[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[Byrne, Cameron]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:04 PM
> To: Randy Carpenter
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net List; John Curran
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
> 
> 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.
> 
[Byrne, Cameron] 

Sorry, math newbie here.

What is an "exponential linear model" ?

I am familiar with exponential.

I am familiar with linear.

But, I don't know what is implied by "exponential linear"

To me, it sounds like there is red, there is black, and you are suggesting RedBlack 

Cameron

> 	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...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.