[ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com>
> Being a small ISP this affects me differently.  Having a /18 of IPv4
> would incur a fee of about $450 , which wouldn't break the bank

An /18 costs an ISP $4500/yr today; you're objecting to your fees going down 
to $439.09/yr, a reduction of 90.2%?  That doesn't make sense to me.

> but does cause me concern when people want to raise my costs for
> nothing more than policy reasons.  I don't mind paying more for
> added services, but I hate paying more to satisfy somebodies ego.

Again, your fees would be going down, not up.  Also, it's not just to 
satisfy someone's ego but because everyone is consuming a limited resource 
that we're rapidly running out of, and it makes sense that everyone pay the 
same amount for consumption instead of letting certain ISPs pay as little as 
1/9000th of what smaller ISPs pay when they are consuming 80% of that scarce 
resource.

> If that $.0268 were applied to the IPv6 allocation as well I would
> surrender my IPv6 tomorrow.  That cost would put me out of
> business and close my doors.

Obviously the same economics don't apply to v6.  A single /48 would cost 
$32,399,211,965,672,061,882,125.52 at that price, which I'm pretty sure 
would put not just you but the entire industry out of business :)

I don't know if ARIN's current v6 fee schedule makes sense either, but it's 
not a pressing concern at the moment since (a) nobody is using v6, and (b) 
no ISP would be paying v6 fees today even if they were using it.

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov