[arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure

[Joseph Conti]

Also in the same boat.

This was the official reply from ARIN when I opened a ticket regarding 
the issue. In fact, I had originally requested an initial IPv6 
allocation smaller than a /32 and was denied at the time.

Hello Joseph,

Currently there are no policies that would adjust the fee schedules
based on being an early adopter, and as far as I know, there are no
proposed policies to do so. If you're interested, you can keep an eye
on the policy proposals here: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/

I should first clarify that your organization is a Small under current 
policy, $2250, however your annual fee due in June will be $1687.50 with 
the IPv6 fee waiver still in effect. Adjusting from a /32 to a /36 will 
not affect your invoice due in June since the new fee schedule does not 
take effect until July. If you return the /32 for a /36, it will reduce 
your annual maintenance fee to X-small for your 2014 annual fee 
(assuming your organization doesn't request additional resources that 
would increase your fees.)

In continuing ARIN's efforts to conserve resources, allocations of /36
will be issued from a separate block than /32 IP address blocks. So
you may return the entire /32 so that ARIN can issue a new /36. ARIN
will allow your organization to retain the /32 for 3 months to allow
time for your renumbering, with the understanding that additional time
can be allotted if needed. If you wish to go this route, please submit 
an IPv6 request stating your request to return the /32 to reduce your 
fees to a size X-small /36.

If your request has not been resolved to your satisfaction, please click 
the Reply button below. If you are satisfied with this resolution, 
please click the Close Ticket button below. The ticket will 
automatically close on 03-18-2013 if no action is taken.

Regards,

*Joseph Conti*
*Media-Hosts Inc.*

*Cell:* 1.613.864.0084
*Toll Free:* 1.877.352.7310 x: 200
http://www.media-hosts.com
http://www.openvz.ca
On 13-03-07 01:43 PM, Alex Krohn wrote:
>> I agree.  I had also commented on the earlier thread with the same
>> comment.  We are in the same boat.  We did not insist on a /32, we were
>> given a /32 because that was the smallest allocation at the time.  While
>> I do not expect to be rewarded financially for being an early adopter, I
>> do not expect to be penalized either.
> From:
>
>      http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2012-March/002160.html
>
> it seems like 234 members who have x-small v4 and small v6 are faced
> with being charged under small when they (probably) would have been just
> as happy if their initial allocation was a /36 and thus stayed in
> x-small.
>
> The options to these members now are to either see the fees double or
> return their /32 and get a new /36 (can't take the /36 out of your
> existing /32 either).
>
> This doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the original post of the
> "strong desire to minimize fees for the smallest members".
>
> Since /32 was the smallest allocation you could get for many members, it
> seems like a /32 should be considered x-small.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20130307/5982cdd6/attachment.html>