[ppml] getting converts to V6

[Owen DeLong]

On May 16, 2007, at 10:42 AM, John Santos wrote:

>
>
> I have no problem with the current policy.  I have my class C and
> don't need any more.
>
> However, you people do seem to have a problem and want to force
> us little guys into selling our souls to some big ISP, except we
> don't get anything from this, instead we have to pay through the
> nose.
>
Huh?  Who do you mean by "You People"?

ARIN is an organization made up of two groups of people... On one
hand, you have the members, most of whom _ARE_ ISPs of various
sizes.  On the other hand, you have the community.  The community,
which is the body that actually has the greatest amount of input into
ARIN policy is made up of ANYONE interested in IP policy.

I have proposed IP Policy without being an ARIN member.  I have
see policy proposals I drafted and policy proposals I helped modify
become ARIN Policy without being an ARIN member.

When you say "YOU PEOPLE" like we are some amorphous body
bent on causing you grief, you seem to forget that you are, by virtue
of the fact that you are participating on this list, one of "YOU  
PEOPLE".
> How much does it actually cost to maintain a single record, a few
> hundred bytes of information that never changes?
>
It's probably a little less than the $100/year you have to pay under
ARINs structure, but, you can maintain as many records as you
need for that same $100/year, so, I don't think it's such a horrible
deal.

Since you think $100/year is too much to pay for all of your ARIN
resources, could you tell us what you think would be a more
reasonable price for annual service from ARIN?
> As best I can tell, you would want to charge me several hundred
> dollars a year, close to a dollar per address, whereas large ISPs
> get addresses for a fraction of a penny per year.
>
Are you an ISP or an end user?  Quoting from the ARIN fee page:

=============
Annual Maintenance Fee
ARIN assesses a consolidated annual maintenance fee of $100 (USD) for  
each Org ID with resources registered with ARIN to cover the cost of  
maintaining assignment information. Org IDs that also have direct  
allocations of IP address space associated with them do not have to  
pay this fee.

ARIN will invoice organizations two months prior to the anniversary  
date of their first resource registration, and the payment is due by  
that anniversary date.

In cases where a single Org ID has more than one resource registered  
with ARIN (e.g. AS numbers, IPv4 or IPv6 assignments, or network  
transfers), ARIN charges only a single maintenance fee of $100.

End-users should ensure that their annual payment is made by the due  
date on their invoice, in accordance with the Registration Services  
Agreement. If not paid by the invoice due date, the address space may  
be revoked.

=============


If you have a single record, or, as is more likely the case, even a
set of records that do not change, then, you must be an end-user,
because ISPs (in the ARIN sense of the term) are people who
reallocate or reassign space to other organizations.  Thus, ISPs
do not have single records that do not change.

If you are an end user, you only pay $100/year, no matter how
many resources you have from ARIN.  Yes, there are some
additional one-time fees to process a new registration request,
but, your paragraph seems to be talking about the annual fees
since you mention "dollars a year".  In this, you are mistaken, the
fee is only $100.
>
> You guys want people to jump on the IPv6 bandwagon.  You really want
> them to jump on the money wagon.
>
Hardly.  ARIN fees are not structured to penalize anyone.  Further,
ARIN is actually fairly frugal in their spending of what they do  
collect.
Your accusations here seem specious to me.  It's not like anyone
at ARIN is getting paid on commission or receives any more or less
money based on the amount of v6 space people use or the rate
of adoption of v6.  Indeed, in terms of v4 vs. v6, ARIN as an
organization is pretty much agnostic.  However, the reality is
that eventually, we will be unable to sustain growth of new users
in the IPv4 address space due to freespace exhaustion. The only
solution to that problem is a larger address space.  Currently, the
most viable proposal for a larger address space is v6.

The fact that ARIN does not want to repeat the mistakes of early
IPv4 address with IPv6 is not about collecting fees.  It is about
being able to track whether addresses are still in use or not, and,
about having the ability for address policy changes to apply to
existing addresses rather than having to maintain multiple legacy
policies in perpetuity.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070516/4c4d51f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070516/4c4d51f2/attachment.p7s>