[ppml] In$entive$

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Thu Mar 22 20:10:46 EDT 2007


In a message written on Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:10:24AM -0500, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> The problem with this methodology is that it would place the burden on
> the backs of an already overburdened population.   Costs in business are
> absorbed readily, so long as they are applied evenly across the board.
> In fact when on a level playing field more outgo translates to more
> income based on fixed rate markup of expenses passed to the consumer.
> Big business doesn't mind when their costs go up, as long as the cost
> for the competition increases proportionally.  The real cost is passed
> to the consumer, who will have little to say about network organization
> until it is way too late.  

I simply offered a straw man to get discussion started on if a "fee
based stick" was even interesting to the group.

I actually don't agree with your result.  Right now the cost of
IPv6 is higher than the cost of IPv4 as people are up and running
with IPv4, and would likely have to upgrade something to get IPv6.
Now, if you assume they are going to have to bear that cost eventually
the cheapest path is to give them an incentive to do it at the lowest
possible cost.  Running out of IPv4 with no IPv6 deployment will
mean the lowest cost is spending 10's of thousands on the black
market for IP's, since you can't get to anything useful on the IPv6
Internet.  In contrast, if we raise the cost of IPv4 slowly they
will switch to IPv6 as soon as switching is a lower cost option.

However, you can easily structure the fees different.  If you want
to spare the little guy and stick it to the man the fee schedule
could stay the same for Extra-Small every year, go up by 1.5x each
year for Medium, and go up 2x each year for large.  The trick is
convincing people that's more fair, or that it eases the transition
to IPv6.

On one thing we agree, the cost will be passed to the consumer no mater
what.  I think our effort should be to make that as small as possible;
but it will be non-zero.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070322/a20fa1d0/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list