[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Jesse D. Geddis
jesse at la-broadband.com
Thu Apr 18 12:58:24 EDT 2013
Thank you for getting exactly what I've been after here. I'm just trying
to understand why we have 2 different pay scales and looking for someone
to present a solid argument to support the xx-large cut off. Like you, I
haven't heard one thus far. If I may summarize the 'against' argument I've
heard thus far it's been the assertion that xx-large must 'cost less' to
ARIN. However, that assertion hasn't been supported by any presented data
and our current pay scale isn't based on ARIN costs anyway. It's based
purely on allocation size up until /14. So I'm not sure that's an
assertion we can continue to make.
LA Broadband LLC
On 4/18/13 8:52 AM, "Jon Daniels" <jdaniels at forked.net> wrote:
>> Yes, the fee structure tops out at XXL. Once you reach a certain size
>>and are paying $32,000/year, you don't have to pay more even as you get
>> In reality, extending that pricing linearly beyond XXL wouldn't change
>>pricing at the lower tiers by much. Further, it is very unlikely that
>>those organizations are actually creating costs for ARIN that would come
>>even close to doing so.
>> Let's assume, for a moment, that an ISP existed that held </4, ?/6. By
>>your argument, said ISP should, instead of $32,000/year, pay
>>$256,000/year instead of $32,000/year. To the best of my knowledge,
>>there is no such ISP and
>> there are probably fewer than 5 ISPs in the </6, ?/8 category at
>>$128,000/year, so your maximum additional yield
>> there is $480,000/year. Of the remaining 48 organizations in the XX-L
>>category, I have no idea where the split would
>> fall between the $64,000 bracket you would establish at </8, ?/10 vs.
>>the existing $32,000 bracket. My best guess
>> would be a ~50/50 split, so let's say 24 organizations.
>> So, you would increase costs for top-end organizations as follows:
>> 5 * 96,000
>> 24 * 32,000
>> If we were to spread that evenly across the X-S, S, and M registrants
>>(total 3818->3306 organizations), you would save each of those
>>organizations less than $400 per year.
>> I simply don't buy that it's somehow more fair to inflict 64k and
>>128k/year pricing on to a small number of organizations at the top end
>>to subsidize $400 discounts to 3300 other organizations.
>As a percentage of the involved organizations annual expenses, it
>could in fact be *more* fair. I don't know all the XX-Large orgs
>involved, other than an example of my own company paying $2000/year on
>the upcoming fee schedule with $60k in annual expenses and a /8 holder
>paying $32,000/year with $1 billion in expenses (quickly looking at a
>list of /8 holders, a significant portion have annual expenses way
>over $1 billion / year).
>$32,000 is 0.0032% of $1 billion.
>$2000 is ~3.3%of $60,000.
>As a percentage of operating expenses my small company pays 1031
>(101,031%?) times more for IP address space (or registration services
>- depending on how you want to look at it). The number would be
>similar for net income, gross income, and virtually any other
>I would not call this 'inflicting' fees upon on XX-Larges. I would
>call it paying a fair share that everyone else has been paying, but
>somehow XX-Larges have been avoiding. Adding $128,000 per year to a
>$1 billion dollar budget is more like a fly landing atop a mountain
>than an infliction.
>Saving $400 per year would be significant to my company. I've been
>reading this ongoing debate with much interest and so far I have not
>heard any good arguments for not increasing the fees for holders of
>aggregates larger than /14 all the way to /8.
>The more I've watched this discussion the more I've noticed the fact
>that small and medium companies are subsidizing the large companies
>with free lunches via ARIN fees.
>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:
>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-discuss