[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
rcarpen at network1.net
Wed Apr 17 12:19:13 EDT 2013
> Applying linear fee escalation to something which is clearly not a linear
> cost escalation (in fact, quite far from it) is absurd. In spite of Mr.
> Carpenter's claim to the contrary, ARIN has released the data he claims they
> do not have and the current fee structure is based on that data.
To clarify, I never said anything about ARIN not releasing any data (maybe you have me confused with someone else, as there were several responses back and forth in quick succession). For the record, I think ARIN is quite sufficiently transparent (sometimes surprisingly so), and that their budget is within reason.
I think the new fee schedule is reasonably fair. I offered up the suggestion of smoothing out the categories, and using the "bit" as the unit, mainly as an example of how to be constructive in the process, and as a retort to the ludicrous idea of charging per IP address.
> > 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.
> I don't think it makes sense to issue ISP allocations smaller than /22 in
> most cases.
> > Tying IPv4 requests to existing customer base of IPv6 users is interesting
> > idea, but it may be different to quantify in policy.
> I think there are better ways to fix the immediate needs (and more
> importantly, the general IPv4 policy).
> I think the real problem here is requiring pre-existing PA space of certain
> amounts as the initial test. The combination of a customer base, need, and
> efficient utilization of any PA space is probably the better test.
This is something that I believe really needs fixed (and needs to be fixed very quickly).
More information about the ARIN-discuss