[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Jesse D. Geddis
jesse at la-broadband.com
Wed Apr 17 12:21:32 EDT 2013
Whether its framed as 'paying for IP addresses' or 'paying for registration services' is really irrelevant. The fact is is that it is tiered up to a certain point until you get different rules from everyone else at x-large. Further, those tiers are pegged to an _allocation_size_. So applying a fee scale to IPs is something _ARIN_ did by implementing this tiered structure in the first place. Not us.
Regarding your mention of ARINs costs associated with different tiers and the assertion that x-large costs ARIN less money. No one has put forth any hard data whatsoever to support that argument. Its an unfounded assertion that's been given mythological status by you and some other folks. Indeed, even John Curran himself mentioned we can look at other models including pegging the fees to actual ARIN costs implying that they aren't right now. Based on these things I don't find this to be a valid excuse to give x-large much lower costs proportionately and to allow them to scale exponentially with no concern of fees or having to proportionately 'support' like everyone else.
What I'm interested in hearing, Owen, and others. As well as, I'm guessing the poster you replied to, several other people who have also publicly questioned the hybrid scale, and the 3 dozen people on this list who emailed me privately but weren't interested in the public flogging by some you folks (Matthew, Lee, and a couple others) is a reasoned answer to the following:
Why *should* there be a fee increasing cutoff at /14
Why should x-large (73 orgs out of thousands) get a different set of rules than everyone else.
And please, let's stick to the facts and avoid repeated assertions like the below that have no basis in actual data. Personally, I think trying to divine ARINs cost per tier and creating a fee structure based on that is a very bad idea. Indeed, my proposal is fundamental in getting rid of the current tier structure altogether.
LA Broadband LLC
On Apr 17, 2013, at 8:42 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:53 AM, rlc at usfamily.net wrote:
>> If I understand the ARIN revenue "needs" as approximately $8 per class C
>> correctly, that means we are paying almost 6x more than that (in our particular
>> case). It would seem that a lot of you on the list don't seem to care that big
>> ISP's get their IP's at a discounted rate, thus putting the rest of us at a
>> market disadvantage. I knew exactly where the thread go when I pulled it
>> (nowhere), but it is amusing to watch the action.
> Your first mistake is in having the perception that you are paying for IP addresses.
> You are not. They are not property. You are paying for IP address registration
> services and smaller organizations get those same services for less money than
> larger organizations.
> You can ask anyone in the industry and I think my history also speaks for itself.
> I tend to be pretty sympathetic to the smaller organizations. I, myself am a pretty
> small end-user organization as well as an employee of a large ISP organization.
> I also have clients who are XX-S, X-S, and Small ISPs.
> Pricing ARIN services per IP address does not make any sense to me because
> it has no correlation with how ARIN's costs are affected. I'm all for having fees
> that are proportional to organization size for the most part, but it has to be
> logarithmic rather than linear in nature (4x org size should not be 4x fees,
> but 4x org size = 2x fees is probably close to right for the most part).
> (I'll note that the current fee structure is roughly that).
> IMHO, the only problem with the current adopted fee structure is at the low end
> of IPv6 and all that is needed is a better mechanism than allocation size for
> determining organization size at the low end of IPv6.
> Mainly because I want to see us avoid creating powerful economic incentives
> for organizations to shoe--horn their customers into undersized IPv6 assignments.
> I recognize that some organizations intend to do this shoe-horning anyway, even
> without an economic incentive. That's unfortunate, but it is allowed in policy.
> However, there's a difference between allowing a certain amount of harmful
> behavior by independent choice (necessary in a free society) vs. providing an
> economic reward for that behavior (unnecessary and harmful in general).
>> I did see somewhat of a new bizarre response this time around, though. Someone
>> actually likened this to getting the rich to "pay their fair share". Perhaps
>> they didn't notice, but nobody was advocating for a progressive tax. Quite
>> the contrary, we are talking about a "flat tax" to replace the current heavily
>> REGRESSIVE tax. Thus, that was one of the most preposterous responses ever.
> It sounds good when you put it that way, but it ignores the economic realities because
> it is based on the incorrect assertion about what you are actually paying for and
> of the costs associated with the actual services you are receiving for your money.
>> I have heard continual whining about lack of IPv6 adoption, while ARIN refuses
>> to adopt policies to encourage it. Stop the whining, or do something about it.
> We have adopted a number of policies to encourage IPv6 adoption, actually.
> I don't think a per-ip address fee structure would encourage IPv6 adoption.
> If you have a proposal for policy that would do so, please submit it to policy at arin.net
> and let's discuss it.
>> In the meantime, the big ISP's will continue to pull the strings.
> Repeating this claim doesn't make it true. The strings are pulled by the people
> who participate in the policy discussions and the members who vote in the ARIN
> elections. Neither of these is dominated by large ISPs.
> 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