[arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?)

Drake Pallister drake.pallister at duraserver.com
Sat Apr 20 22:49:07 EDT 2013

Hello Folks,

Since v6 is coming along more and more as needed, so much talk had been devoted to IPv6. But...

I just would like to reinforce a reminder that there is a heck of a lot of v4 out there, and it's not going to go away in my 

Therefore my reminder in all this price structuring, end what-not, that the v4 resources not be forgotten and be kept right up there 
in the front of the ARIN decision makers' minds.

That suggestion about billing v4's on a "per /24" holding sounded like it has merit.

A /24 is something that everyone can relate to and I would bet there are more v4 numbers out there in the environment using a /24 as 
a cut-point (the phrase "reference size")  might be a good phrase to use when making judgments, because "cut points" are where 
network operators would have chopped their resources up by the most, for distribution, reallocation, (assignment, but not so often 
much often smaller like /26/28/29 for individual commercial end user customers), and of course the /32 being a lone soldier network. 
Speaking of that /32 assignment, it takes a few IPs to give someone one IP, right?  Back to the famous v4 /24 division size, to save 
having to have a network number and a bcast number for each Static IP DSL customer, in my on-site tech.repair work I had noticed 
alot of  typical Static IP DSL lines where the very end user 's settings would be--  1) his DSL single IP,    2.) A gateway IP 
reflecting /24,   and 3) a Wan side netmask . That further instills in me that even nameless big telco providers chop 
up their distribution by the /24 as far ad v4's go. Dynamic assignement of  v4 IPs on DSL are a shole different animal, but I'm just 
mentioning long time observations of Static IPv4 DSl lines.

We can't forget about v6:
A sister policy would need to be created for v6 IP's.  What would the "refence size" be for v6's ?  /40, nah too small, maybe /36, 
possibly /32. I don't have enough hands-on to recommend a "reference size" and certainly not the time and expaeience with end users 
to make an observation like I can with Static, telco DSL, DS1, DS3  IPv4 field work.

Again, above I rever to IP distribution via connectivity companies. There is the whole other world of IP that stays within 
datacenters, serveer farms, and is used for hosting of services.

That suggestion about needing more "tiers" at the top sounds like it has merits too.   But then, if a "per /24" was instituted 
acrossed the board with v4 (and /xx with v6), would that do away with the need for tiers?

Back to the comparison of the "I.R.S. proposal of a Flat Tax for income tax"  Should everyone pay equally for their resources?   Buy 
in bulk, get product cheaper? .  (But never able to reach a quantity tier of getting more for free)  And the analogy:  I would 
believe that a Big Box home improvement store can buy light bulbs, nuts, bolts, and lawn mowers from their prospective manufacturers 
a whole lot cheaper than "Henry's mom-and-pop corner Hardware Store"  I doubt if there would ever be a point in quantity where the 
manufacturer just gave the Big Box Store the merchandise for free.  However, I can also debunk some of  the bulk buying discounts 
here in the same paragraph, because I really think the various manufacturers have a special cheaper made version of the same product 
for selling at the Big Box style Stores.  For some strange reason, I think that if I buy my outdoor lighting fixtures from the big 
Box Store I am getting something that's made cheaper and more flimsy than the similar looking one I bought at an industrial 
electrical supply house and paid a whole lot more for, but you can run it over with a bulldozer and it will survive.  You all have 
to be the judges within your own minds.

For whatever it's worth, or not, I just offer up my observations.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
To: "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com>
Cc: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 10:05 AM
Subject: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?)

> On Apr 20, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:
>> So I think it's been established that quite a few folks think the past, current, and proposed fee structure doesn't adequately 
>> deal with the /14 and larger organisations. The next question is what should that fee structure look like? How should it be 
>> scaled on IPv6? Is it better to substantially lower the fees for the smaller orgs or to instead plow the revenue into keeping 
>> initial /32 IPv6 allocations free until X threshold has been reached? Maybe it's possible to do both.
>> A couple ideas have been suggested that include:
>> 1. Doubling the fees for every 2 bits
>> 2. Going based on the number of total /24's
>> 3. Increasing fees for every /x you go up
>> 4. Creating more tiers at the top
>> I think #1 & #3 may be the two most interesting ones as they can be translated directly to the IPv6 fee schedule.
>> What are some suggestions on what that fee structure would look like?
> Jesse -
>  Could you first describe the philosophy of the fees that you are trying to
>  advance?  In particular, are you seeking fees that represent costs, fees that
>  represent "value", or fees that represent ability to pay?
>> My sense is that there should be a floor for costs but this isn't rooted in anything in particular other than $8 seems hardly 
>> worth billing.
>  Note that there are aspects to ARIN other than the registry, for example,
>  ARIN is active in Internet Governance discussions globally to educate and
>  further protect the ability of this community to manage Internet resources.
>  ARIN members also have the ability to participate in organization governance
>  of ARIN (through elections and Member's Meetings).  Are you proposing that
>  these costs be considered as part of the overall registry fee structure or
>  separately?
>> Should there be a ceiling? It seems like that's at the root of what several are unhappy with. John, can you please tell us what 
>> the current smallest/largest ISP allocation is so we can have an ideas as to what we are dealing with here?
>  The smallest is /24, largest is /8.
> 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