[arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure

[Greg Martin]

I find this a bit troubling as well and our bill does not seem to match up to the demand for IPv6.

I would reckon that just about every small provider who got a direct allocation has the same complaint.  Our ARIN bill will double and we have a /21 and /22 of IPv4 resources...  It will double specifically for the reason that we were only able to be assigned a /32 of IPv6 space while only having two low revenue customers that utilize it.

Regards,

Greg Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike A. Salim
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:35 PM
To: Robert L Mathews; arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure

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.

Renumbering is not a simple option for us.  We have live customers using IPv6 with stringent and time consuming change control processes.  It is a major ordeal to make IP address changes for us.

Best regards
Mike


A. Michael Salim
VP and Chief Technology Officer,
American Data Technology, Inc.
PO Box 12892
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
P: (919)544-4101 x101
F: (919)544-5345
E: msalim at localweb.com
W: http://www.localweb.com

PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Robert L Mathews
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:27 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure

On 2/22/13 3:47 PM, Alex Krohn wrote:

> In the new pending fee structure here:
> 
>     https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html#isps
> 
> ISP's that have up to and including a /20 (X-Small) and who were "early"
> adopters and received a /32 IPv6 allocation which was the minimum 
> allocation size at the time, will see their fees double.
> 
> This was discussed on the lists a lot in the past in this thread:
> 
>     
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2012-March/002112.html
> 
> and a lot of opposition against seeing the rates double or being 
> forced to get a /36 and re-number.
> 
> What was the rational with going forward with this and not making a 
> /32 be in the X-Small (or XX-Small I suppose), as that was the minimum 
> size available for a lot of people?

I'm in the same situation. We were allocated a /32 in early 2011 because that was the smallest allocation available under NRPM 2011.2 at the time. If a /36 had been available, it would certainly have met our needs forever.

Since we only have (and probably only ever will have) /21 of total IPv4 space, the /32 from the IPv6 pushes us from "X-Small" to "Small" and doubles the fees from $1,000 a year to $2,000 a year.

I asked ARIN's billing department last week if there was any solution for this, since John Curran's comments, referenced above and here:

 http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2012-November/000446.html

... had seemed encouraging. But the reply was that the only way to return to X-Small status is to apply for a new /36, then renumber out of the /32 within 3 months and return it.

Although it'll take at least a couple of days of my time to renumber, I'll probably do so. It'll save us thousands (tens of thousands?) of dollars in the long run.

But this outcome seems perverse. If we'd waited two years to implement IPv6, we'd be charged $1,000 less a year by default. Because we didn't, we have to renumber into a smaller block to save that money -- not because renumbering provides any benefit to anyone, but because of a historical policy quirk.

I suppose one could argue that we're being charged no more than the eventual post-fee-waiver rate listed when we were allocated the /32 in 2011. That's true, but it doesn't lessen the frustration that other organizations in the X-Small IPv4 category who now apply for the same thing -- "the smallest available IPv6 allocation" -- pay half what we'll pay if we don't renumber.

--
Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
_______________________________________________
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.