[arin-ppml] Internet 101: Collaboration (was -Microsoft receives court approval for transfer as agreed with ARIN)
owen at delong.com
Mon May 2 15:39:35 EDT 2011
On Apr 30, 2011, at 6:06 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2011 8:49 PM, Michel Py wrote:
>>>> it's about the gut
>>>> reaction about a new recurring fee.
>>> Agree. This is why I don't have any end-user IPv6 space of my own still. Sure, I'd love to configure up my own globally-routable IPv6 across the local microwave IP network I have, but that particular hobby already uses more $/month out of the budget than I should be spending, so $100/year isn't going to go to ARIN for this. (Never mind that even with approximately zero IPv6 usage the initial fee discounts have mostly gone away).
>> I have an IPv6 direct assignment from ARIN and my fees to ARIN increased
>> by exactly $0 per year as a result.
> I don't. I coughed up the $500 a few years ago for an AS number to
> multihome my legacy addresses and I pay the $100/year as a result. If
> IPv6 usage ever takes off, I'll cough up the $1250 too, but $1250 is a
> steep barrier to join a system whose current usage is, well,
> negligible. I don't mean to imply the fee is unfair... it isn't. But
> participation isn't yet worth it at that price.
At the time, there was a discount on IPv6 assignments and I only
payed $500 for my /48. The discount was motivation enough for
me to do so, as I figured I'd have to get v6 eventually and $500 now
seemed a bargain compared to $1250 or more later.
> My own complaints about the recurring fees ended abruptly when I
> calculated how much it cost "everybody else" to support my
> non-aggregable registration in the BGP table.
As you know, we still disagree about your calculations, but, I
agree that $100/year is quite reasonable to cover my IPv4 and
More information about the ARIN-PPML