[arin-ppml] large vs small?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Lee Howard wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt replied to Brian Johnson:
> 
> 
> 
>>> So you are assuming that ARIN has to do "work" on the larger
>>> allocations? Please explain what work needs to be done on an allocation,
>>> post it being allocated. Also explain what the difference in allocation
>>> size has to do with doing such work.
>> Your confusing ISSUE costs with MAINTAINENCE costs.
>>
>> ARIN fees do not currently discriminate when it's also clearly obvious
>> that most of ARIN's work goes into making ISSUES of numbering.  Very little of 
>> their work goes into MAINTAINING issues that have already
>> been made.
> 
> Earlier this month I listed many of the services ARIN provides, few of which
> were issuance costs.
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-June/014336.html
> 
> Evaluating requests for address space is only one very important part of
> ARIN's services.  Facilitating the policy process, development of services,
> education on IPv6 and other technologies, and coordination with other
> organizations are all expensive activities.  The costs for those activities might
> be allocated differently than direct evaluation of applications.
> 

Every other one of those activities you listed is used more by orgs that
have more IP addressing allocated to them

In fact, the APPLICATION FEE is one of the few fees that is more closely
"fair" among different-sized orgs, ironically enough.

Yes' I've read the claims that small orgs participate more in the policy
development process.  But that is a red herring since the long-term
cost dwarfs the cost to develop the policy.  The resultant policies have
a far, far greater effect on orgs that hold large allocations than on
orgs that hold small allocations.

For example, the whois POC verification.  Large orgs have more SWIPs, 
more POCs in whois.  ARIN will be spending a heck of a lot more time
cleaning up SWIPS related to large orgs than small ones.

IPv6 outreach also has more effect on large orgs - as the large orgs
HAVE to move to IPv6 simply because there's not enough IPv4 numbers
for them even if all IPv4 allocations were ONLY made to large orgs.

I'm NOT condemning the other activities that ARIN does as bad.  I'm
just saying that large orgs gain more from the entire process than
small orgs do.  Thus, I see it as fundamentally sound that they pay
more money.  If your going to disagree with that conclusion, please
say so.

I ALSO feel they do NOT pay as much as they should.  However, I also
understand that this is typical of many things in life.  For example,
in the US, the fuel tax is equally assessed on passenger cars and on
trucks.  Yet, heavier trucks do most of the road damage.  Thus, the
passenger car drivers end up subsidizing the truck drivers.  That is
the situation with ARIN fees, the large orgs do more to wipe out our
remaining stock of IPv4 than the small orgs do. (if you want to extend
the analogy to the point of silliness)

Whether ARIN will ever decide to DO anything about it, is a different
question.  But, Lee, I recall you asked WHY the small orgs don't
trust the large orgs - well, here's your answer.  Sorry you don't like
it.  Just please have a little respect for the small orgs and quit 
trying to convince them that it's "fair".

Ted