[arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure

[Joseph Conti]

As long as organisations have the option of re-numbering the financial 
incentive on ARIN's side of the table would just result in 
inconveniencing smaller organisations. The ones who want to save money 
and have an easy opportunity to re-number now, will do so.

4,096 /48's in a /36 is still a lot of space. If/when we fill that 
properly, we can just get another /36 at that point and save money 
between now and then.

Sorry IPv6 BGP table, policy got in the way again!

*Joseph
*
On 13-03-07 01:47 PM, Ian McLaughlin wrote:
> On 2013-03-07, at 10:43 AM, Alex Krohn <alex-arin at gossamer-threads.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
> Looked at another way, this is an additional $234K in revenue per year for ARIN per year.  Not insignificant. (Yes, we're one of the affected early-adopters.)
>
> Ian McLaughlin
> Director of Technology
> Dargal Interline Worldwide
> 250-979-1161
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d326bfa8/attachment.html>