[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[Jesse D. Geddis]

Byrne,

I made it up :D more specifically what I meant was a linear model that doesn't stop at /14. Which I think would be more aptly described as a linear scale. However it's kind of a hybrid right now of a linear and flat fee or /14 and above so I made up a term to differentiate them based on the responses. 

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On Apr 18, 2013, at 9:30 AM, "Byrne, Cameron" <Cameron.Byrne at T-Mobile.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----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.