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

[Steve Bertrand]

On 2010.05.03 21:06, David Farmer wrote:
> NOC at ChangeIP.com wrote:
>>> x-small IPv4 providers as such,
>>> constitute about 1/4 of the total ARIN ISP constituency.
>>
>> So 1/4 of the current IPv4 ARIN community will have to pay something
>> to get IPv6... which will hinder IPv6 rollout in my opinion.  If we
>> truly want people to transition now we need to make their initial
>> small ipv6 allocation at no additional cost if they are already paying
>> for x-small ipv4.
>>
>> "6.4.3. Minimum Allocation
>> The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32."
>>
>> which is $2,250/yr, more than the $1,250/yr that they are currently
>> paying. The x-small ipv6 allocation on the fee schedule is misleading
>> since you can't even get it.
>>
>> Don't start with the $1,000/yr is nothing; its the cost of a PC for an
>> employee argument... it all comes back to do you really want IPv6
>> rollout to succeed or not.  I personally am holding out on ISP v6
>> block because I don't want the extra cost.  I can't get anything from
>> my upstreams (level3, cogent) because ipv6 isn't available thru them.
> 
> So as I see it there are two ways to go here, ask the BOT for a fee
> wavier or some kind of pricing change for a /32.  Or alternatively we
> could go in the direction of a policy change allowing an ISP or LIR the
> option to elect to receive something smaller than a /32, like a /40 or
> maybe a /36 and then ask the BOT to designate that size prefix as x-small.

Being a x-small org who is directly affected by the topic of this
discussion, this is how I feel:

First, I don't want to see a fee reduction. I am quite concerned about
our (ARIN) short-term future. I was thankful that Marty raised the
question about our reserve at the meeting. I feel that it is prudent to
ensure a decent reserve and cash-flow position, as nobody can predict
what legal (or other) issues will arise within the next 24 months.

I wouldn't like to see a reduction in allocation size for x-small
either. When I first applied for my /32, I begged and pleaded with ARIN
to give me something smaller (because I felt it was a waste of space).
Now, looking at things realistically, a /32 isn't really that big after
all, and it would have a negative impact if x-smalls had to come back
for more address space.

I'm very content with how ARIN's financials look, particularly how much
is utilized for outreach. I don't believe that the added cost is too
large a barrier to entry into v6 for an x-small as things currently are.

If anything at all, I'd go for an extension of the fee waiver, for a
*very* limited time. I would be opposed to changing the fee structure
itself, or changing the allocation size (which would affect the fee
structure in a different way).

Steve