[ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees

[John M. Brown]

you are asking ARIN to become more involved with their
membership community.  Not something I see them doing any
time soon.

This was weakly attempted by the AC and via CLEW, but did not
receive "support" from the membership, nor was it actively 
pushed by ARIN management, the AC, or the BOT.

CLEW was a good idea and could have provided resources to help
get IPv6 up and going.  

When I was an AC member (before I resigned in disgust), I tried
to help promote CLEW or similar as a way of providing more technical
training programs, similar to the way RIPE does.  Deaf ears was the
result.


John Brown
Former ARIN AC Member


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of william at elan.net
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:00 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees
> 
> 
> That is what 6bone was for - to help indviduals develop new 
> protocol and 
> adapt it. Its unfortunate it was decided to discontinue the project, 
> instead RIRs should have donated some resources to keep it 
> running. What should have been done is to have RIRs allocate 
> special block (from 
> each RIRs allocation) to 6bone and have 6bone then allocate 
> to individuals from it with 6bone becoming LIR for all 
> practical purposes. Its possible 
> RIRs could have also acted as agents for allocation purposes 
> on behalf of 
> 6bone but I do not believe RIRs should directly be allocating 
> in the same 
> manner swamp space was allocated by internic before.
> 
> And even now I think RIRs (ARIN in particular, RIPE and APNIC 
> are already 
> doing some) should do more to get involved in encoraging 
> adoptations of 
> ipv6. Instead of trying to decide what schedule to adopt, ARIN should 
> instead be using ipv4 money to compensate (up to some set amount that 
> ARIN board should decide on) ipv6 related expenses (which I 
> do not think 
> are large at all) and not only that but to encorage companies 
> to use ipv6 
> (i.e. for example send letters or brochures to members & subscribers 
> about availability of ipv6 and need to change to new ip standards for 
> future, etc). What is being done now with extension of no charges for 
> ipv6 is good, but the way it sounds is "we do it free for 
> now, but just 
> wait couple more months and we'll be happy to charge you for it".
> 
> And  remember - it will not matter what schedule you adopt, 
> in reality 
> ipv6 will be flat-rate for all practical purposes. Even now 
> ARIN says they 
> get over 80% of revenue from smallest ip blocks - just 
> imagine what this 
> number will be when ipv6 is used commercially everywhere!
> 
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> 
> >     > And last of all - just give them away to anyone who 
> wants them.  No need
> >     > to be a subscriber.  You might find they'll move faster that 
> > way.
> > 
> > Yeah, I think that if there were some sort of 
> > no-recurring-fees-for-early-adopters sort of thing it would 
> get things 
> > moving a little more...  Honestly, the way it worked with IPv4 was 
> > that the addresses got into the hands of the _individuals_ who were 
> > smart enough to do something with them, and then the individuals 
> > pushed them into companies and service providers.
> > 
> > If we don't have some way for smart people (not corporations with 
> > budgets) to get v6 address space, we stay stuck in the 
> chicken-and-egg 
> > position.
> > 
> > This doesn't decrease RR revenues, since the people who'd pick up 
> > address space that way wouldn't be dues-payers otherwise.
> > 
> > I mean, imagine a situation where a smart person's alternative to 
> > running a NAT on their home DSL was to run v6 behind their 
> home DSL.  
> > That would get things moving.
> > 
> >                                 -Bill
> > 
> > 
> 
>