[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

Jesse D. Geddis jesse at la-broadband.com
Thu Apr 18 13:54:55 EDT 2013


Thank you. It sounds like block linear would be the most appropriate label of what would scale the best, most simply, predictably, and most equitably, in my opinion. Or at least best describes what I'm highlighting as a suggestion for a new fee model.

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On Apr 18, 2013, at 10:29 AM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Apr 18, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Dmitry Kohmanyuk <dk at intuix.com> wrote:
>> I think we can describe and name those pricing models by function of total IP addresses allocated.
>> So, "fee per address" would be _linear_ (cost = X * addresses);  
>> "fee per bit of block size"  would be _logarithmical_ (this includes current scheme: cost = K * log2(addresses) + N)
>> and fixed fee regardless of size of allocation (a-la RIPE model) is _flat_ fee (cost = N).
>> I am not doing advocacy of specific cost model (now or in the future) - but a formula is very useful to illustrate them.
> Dmitry - 
> The taxonomy of terms is quite useful.  I'll note that some approaches are
> actually going to be a combination of these elements, and you need to add 
> another potential element -
> Rename _linear_ to _address linear_, i.e. _address linear_  is cost = X * addresses
> Add _block linear_, which is cost = L * number of blocks
> I would describe RIPE's new model as _flat_ plus _block linear_
> FYI,
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list