<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17063" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText84738 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Can you please stop with all the emails? 3 days of you going on and on.</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> arin-discuss-bounces@arin.net 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> arin-discuss@arin.net List; John Curran<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>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" <owen@delong.com> 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 (ARIN-discuss@arin.net).<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 info@arin.net 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.<BR><BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>