[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
owen at delong.com
Sun Apr 28 11:14:19 EDT 2013
On Apr 24, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
> On 4/24/13 6:33 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I cannot see any justification for an expectation that incumbents should be forced to subsidize new entrants.
> elsewhere, it is observed that "less than 1% (its closer to around
> 0.5%) individual allocations account for more than half of the number
> of allocated addresses."
As has been repeatedly pointed out, those numbers are based very largely
on the legacy holders who are inherently irrelevant to fee discussions since
they are not paying ARIN fees at all.
> arin's fees could be based on expectations other than a naive notion
> of "subsidy", by the 1% or less, or of the 1% or less.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting here.
I was specifically responding to a statement made by Jesse Geddis above and my remarks taken out of context
are not particularly helpful.
> it seems to me, and i don't intend to convince anyone, merely to
> express my thoughts, that here, as in another area of unique
> identifier allocation, the choice is not limited to "no cost to
> incumbent", as the resource exists for purposes other than providing
> profits to one or more parties exercising something approaching market
I never said anything about "no cost to incumbent". What I said was that
raising the fees on larger organizations to be incredibly disproportionate
to their share of ARIN's cost in order to reduce barriers to entry for new
organizations would amount to forcing those incumbent organizations to
subsidize new competitors.
More information about the ARIN-discuss