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

Sun Apr 21 22:28:34 EDT 2013

Gentlemen,
With all due respect---    going away from need-based allocation?

If we (the Internet supplier community, via ARIN) moves away from "need-based assignments"---  That chops the head off of something 
called "Justification" and then MegaTegaCellTellaFlopolis, Inc. throws down a billion dollars on the table and owns all IP addresses 
available now, and those that may be come re-available (v4's) through atrition of companies closing down, moving to v6, or using 
more "private sapce" within their own fiber, cable, or tower-to-tower IP based communications.

Yes, I am certain the justification process costs ARIN money to perform; just like a police department has costs to investigate a 
crime; or an employer to do background checks on potential new hires.

Without the Justification element, the procurement is simply a matter of paying money.  Stewardship must once again wake up from 
it's afternoon nap, and protect the welfare of all aspects of the Internet including the Citizens, the Small, Medium, and Big 
service provideres, and by doing that we even have the trickle down effect to equipment makers, service technicians, installers, and 
you ge the picture.

BUT--  OK, I would say I'd go along with a "reduced justification" for V6, but no way for V4. We sat on our thumbs knowing v4 was 
running out but stuck out collective head in the sand like an Ostrich hoping it was just a bad dream to soon wake up from.

Since there are enough v6 IP numbers for pebble on Pebble Beach,  such a plan as yours might be ok, but has to be watched. That was 
a component in the hemorrhage of ipv4's for so long (not being a tight enough Steward)  (no blame to anyone, it was the trend and 
there was an open faucet); until ---Oops, we're going to run out.

There won't likely be a run-out of v6's unless the stewardship's men allow the v6 space to be practically bought up in mega "ranges" 
not even using the words networks or blocks.

Sorry, (actually not sorry), that I would ask ARIN to hold the line on releasing Justification. That's something the FCC should have 
done instead of squandering a few big handy dandy spectrums by "auction" which is no more than a purchase to the highest bidder that 
automatically precludes Drake's cellular, or the Jones Family Cellular startup company from getting a couple of megahertz to "start 
slow and build up".

So-- ARIN, look how the FCC butchered the potential for cellular competition; and sit back and think that one over.

Two examples of things:  Inside a closed private loop like a cable or a fiber, the owner can use whatever they want for frequencies 
or IPs. CableCo's used to utilize some overelapping frequencies inside the Coax that would have interfered with air traffic control 
if they became airborn, so they had to "sniff out" leaks to keep the overlapped frequencies inside the cables and fix a leakage 
quickly. Inside a private fiber run, ring, or loop, the operator could easily utilize overlapped public IP space as long as it 
doesn't get intermingled with public Internet.  Oh, and in that cable co. sniffing maintenance on their old analog systems, they 
often found lots of cable tv theives who tapped in somewhere using substandard materials and poor methods of connecting. (Unrelated, 
but interesting) A local cable tv employee told me years ago, about a cable thief, a sports bar no less, who was flooding the 
neighborhood for a half mile with those overlapped aviation frequencies because he hooked up his A/B switch equipment wrong and was 
also broadcasting the cable out of his roof-top antenna.

Back to the subject. Justification has to stay. Relax it for v6, but in good stewardship, such a deciision has to be monitored and 
watched for those "what if's" which always happen in every line of work.

Respectfully,
Drake Pallister

---------------------------------------------------------------

>> On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:08 PM, "Byrne, Cameron" <Cameron.Byrne at T-Mobile.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If we moved away from need-based assignments, could we cut enough paper-work and process to lower fees for all?  Who could argue 
>>> with lower fees for all?
>>
>> Cameron -

