<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"><div><br></div><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Bob Atkins quotes John Curran:<br>> > '...whereas the effort to process a request for an additional IPv4 or
<br>> > IPv6 allocation can be very, very large, depending on the size of the
<br>> > previous allocation and organization of the request supporting
materials.'<br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<br>> Is <i><u><b>way</b></u></i> over the top in regards to IPv6
allocations. The cost for an IPv6 <br>> allocation is about as close to $0 as
one can get from a management <br>> standpoint. The sheer magnitude of
available IPv6 address space is such <br>> that if all you had was an automated website without any form of <br>> controls - we would all be long
dead before even a small portion of the <br>> IPv6 address space had been
delegated - even if you had practically <br>> every person on planet earth
applying for space.<br>
<br>A request for an additional IPv6 allocation has to be evaluated against the <br>criteria set by the community for additional IPv6 address space. See<br><span><a target="_blank" href="https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six52">https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six52</a></span><br><br>There was community consensus on this policy. If you think ARIN should <br>evaluate requests for additional IPv6 space based on different criteria, you <br><span>should submit a policy proposal: <a target="_blank" href="https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html">https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html</a></span><br><br><br>> However, when I look at what is being proposed for IPv6 address <br>> charges
- they are outrageous when you take into consideration that <br>> IPv6 is a
virtually unlimited resource. <br><br>Note that organizations paying annual renewal fees for IPv4 allocations <br>pay only the larger of the fees, and that the vast majority of organizations <br>will fit into X-Small or Small, unlike in IPv4.<br>Also note that ARIN operates a number of services for the community. <br>From a long-ago post of mine:<br><br><font style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;" size="3">So, what do you get for the money? Not just the benefits of </font><br>engineering:<br><pre style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;"><font size="3">* IP address (IPv4 and IPv6) space allocation, transfer, and <br>record maintenance <br>* ASN allocation, transfer, and record maintenance <br>* Maintain WHOIS database <br>* Maintain Internet Routing Registry <br>* Maintain reverse DNS <br>* Facilitate the public policy development process, including: <br> o Maintaining mailing lists <br> o Facilitating
elections <br> o Holding at least two public policy meetings per year,<br>with remote participation<br>* Publishing, disseminating information <br>* Education and training <br>* Working with other organizations, like the other RIRs and IANA <br>* Outreach to other organizations, like ITU and IGF <br>* Outreach at other industry events, like NANOG, IETF, and various<br>conferences<br>* R&D on potential new services like a RPKI, ARIN Online, etc.<br></font></pre><span>(original post at <a target="_blank" href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-September/011845.html">http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-September/011845.html</a>)</span><br><br>> An even better
solution would be to create some competition in the <br>> IPv6 address
management arena by allowing the existence of multiple <br>> IPv6 registrars
in the same way that is done for domain names.<br>
<br>Switching from finance to engineering. . .<br>You may also be following the debate on PPML about ARIN's role and<br>effect on routing. If everyone can get a /32 (or as many /32s as they <br>request), there would be pressure on network operators to limit the<br>prefixes they would carry. In other words, smaller networks would be<br>unreachable from any network they didn't pay. Sounds bad.<br>The point we choose between "all address allocations should be <br>hierarchical to a single Tier 0" and "everyone should get as many prefixes <br>as they want" is a matter for public policy discussion, preferably on <br>PPML. Competition would only breed a race to the policy bottom.<br><br>Lee<br><br></div></div>
<!-- cg6.c2.mail.re1.yahoo.com compressed/chunked Thu Feb 4 15:56:21 PST 2010 -->
</div><br>
</body></html>