[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 18, 2013, at 08:52 , 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 more addresses.
>> 
>> 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
>> ===============
>>                $1,248,000
>> 
>> 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).

Most of the /8 holders you're looking at are:
	1.	Legacy and don't pay ARIN fees.
	2.	Not ISPs.

> 
> XX-large:
> $32,000 is 0.0032% of $1 billion.

Red herring.

> My company:
> $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
> comparable.

So far, ARIN doesn't base fees on gross revenues or annual expenses. If you
would like to see ARIN start collecting the information necessary to do so
and switch to a fee structure based on that, you should submit a suggestion
to the board.

> 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.

Again, I don't think this is an accurate reflection of the actual XX-L
organizations paying the actual fees.

> 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.

Not when you consider how their activities impact ARIN's costs.

Owen