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
> To: "Byrne, Cameron" <Cameron.Byrne at T-Mobile.com>
> Cc: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?)
>
>
>> On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:08 PM, "Byrne, Cameron" <Cameron.Byrne at T-Mobile.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If we moved away from need-based assignments, could we cut enough paper-work and process to lower fees for all?  Who could argue 
>>> with lower fees for all?
>>
>> Cameron -
>>
>> If you both removed needs-assessment and also had very few policy
>> changes, we should be able to focus ARIN on what remains to be done
>> with corresponding savings in the cost structure.  This is, by the
>> way, potentially similar to the long-term model with successful IPv6
>> adoption, and I provided some insight into the potential costs in the
>> attached email send to this list last week.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
>>> Date: April 16, 2013 11:03:50 PM AST
>>> To: John Von Essen <john at quonix.net>
>>> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" <arin-discuss at arin.net>
>>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:32 AM, John Von Essen <john at quonix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just for thought....
>>>>
>>>> Lets say in the future (5 years from now), the entire world has switched over to IPv6 and IPv4 is completely dead in the public 
>>>> space.
>>>
>>> A reasonable milestone to consider...  I'll note that it is unlikely that
>>> folks will immediately reprovision existing working IPv4 customers, so the
>>> earlier milestone of when the vast majority of content is reachable via
>>> IPv6 is also of interest, since it is when businesses can stop worrying
>>> about IPv4 (i.e. they can provision new customers using IPv6, either w/o
>>> IPv4 or with access only to central IPv4 gateway services for access for
>>> any straggling IPv4-only content)
>>>
>>>> Since v6 space is so huge and abundant, the fees by Arin, Apnic, etc.,. should be almost nothing compared to what they are now 
>>>> since the effort to manage and give it out will be minimal. The blocks are so large, that 99% of Orgs would request one block, 
>>>> and never ever need to make another request again. So the number of support tickets by Arin for resource requests would be a 
>>>> fraction of what they are now. Not to mention, there wont be as many small multi-homed ISP's applying since getting IP space 
>>>> from upstreams will no longer be "difficult".
>>>
>>> Agreed. There's still a need for the registry, including various forms
>>> of access such as Whois, RESTul whois, and then related services such
>>> as  reverse DNS and RPKI, but the amount of development should drop
>>> down, particularly if the policy base is stable.  With less requests
>>> for changes, our development workload should be a lot shorter than
>>> today <https://www.arin.net/features/>
>>>
>>>> This means in the future that bodies like Arin will get smaller, with less staff, and a much smaller operating budget.
>>>
>>> Correct.  Amazingly, the ARIN Board discusses this possibility quite a
>>> bit, thinking about that long-term milestones and their implications for
>>> ARIN's structure and costs.  ARIN's core registry costs still include
>>> servers, backup, and related system administration tasks even at that
>>> milestone, but as noted in a previous post, this is only about 1/3 of
>>> our ongoing budget today.  Even if you add in the ARIN governance and
>>> same level of activity in Internet Governance, you've only got 50% of
>>> the costs of today. From a practical perspective, it's unlikely that
>>> changes in policy and system development will ever truly drop to zero,
>>> but it certainly could be a lot less than today, with corresponding
>>> savings in operating budget.
>>>
>>> I gave an related estimate on the ARIN ppml mailing list a few weeks back
>>> <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2013-March/026394.html>, that
>>> it's conceivable that in a steady state that ARIN's costs on a per ISP basis
>>> (presently about $2800) could be significantly lower (approximately $1500)
>>> if one presumes IPv6 success leading to very stable policy and system
>>> requirements.
>>>
>>>> Hmmm, maybe this is why IPv4 is still around, and will remain for a very very long time.
>>>
>>> Not ARIN's fault... We've done our share, in that ARIN's services have all
>>> been IPv6 reachable for years.  Get the vast majority of content reachable
>>> via IPv6, and then your described nirvana is indeed within reach.
>>>
>>>> Heck, if we can upgrade every computers OS for Y2K, we can switch the world over to IPv6 and kill v4 once and for all.
>>>
>>> Having lived through that comparison for a decade, I'll note that Y2K was
>>> an issue whereby you could test your own systems in advance, and could see
>>> the breakage and fix it in preparation for your next test.  Incentives were
>>> well-aligned with the problem and required steps for solution.  With IPv4
>>> depletion, the problem is that ISPs depend on being able to provision new
>>> customers, but the rest of the Internet doesn't even realize there is an
>>> issue. That is a very, very different situation with respect to incentives.
>>>
>>> FYI,
>>> /John
>>>
>>> John Curran
>>> President and CEO
>>> ARIN
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> 