[arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure

[Jawaid Bazyar]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard (this week, anyway).

ARIN has a policy that says: The smallest block you can get is a /32, 
and it costs $2250.

Then they have a stroke or something, and decide that the smallest block 
is now a /36, force a retroactive change on providers, insist that they 
return the block and re-number, or alternative, you can pay us boatloads 
of additional money just because we changed our mind.

See what I mean? Ridiculous.

The appropriate course is to make a policy change, grandfather those 
already issued both as to price and allocation, and not make people jump 
through hoops, set themselves on fire, and go through an unreasonable 
amount of busy-work for absolutely no reason.

Totally, utterly brain-damaged.

I don't think any of us should kowtow to this nonsense. This is just the 
big boys bullying around the little guys. I mean, really, we can't make 
IPv6 work with 4 billion networks for service providers? Really?



On 03/07/2013 12:17 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-- 

Jawaid Bazyar

President

ph 303.815.1814

fax 303.815.1001

Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net <email:Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net>
	<http://www.foreThought.net>
Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205