[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

Jesse D. Geddis jesse at la-broadband.com
Sat Apr 20 03:37:26 EDT 2013


	Thanks so much for your insightful post. Although I think you may have
meant what Jon Daniels said rather than Owen. What you pointed out,
however, is very poignant. You are absolutely correct. By and large they
do charge customers for extra IP's so we all get to pay for it double.
Both in our subsidies of them via ARIN fees and them passing fictitious
costs associated with them onto us as customers. Your analogy is an
interesting one regarding the tractors. In and of itself it's very
illustrative, however, you left out the real kicker. If that operator that
is capped at 300k but selling the gasoline back to you at a higher price
that would be the situation we have here today with how these fees are

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On 4/20/13 12:20 AM, "Drake Pallister" <drake.pallister at duraserver.com>

>To any interested,
>What Owen says is true and has been the way forever.
>Once an ISP grows beyond a certain size, everything else (resources) is
>free, so to speak.
>That sort of reminds me of the USA Income tax System in many aspects.
>I've been a proponent the I.R.S. and States, having a Flat Tax, based
>upon exactly what you earn (less deductons, of course).
>My analogy of  tonight will be one of a fuel filling station and tractor
>If I was a single owner-operator of my big rig Kenworth, I'd be paying
>for every gallon of diesel fuel I filled up with.
>Then as my truck fleet grows (or compare to a different, but larger
>fleet), they also pay for the gallons of fuel they put in the
>However, once my truck fleet, or some other trucking fleet reaches the
>purchase and consumption of (let's say 300K Gallons a
>Imagine a dollar cap, where if they consume 300K gallons, 500K, or even a
>Million gallons of fuel per month--- they are capped at
>the 300K gallons "bought" regardless of how many gallons burned on the
>roadways,  charging whatever per mile for freight transport..
>Now, back to the smaller fleets of 1, 3, or 5 tractor trailers are still
>having to pay for the gallons they actually optain at the
>truck stop / gas station.
>That's the end of the analogy. It may partially relate to our industry
>and IP's resources, or it may get the smack-down by others
>smarter and more experienced than me.
>However,  I "won't" pass an opinion either way with my comparison of a
>I.R.S. Flat tax idea, or the Diesel fuel analogy, as it might
>relate to flat rate billing for IP numbers allocation.
>Well, maybe I will pass a a vague opinion, that the billing brackets gor
>asset holders maybe ought to "not" have that point of
>everything after X is no additional fee. I would bet you lunch that the
>asset holders in those "big block clubs" are absolutely
>billing every last stinking customer 10, 15, or 20 dollars per IP (v4 for
>this conversatin) per month if the customer wants or needs
>an additional IP number for whatever reason (if they will even allow
>additional IPs onto the account)
>That is connectivity provideres, but compare to  hosted services
>providers, they also usually charge the customer for more IPs. It
>takes extra configuration and might or --not mean the consumption of more
>bandwidth and data transfer. A hosting customer msy simply
>wish to have mail on a different IP from a web site, and still different
>from some subdomains. I cou;dn't say because every scenario
>in hosting can be different.
>I happen to know of  big connectivity provider who will sell a business
>connectivity package with a /29 for xxx per month. But
>wait--- If the customer needed maybe 5 extra IPs for random independent
>purposes, the provider could just increase the customer to a
>/28 of IPv4 without adding any additional routers, cables, fibers,
>cablemodems, bandwidth, monthly data transfer, etc. Yet,Yet,Yet,
>the provider would outright refuse to just increase the size of the IP
>net from a /29 to a /28 (ok even for a small fee)---- But
>Nope---  they will make the customer purchase and pay monthly $xxx for a
>complete second account of a second /29 which might not
>even be in a contiguous block with the first /29.  I'm asking myself if
>that kind super-duper connectivity should keep getting more
>IP numbers at no additional fee past the ARIN fees cutoff point.
>Something doesn't smell like fresh morning mountain air and blossoming
>flowers with those kinds of business practices.
>I'm simply tossing my thoughts out there and not demanding one procedure
>or another, as it will end up however it does anyhow.
>Aside from all that, I can not foresee the future when everything
>electrical has a v6 IP number, even my toaster or refrigerator.
>That will be an interesting ride to watch. Just think about a publicly
>addressable microwave oven.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
>To: <jdaniels at forked.net>
>Cc: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
>Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 3:20 AM
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
>> 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
>> would like to see ARIN start collecting the information necessary to do
>> and switch to a fee structure based on that, you should submit a
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>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 mailing list