[ppml] those pesky users...

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:36 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt; ppml at arin.net
>Subject: RE: [ppml] those pesky users...
>
>
>> >> drop the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules (the wavier is a joke anyway,
>> >> what is the point of an IPv6 fee schedule with a fee of $0)
>> >
>> >The point was to let people know what the fee would be, someday, so
>> >they could plan for it.
>> >
>>
>> I disagree, I think the real point was to attempt to influence
>> IPv6 uptake by adjusting fees.
>
>The Board set a fee schedule so that people would know what the
>fee would be.  The waiver was so as not to inhibit IPv6 adoption.
>
>> You can argue all you want on
>> this point but it is silly to claim that anyone can predict
>> what ARIN's or anyone elses costs are going to be in the
>> future.  Without knowing the future costs how can you claim
>> that you know now what the fee is going to be, someway.  Come on, now.
>
>That's absolutely true, the Board can change fees at any time.
>I don't believe the Board would change fees capriciously.

Fundamentally if you look at IPv6 as a replacement technology for
IPv4 then when the transition is complete, and nobody is using IPv4
anymore, then why would the fees be any different?  It's still
the same number of hosts on the Internet and the same number of
networks and ISP's that need to be kept track of.  I think the
wavier idea includes the assumption that there are additional
fees for IPv6, we just aren't charging now, but we will in
the future.  So why would anyone want to get IPv6 under a
wavier that may disappear?  What if it disappears before I'm
done with IPv4?  Then I will have to pay extra - but, once more,
there's still the same number of hosts on the Internet, and the
same number of networks and ISP's that need to be kept track of.

Why does it cost double for ARIN to keep track of 2 data elements
for my AS, my IPv4 allocation and my IPv6 allocation, instead of
keeping track of only one data element - my IPv4 allocation?

The whole thing was a mistake on separate fee structures for IPv4
and IPv6 IMHO.  It really looks like an intent to set an artifically
high fee for IPv4 and artifically low fee for IPv6 with the expectation that
it would cause people to switch over.  It appears that people
haven't switched over.  So, give them both and then ARIN and the
RIR's can simply concentrate on tracking ALL numbering that is out
there.

If ARIN and the RIR's are supposed to be neutrals on the idea
of IPv4 runout and such, then they shouldn't be trying to alter
IPv4 and IPv6 utilization by setting fees that are skewed one
way or the other.  They should simply be concentrating on tracking
numbering and making absolutely sure that for ALL IPv4 and IPv6
handed out, that some legitimate contact is listed that knows that
they have it.

Ted