[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[Randy Carpenter]

----- Original Message -----
> Randy,
> 
> My main issue here is that there's a fee cutoff after /14. I don't believe
> there should be.

Now, that is a point that I think merits discussion. We could certainly add larger categories, but since there are so few large orgs, would it really make that much difference? Should we quadruple (or more) the fees of the top few, in order to give a 5% discount to the smallest? (Those values are completely made up.) I don't know...

> 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.

Not at all meant to hyperbolic. I think comparison between /16 and /20 is perfectly within the realm of normal. A hyperbolic comparison would be a /6 (which I believe is about the largest any one org has as an aggregate), versus a /24 (the smallest), which under the "same cost per IP address, would be a 26,214,400% difference versus a 1,900% difference under my example. A side effect of my example, would be more confusion due to there being potentially 20+ categories for IPv4 and 40+ for IPv6. Even if you boiled it down to an single equation, many would not understand it (*ahem* the HD-Ratio that used to be in policy for IPv6 allocations)
 

> 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.

1,600% increase in fee for a 102,400% increase in space, sounds about right, considering the amount of work needed, is more, but not linear compared to the space.

-Randy