[ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

Stephen Sprunk stephen at sprunk.org
Thu Aug 16 12:47:02 EDT 2007

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 

> 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.


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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list