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

Sun Apr 21 22:56:00 EDT 2013

Mr.Curran,

Similarly,

I didn't presume that, but when that subject was brought up, I figured it best to speak up loudly about some of the potential 
hazards of such a methodology.

Respectfully,
Drake Pallister

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
To: "Drake Pallister" <drake.pallister at duraserver.com>
Cc: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?)

> Drake -
>
>  To be clear, I was not advocating any policy change,
>  simply answering Cameron's question regarding costs.
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> On Apr 21, 2013, at 10:28 PM, Drake Pallister <drake.pallister at duraserver.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 h
> e 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 