[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[Jesse D. Geddis]

Randy,

My main issue here is that there's a fee cutoff after /14. I don't believe
there should be.

Whether it's pegged at each bit change or each doubling it's still pegged
at a specific IP allocation which can be boiled down to a per ip cost just
as ARIN's current fee schedule can be boiled down to a per IP cost.

I haven't taken the time to do the math on your 16,000% assertion but my
sense is that it's intended to be hyperbolic by selectively presenting the
biggest number possible. Right now there's a 1,600% increase from /32 to
/22 for IPv6. Percentage-wise that's quite a big number, right? But in
real dollars it's only a 16x increase in fees for some astronomical
increase in address space that I haven't taken the time to calculate.

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC




On 4/17/13 3:28 PM, "Randy Carpenter" <rcarpen at network1.net> wrote:

>
>----- Original Message -----
>> John,
>> 
>> This data doesn't need to be made public if its not already. What I am
>>trying
>> to figure out is what a fee model would look like based on an operating
>> budget of $15mil if ARIN were to asses the fees based on assigned
>>aggregates
>> instead of tiers. (Just for ISPs)
>> 
>> If you started with assigned /22 ipv4
>> And assigned /36 for ipv6
>> 
>> Based on the current distribution and the current revenue if you applied
>> randy's model of the fee doubling with every bit increase what would
>>that
>> look like in dollars as far as fees? For folks that have say a /14 plus
>> another /19 or whatever, please round that up to a /13.
>
>I will note that the hypothetical example I showed did *not* double the
>fee for each bit. That would equate to a flat cost per IPs, which you
>have supported, but I think is unreasonable.
>
>In my example, someone who has a /8 would pay 1 more unit (17, versus 16)
>than someone who has a /7, which is 6.25% more. The only doubling would
>be a /24 versus a /23, and I think that is reasonably fair. A more common
>example would be comparing a /16 to a /20, which under your proposal
>would be a 16,000% increase, and under mine, 80%.
>
>Again, I am not putting forward my little exercise as a policy proposal.
>It is simply and example, and food for though. Like Owen said, it would
>simply expand the current fee categories to have intermediate (and
>potentially higher) additional categories.
>
>-Randy