[arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure

[Scott Leibrand]

Is there any reason ARIN couldn't simply resize a /32 down to /36 rather than issuing a new one and requiring a full renumbering? If we assume that sparse allocation will mean that the rest of the /32 gets set aside for future growth, that should minimize the pain quite a bit...

Scott

On Mar 7, 2013, at 10:26 AM, Robert L Mathews <lists at tigertech.com> wrote:

> 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.