<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><title>Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?</title><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> arin-discuss-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces@arin.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jim Connolly<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:17 PM<br><b>To:</b> Jesse D. Geddis; Owen DeLong<br><b>Cc:</b> arin-discuss@arin.net; John Curran<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div id=idOWAReplyText84738><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Can you please stop with all the emails? 3 days of you going on and on.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:arin-discuss-bounces@arin.net">arin-discuss-bounces@arin.net</a> on behalf of Jesse D. Geddis<br><b>Sent:</b> Thu 4/18/2013 4:16 PM<br><b>To:</b> Owen DeLong<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:arin-discuss@arin.net">arin-discuss@arin.net</a> List; John Curran<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Owen,<br><br> Honestly, I don't know why this is even a topic of conversation still.<br>The fact is the fees are based on allocation size today and to my<br>knowledge they have ALWAYS been based on allocation size. It's in black<br>and white here:<br><br><a href="https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html">https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html</a><br><br>What I read in this fee schedule is "Size Category" with an associated<br>"Fee (US Dollars)" followed by a "Block Size"<br><br> Nowhere on this current fee schedule do I see anything (not even a hint)<br>about it being linked to how many tickets ARIN thinks a specific size<br>category takes. Nothing about them being based on who ARIN thinks<br>generates better requests. Nothing. So can we please be done with that as<br>an excuse for the current fee structure?<br><br>Jesse Geddis<br>LA Broadband LLC<br><br><br><br><br>On 4/17/13 8:03 PM, "Owen DeLong" <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>>>> Recognize that there is a transaction cost involved in issuing (or<br>>>> transfering) an address block to a party, but beyond that point,<br>>>> ARIN's actual costs are not significantly different for a large IP<br>>>> address block versus a small IP address block. We should all be<br>>>> very thankful for this, as ARIN's costs would have become enormous<br>>>> upon the assignment of the first IPv4 block... (which has so many<br>>>> individual IP addresses that any cost per IP would still be too much.)<br>>><br>>> Well I think that depends and is highly subjective. In my experience<br>>>the time ARIN spends on a ticket directly correlates to the size of the<br>>>requested block. With the larger block I have found ARIN spends<br>>>exponentially more time vetting the documentation, diagrams,<br>>>spreadsheets, projections, and contracts than it does with say a /22.<br>>>From what I'm hearing you say you believe ARIN spends an equal amount of<br>>>time vetting a /22 as it does a /14. I can't fathom how this could be<br>>>possible. If I'm requesting a /14 ARIN would presumably be reviewing<br>>>documentation for hundreds of thousands of IPs and huge diagrams and<br>>>projections vs reviewing documentation for 500 IPs associated with a /22<br>>>request.<br>>><br>><br>>Nope.<br>><br>>ARIN spends a lot more time on a poorly considered, poorly documented<br>>repeated rounds of asking for additional documentation request for a /22<br>>than they do on a well considered, well documented request for a /14.<br>>This has been<br>>stated in various forms multiple times, so it does not "lack foundation"<br>>as you are so fond of saying.<br>><br>>Further, even in the case of a well formed request for a /22 and a well<br>>formed request for a /14, ARIN does not spend anywhere near 256 times as<br>>long on the /14 as the /22, yet you want to jack the price up *256 for<br>>that spread. In my<br>>experience, it's more like 1.5-2 times as long. Admittedly, my knowledge<br>>is limited to IPv4 from /24 to /12 and IPv6 from /48 to /24. I don't have<br>>experience applying for anything larger than /12 (IPv4) or /24 (IPv6). My<br>>experience does include multiple successful applications at each of those<br>>top sizes.<br>><br>>ARIN should be spending considerably less time deliberating most IPv6<br>>requests than they do most IPv4 requests, since the policy is quite a bit<br>>simpler and allows for significantly more liberal allocations. Also a<br>>larger fraction of these are likely initial allocations with near<br>>automatic qualification.<br>><br>>Owen<br>><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>ARIN-Discuss<br>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-discuss@arin.net">ARIN-discuss@arin.net</a>).<br>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss</a><br>Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br><br>--<br>This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>dangerous content by an automated system, and is<br>believed to be clean.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>