[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Fri Aug 3 12:07:00 EDT 2007

I am in much the same boat as David..  I sincerely hope that the cost
waivers are going to stay in place until IPv6 is actually useful.  I
have gone ahead and gotten an allocation, but I am not sure whether we
will be able to justify an actual payment if the waiver runs out before
I am able to route v6.  



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of David E. Smith
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:30 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > My proposal that orgs pay either their v4 fees or v6 fees, 
> whichever 
> > is more, has the same long-term effect without the 
> unintended consequences.
> Now this is a proposal I can get behind. :)
> I work for a fairly small ISP (we've got a single /19). I've 
> been following this discussion, and I've wanted to play with 
> IPv6 for a while. I can't, however, cost-justify it to the boss.
> Right now, there are IPv6 fee waivers, but they're presently 
> only guaranteed through the end of the year. Unless the IPv6 
> fees are waived again, we'll either have to return the 
> allocation in a few months, or somehow come up with $2250 to 
> pay for something we don't presently *need*. (Right now, our 
> upstream doesn't support IPv6, saying none of their customers 
> are clamoring for it; it's a very chicken-and-egg problem.)
> Meanwhile, we're small enough that $2250 a year (assuming we 
> get a "Small" allocation, the same as our current IPv4 one) 
> is a pretty hefty expense. My customers aren't asking about 
> IPv6, much of our gear doesn't support it, and there's not 
> that much you can do with it (that you can't do with IPv4) -- 
> it's a very hard sell.
> If I could get some kind of guarantee or other really solid 
> reassurance that trying to deploy IPv6 isn't going to cost me 
> money I don't really have for something I don't yet need, I'd 
> be glad to start tinkering. The aforementioned proposal makes 
> perfect sense to me. (A longer-term fee waiver, say through 
> 2011 or so, would work just as well from my perspective, 
> though I can't say how well it'd work for ARIN.)
> David Smith
> MVN.net
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy 
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list