[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

Jesse D. Geddis jesse at la-broadband.com
Wed Apr 17 17:40:32 EDT 2013


Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On Apr 17, 2013, at 1:31 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Jesse -
>  There are lots of ways to establish fees, and each will excel at
>  approximating costs for some users and do poorly for others.  It
>  is not feasible to aim for perfect cost recovery model, as it would
>  have dozens of factors going into the calculation of each members fees.

John, I have gone on the assumption that there's no perfect model. That's why I argue for an equitable model rather than the current one which from what I gather is neither equitable or based on ARINs actual costs. 

>> 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.
> Recognize that there is a transaction cost involved in issuing (or 
> transfering) an address block to a party, but beyond that point,
> ARIN's actual costs are not significantly different for a large IP
> address block versus a small IP address block.  We should all be
> very thankful for this, as ARIN's costs would have become enormous
> upon the assignment of the first IPv4 block...  (which has so many
> individual IP addresses that any cost per IP would still be too much.)

Well I think that depends and is highly subjective. In my experience the time ARIN spends on a ticket directly correlates to the size of the requested block. With the larger block I have found ARIN spends exponentially more time vetting the documentation, diagrams, spreadsheets, projections, and contracts than it does with say a /22. From what I'm hearing you say you believe ARIN spends an equal amount of time vetting a /22 as it does a /14. I can't fathom how this could be possible. If I'm requesting a /14 ARIN would presumably be reviewing documentation for hundreds of thousands of IPs and huge diagrams and projections vs reviewing documentation for 500 IPs associated with a /22 request.

> ARIN's costs do go up with each address block in registry, and the
> structure of the present fee schedule is reasonable approach to the
> allocation of costs across the members based on their size.  This is 
> remarkably common among trade associations (which is our organizational
> structure) only we are doing it via address holdings rather than the 
> most typical budget/revenue size.
> FYI,
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list