[arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table topic at ARIN 31

[Koch, Andrew]

> On 4/23/2013 19:04, Alec Ginsberg wrote:
> 
> I don't know that I agree with this methodology or not for billing.
> 
> >From a technical perspective you could start with monitoring advertised
> routes.  Many issues with that method though.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:40 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Idea regarding ARIN-2013-3 from lunch table
> topic at ARIN 31
> 
> How would ARIN be able to track that?
> 
> 
> On 4/23/2013 1:05 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> > An idea from one of the participants here at ARIN 31:
> >
> > Can the Board/Staff use actual utilization to base fees on for IPv6?
> > I.e. Give everyone a minimum of /32 but charge them xx-s if they use
> > less than a /40 of that space (announcing the full aggregate) and
> > charge them x-s if they use less than a /36 of that space (announcing
> > the full aggregate).

I think the issues may be too large to effectively use this.  What constitutes in-use?  Just because the address space is not advertised to the Internet that you see, does not mean that it is not routed, nor does it mean that it is not in-use.

This also continues the game of trying to stuff yourself into the smallest box possible to save on fees, which I believe is a dangerous one.  It may also lead to attempts to hide usage from the monitoring.

Regards,
Andrew Koch