funding model as well. If there were equivalent scaled financing of ipv4, ARIN's budget would be significantly different----which could allow them to subsidize/further enable small operators to take on ipv6 costs and increasing the deployment speed.
Interesting discussion---and I feel for the OP---challenging time to deploy a public IP network. Good luck!
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:58 AM
To: Mike A. Salim
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
I've advocated a flat, linear fee structure. There's no "x should pay more" in there. Quite the contrary, I and several others are saying we should all pay the same amount.
I find some of the folk's takeaways from these emails mind bending...
The vast majority of the people on this list subsidise those 73 orgs in x-large by encouraging policies and fees put yourself on weaker footing. Maybe some of you don't understand the sheer scale you are kneecapping yourselves at. AT&T has Well over 32 million friggin IPs. Does anyone on this list honestly believe att has done a stellar job on IPv6? Or with IPv4 for that matter? They are paying _at_most_ $0.0005 an IP address while someone in small is paying $0.61 an IP. Are you friggin joking me?
I have yet to hear a single person make an argument as to why the cap at /14 is a reasoned one.
Someone take a stab at it. The fee scales linearly all the way up until /14 and then you guys all seem to have a brain fart and argue against a linear scale. Why do they different rules? Don't tell me a linear scale doesn't make sense because its what's in place now! Tell me why it should stop at /14 and give everyone above that a free friggin ride on our backs.
LA Broadband LLC
On Apr 16, 2013, at 5:15 AM, "Mike A. Salim" <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:
> 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.
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