[ppml] those pesky users...

[Johnson, Ron]

Lots of above commentary truncated:
>Lee, ARIN and the other RIR's need to admit a huge mistake was made
over the IPv6 allocations and then go forward with
>correcting it.
>
>What you should have done was for ALL ipv4 assignments you should have
AUTOMATICALLY made an IPv6 assignment of a number >block.  This would
have eliminated the silly "fee for IPv4" and "fee for IPv6" different
rate schedules.  There would 
>only be one fee for "IP addressing" that would never go away and never
change whether you were using IPv4 or IPv6 or 
>both.
>It would have allowed people that wanted to experiment to just look up
their
>IPv6 allocation and start announcing them, without the bother of
contacing a number authority and going through an 
>allocation scheme.

Lot's of Ted's email elided, for brevity.

This is a proposal that I could get my management on board with. The
Bottom line is NO INCREMENTAL COST FOR SERVICES.
Even getting a $500.00 P.O. cut for the "registration fee" is a
non-starter. The waiver of maintainer fees smells the same as a
adjustable rate mortgages to accounting types. The deal looks good going
in, but is subject to fluctuations that changes the terms over time,
unfavorably. 

That old phrase, that it is easier to beg forgiveness than ask
permission, is oh so very true in the commercial business world.
Technically we could implement an IPv6 scheme, and if we had no
incremental or reoccurring costs to obtain our new address allocation,
no asking permission from the money side of the house. 

Eventually our need for IPv4 would evaporate as v6 adopted, and our fee
structure would remain the same. 
ARIN continues to get fees, we get new addresses, and wide adopting of
v6 in the U.S. occurs years sooner than it would otherwise.

Ron Johnson