<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">
<div>
<div>
<div>Joseph,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks so much for your careful read of the invisible hand statement and you're right, it directly applies to IPv6.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Alec,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The financial impact is at the very core of the discussion so one cannot simply set it aside. I suspect there are many carriers like mine so I'll throw this out there. I picked up a /32 for two reasons:</div>
<ol>
<li>Because it was free with my IPv4 allocation.</li><li>Because I wanted to put all my residential customers on IPv6 address space as a matter of responsibility.</li></ol>
<div>If #1 weren't the case I wouldn't have done it, flat out. IPv6 was not monetized for me and will not be for the foreseeable future. Now I'm faced with a fee hike for the next bill. The question asked is "does this make sense". Most appear to agree it does
not. So we're left with the following competing interests:</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I want to be very clear about this because this seems to be a common misconception.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Nobody is talking about a fee hike on anyone's next bill.</div><div><br></div><div>The question is whether or not your annual fee (if you are an X-Small IPv4 and IPv6 organization) should be reduced from $2,250/year (small-category fee for IPv4 and/or IPv6) to $1,250/year (x-small category fee for IPv4 and/or IPv6).</div><div><br></div><div>Since it sounds like you are in the Small category for IPv4 (based on your statement that IPv6 was free), there is no fee hike contemplated and your /32 even in the worst case being discussed would continue to cost you $2,250/year. Since you are in the small category for IPv4 and you pay the greater of your IPv4 or IPv6 fees, it sounds like even if the IPv6 /32 price were reduced to $1,250 as "x-small", you would still be paying $2,250/year based on your IPv4 and your IPv6 would still be essentially free.</div><div><br></div><div>The comments about early adopters paying higher fees are related to the question of how widely the proposed fee reduction for x-small should be applied. So far, the following possibilities have been discussed:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Apply it to all prefix holders /32-/36</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I think this is the next best choice from a fairness perspective, but, I would be concerned about</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>the possibility that it may have a significant revenue impact on ARIN when providers that are in</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>higher IPv4 fee tiers start returning their IPv4 allocations to ARIN and suddenly drop from</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Small or Medium to X-Small. I think it's not likely this is a significant problem, but, without the</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>data, I'm not willing to make the assumption.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Apply it only to /36</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I think this is the cleanest approach from a pure accounting perspective, but it does have a</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>fairness problem for early adopters.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Apply it to all existing prefix holders <= /32 and to new /36 prefix holders.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I think this is the best option from a fairness perspective, but, I am not sure how much extra</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>accounting complexity it would create for ARIN so I don't know if it is feasible.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><div>
<div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>We all seem to agree the goal is to encourage widespread adoption of IPv6</li><li>There is still very few compelling reasons for end users to adopt it</li><li>If it's too low will ARIN get flooded with silly requests? Perhaps Mr. Curran can speak to that from experience.</li></ol></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I don't think 3 is a problem at all so long as it is at least $500/year and the fees go up if you get beyond a /32.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><div><div><div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Taking the approach of IPv4 will all run out eventually so it doesn't matter isn't proactive and is very disruptive, technically. This is Joseph's reference to the "stick".</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I agree. At this point, the sooner IPv4 runs out, the sooner we as an industry can move on with the business of deploying an internet with a future.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><div><div><div><div>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Taking the approach that was effectively "ARIN should just charge a bazillian dollars for IPv4 allocations" is simply an furtherance of the stick approach which, I would argue, has been relatively
unsuccessful thus far. Attempting to link it with supply/demand principals is a reach far outside ARIN's scope and role.</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Agreed.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><div><div><div><div>I think making allocations of /36's for free may also help get IPv6 out there. The point, I think, is to reduce the barriers for entry for business. The financial one is almost the only tool ARIN
has in it's quiver outside of process oriented ones to make things easier.</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>We tried giving away /32s a few years back. There weren't that many takers and very few of the takers actually bothered to get them routed.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div><br></body></html>