[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[Jesse D. Geddis]

Randy,

	I'm shooting for simple and equitable. The only two ways I can see to
accomplish this is via a flat fee or by using an exponential linear model.

	As an aside I just did the math on a flat fee model based on John's
earlier revenue numbers of $9.9mil that comes out (rounded up) to $3,000
an Org. That would lower the cost for 1757 orgs and raise it $750 for
2,240. I think that's probably heading in the wrong direction since we
have a dual goal of getting IPv6 and folks should probably subsidize the
smaller allocations.


	For me, I think adding more categories would take a dated and inequitable
model and keep it dated. The current model has been used since I was a
teenager and it, like IPv4 address space hasn't scaled. However, based on
what you're suggesting here it sounds more like doubling every 2 bits
rather adding more categories which is fine by me.

	John, what do you think this would look like based on real numbers?

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC




On 4/17/13 4:19 PM, "Randy Carpenter" <rcarpen at network1.net> wrote:

>
>From an earlier post by John Curran:
>
>   Size        2011
>   Category    Count
>
>   X-Small      948
>   Small      2,240
>   Medium       630
>   Large        106
>   X­Large       73
>
>Note: this is according to the current/old fee schedule.
>
>Maybe John can answer what it looks like if we added more categories:
>
>XX-Large (larger than /12 up to /10) - $32,000 (already in the pending
>fee schedule)
>XXX-Large (larger than /10 up to /8) - $64,000
>XXXX-Large (larger than /8) - $128,000
>
>My guess is that there would be so few orgs in the top couple categories,
>that the fee increase would not be of any consequence.
>
>Is it just a matter of "but, they are big companies, so they should pay
>more money!"?
>
>thanks,
>-Randy
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>> 
>> 
>> ----- 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...