[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Jesse D. Geddis
jesse at la-broadband.com
Thu Apr 18 17:15:36 EDT 2013
This has already been discussed and disproven. It does make a dent in
everyone else's fees. I support the dent as being an appreciable one and
others have voiced the same.
LA Broadband LLC
On 4/17/13 7:50 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com>
>> Whether its framed as 'paying for IP addresses' or 'paying for
>>registration services' is really irrelevant. The fact is is that it is
>>tiered up to a certain point until you get different rules from everyone
>>else at x-large. Further, those tiers are pegged to an
>>_allocation_size_. So applying a fee scale to IPs is something _ARIN_
>>did by implementing this tiered structure in the first place. Not us.
>So what this really boils down to is that you're upset that ARIN doesn't
>extend the pricing model beyond XX-L
>(look at the adopted fee structure, not the current one) because a very
>small number of organizations at the top
>don't get charged even more for their relative sizes within that category.
>Frankly, the number of organizations at that tier is so small that
>extending the linear pricing model wouldn't make
>a significant dent in the pricing at any of the lower tiers, so it's not,
>IMHO, worth complicating the pricing structure
>to accommodate that.
>> Regarding your mention of ARINs costs associated with different tiers
>>and the assertion that x-large costs ARIN less money. No one has put
>>forth any hard data whatsoever to support that argument. Its an
>>unfounded assertion that's been given mythological status by you and
>>some other folks. Indeed, even John Curran himself mentioned we can look
>>at other models including pegging the fees to actual ARIN costs implying
>>that they aren't right now. Based on these things I don't find this to
>>be a valid excuse to give x-large much lower costs proportionately and
>>to allow them to scale exponentially with no concern of fees or having
>>to proportionately 'support' like everyone else.
>They aren't pegged directly to costs because we aren't doing Fee for
>Service billing. I don't think you want that.
>However, ARIN has shown the over all cost to ARIN per organization size
>based on the current fee categories and
>has shown that the larger organizations do cost ARIN less per IP address
>to work with. There is hard data to support
>that fact. Further, simple logic from what ARIN actually does makes it
>pretty obvious that the costs to ARIN do not
>have any relationship to the size of address holdings of the various
>organizations ARIN deals with. It has more
>to do with the number of transactions, quality of the information
>provided by the organization in each transaction,
>and number of records held in the database. There's a little more staff
>time to review the greater amount of data associated with an application
>for a /12 than for a /22, but it certainly isn't 1024 times as much time.
>X-Large pays double what Large pays. XXL pays double what XL pays.
>This is the same as XS paying double what XXS pays, Small paying double
>XS, Medium paying double Small,
>Large paying double Medium, etc. At every tier your fee doubles and your
>amount of space quadruples.
>So by your argument, at every tier you pay proportionately less per IP
>address. This reflects the fact that ARIN's costs do not scale linearly
>with address size, but attempts to provide a rough approximation of
>mapping sizes to actual costs.
>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 more
>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.
>> What I'm interested in hearing, Owen, and others. As well as, I'm
>>guessing the poster you replied to, several other people who have also
>>publicly questioned the hybrid scale, and the 3 dozen people on this
>>list who emailed me privately but weren't interested in the public
>>flogging by some you folks (Matthew, Lee, and a couple others) is a
>>reasoned answer to the following:
>> Why *should* there be a fee increasing cutoff at /14
>Because beyond a certain point, continuing to double people's fees stops
>making sense. The size model is designed to be a convenient approximation
>of the cost-model that ARIN has along with some other tradeoffs. It
>attempts to allocate the burden along similar lines as ARIN's cost burden.
>If you extend it beyond the /12 point (which is where the XX-L category
>actually begins), then it rapidly makes no sense and is overly burdensome
>as described above.
>> Why should x-large (73 orgs out of thousands) get a different set of
>>rules than everyone else.
>They don't. They live by the same rules. There are a number of services
>with similar cost structures where you pay less for each incremental
>level of service until you reach a certain tier where you simply get "all
>you can eat" service for that price.
>Some of them are even in this industry. It's not uncommon for mobile
>providers, for example, to have usage sensitive pricing where you pay
>less per GB transferred as you move up the usage stack until you finally
>reach a point where the next increment gets you unlimited consumption.
>> And please, let's stick to the facts and avoid repeated assertions like
>>the below that have no basis in actual data. Personally, I think trying
>>to divine ARINs cost per tier and creating a fee structure based on that
>>is a very bad idea. Indeed, my proposal is fundamental in getting rid of
>>the current tier structure altogether.
>I wasn't divining ARIN's cost per tierŠ It was published data from ARIN.
>It is documented as one of the inputs to the current fee structure.
>Claiming it has no basis in facts when the ARIN CEO has contradicted you
>on this matter is folly.
>Your proposal is fundamental in getting rid of the tier structure. It's
>also a really bad idea IMHO. Your proposal is grossly unfair at both the
>top and bottom extremes.
More information about the ARIN-discuss