[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

Wed Apr 24 09:33:12 EDT 2013

On Apr 23, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:

> Owen,
> 
> Not really. It depends on the measure you're using of fair and what you're target is. If you're target is to charge exactly what you're costing ARIN I wouldn't call that fair by any stretch of the term. In that scenario ARIN becomes a barrier to entry for a startup because it may be cost prohibitive. 
> 

If the costs of starting up a business are prohibitive to doing so, how is it fair to inflict those costs on others already in the business? I can understand the perspective that new entrants should not be expected to subsidize incumbents. However, I cannot see any justification for an expectation that incumbents should be forced to subsidize new entrants.

Charging exactly what an org costs ARIN is impractical, because the cost accounting would likely significantly increase the overall costs.

However, approximating the costs of groups of organizations with similar service profiles by taking the aggregate sum of ARIN's costs across the entire group and dividing by the number of members in the group is a very reasonable starting point  for a fee structure model. That seems to at least have been one of the inputs, if not the starting point in the current fee model.

> If you charge everyone a flat yearly fee that could be better argued as fair but again creates a barrier to entry for small startups and many business.

Again, you seem to be starting from the assumption that it is fair to force incumbents in the industry to subsidize new entrants. I don't subscribe to this belief and I am not sure where you get the idea that it is somehow more fair than simply expecting every organization to pay their own costs.

> ARIN and internic both chose to charge based on holdings and ramp it based on assigned resources for the last 25 years. I think that's the best model. It just went off the rails when we ended up with a few folks holding 82% of the resources but paying only 17% of the revenue. A result of there being a fee ceiling that isn't tied to a holdings ceiling.

I have no idea how the previous fee determinations were made.

I know that the current one is based on the fact that a size-based model fit well with a cost-based model and provided a convenient metric which roughly approximated cost recovery for each category. However, since those costs do not actually scale entirely with size, and beyond a certain point, the disconnect between pricing and size means that continuing to escalate the pricing would be punitive and grossly unfair.

IMHO, that makes topping out the fee structure where it does (/12) makes it entirely reasonable to do so.

Now that John posted the histogram, I'll go back and refactor my earlier message when I get some time. Nonetheless, I do not think that linear pricing makes sense.

> If you have a costs based fee structure please propose it. I'm interested to see what it looks like. 

The current fee structure comes very close to a cost-based structure and as such is a good approximation of one.
That is why I consider the current structure mostly acceptable.

Owen

> 
> Jesse Geddis
> LA Broadband LLC
> 
> On Apr 23, 2013, at 6:22 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>> NPACs costs are relatively linear per ported number.
>> 
>> ARIN's costs are nowhere near linear per IP address.
>> 
>> There ends the ability to apply the NPAC model to ARIN and call it "fair".
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Michael Tague <tague at win.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, NeuStar operates NPAC on a contract so that is a bit different than
>>> ARIN, but, on the other hand, it is a number resource like ARIN operated on
>>> behalf of its industry (and the public) like ARIN which needs to raise its
>>> operating funds from the industry it serves like ARIN.
>>> 
>>> I suspect that many of the same arguments apply to NPAC as have been
>>> discussed here with ARIN such as the relative costs of large versus small
>>> carriers.
>>> 
>>> In NPAC's case they opted for purely linear with an exemption for the small
>>> guys.   The telephone industry has been around a lot longer than the
>>> Internet so perhaps there is something to learn there.
>>> 
>>> So the question remains:  is there really any justification for charging the
>>> largest ISPs hundreds of times less per IP than the small and medium size
>>> ISPs?
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
>>> On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
>>> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:58 PM
>>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
>>> 
>>> On 4/22/13 12:29 PM, Michael Tague wrote:
>>>> How do other organizations do it?    In the telephone world there is NPAC
>>>> which handles number porting.   They are an ARIN like group ...
>>> 
>>> Um. That's currently NeuStar dude. Not "ARIN like" for very large values of
>>> "like".
>>> 
>>> Eric
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 02Jr7WsBw) is
>>> spam:
>>> Spam:
>>> http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=s
>>> Not spam:
>>> http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=n
>>> Forget vote:
>>> http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=02Jr7WsBw&m=486673ff6949&t=20130422&c=f
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.