[arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6

[Hannigan, Martin]

> From: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
> Organization: Internet Partners, Inc.
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:17:43 -0700
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: <arin-discuss at arin.net>, ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]  x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/30/2010 3:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:


[ clip ]


> 
>> If we want to consider an extended or permanent fee waiver
>> for those organizations, the maximum possible impact to ARIN
>> revenue would be a waiver of up to $866,000 (with adjustment
>> for new x-small organizations that might get added).
>> 
> 
> Yes, but you failed to mention that this is offset against
> the additional $866,000 that ARIN would take in if all those
> orgs for IPv6 with no waiver.
> 
>> I'm neither speaking for or against such a waiver at this time,
>> merely trying to provide a clear view of the facts and potential
>> impacts of such a waiver and the number of organizations that
>> could benefit from such a waiver.
>> 
> 
> But ultimately there are no impacts (financial at any rate)

All of those costs would be shifted to v4 resource holders.

ARIN also reported a net deficit with respect to budgets for 2009. For
example, the Treasurers Report for 2009 showed revenue of 13m, expenses of
15m. That's a $2m deficit. Eliminating the $900k in revenue would have
significant impact from my perspective.

> 
> As I thought I explained, the "missing" .8 Mil is something that
> if nothing is done, is additional fees ARIN will make in the future
> when the x-smalls are forced to go to IPv6.

We haven't seen a business model that shows v6 only revenue. I don't think
that this is the plan as v4 resources will be in use for some time. I do
think that v4 revenues, at some point, will begin to rapidly decrease. That
is a significant problem if we are to do this correctly.


> 
> If something is done, then ARIN does not make those additional fees
> and instead merely makes the same fees they are making now.
> 
> Also since ARIN is duty-bound to return that .8 Mil in the form of
> fee DECREASES then the real argument is this, do we want the
> ultimate revenue ARIN takes in to NOT increase as a result of IPv6
> or do we want it to DECREASE so we all (ISPs who are NOT x-smalls)
> can get a nice break on our own fees?
> 
> You made it sound like the community is losing money if we do a
> waiver which is definitely not the case.  The transition to IPv6

What support do you have for this statement? Using the 2009 Treasurers
report, net revenue rose less than $220k. Expenses rose by about the net
deficit of $2m not including the drawdown of the reserve fund.


> means more numbers handed out to the same fishes,
> which due to the current fee structure results in a bonus for
> ARIN.  It does not increase the number of fishes and as you have
> constantly harped on in the past ARIN sets fees based on how
> many fishes they have to keep track of, not how much IP numbers
> they have handed out.  So if your going to be consistent with
> what you have beaten me over the head with in the past, you should not
> be making the financials seem like a revenue loss to continue
> to do a IPv6 waiver for the x-small IPv4 set.
> 
> With financials it's all in the presentation.
> 

Have you seen the 2009 financials? I'd be interested to hear where you think
my logic is off.

Best,

-M<