[arin-ppml] Fee structures for ARIN

Jeff Wheeler jsw at inconcepts.biz
Fri Oct 28 15:10:37 EDT 2011

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
> Actually, with the newer policy and nibble allocations, the problem is that
> a network can grow extremely large very fast. If you need a /27 of IPv6, you
> are jumping up to a /24, which is MUCH larger. If it were more inline with
> the current IPv4 Tier system, the revenue should be near the same. This is
> why I recommended the nibble boundary pricing escalation.

If you choose to number your network that way and liberally hand out
/48s to all customers, you are still going to have room for a lot more
customers (or services) in any given IPv6 size category than if you
spent the same amount of money on IPv4.  I agree with you that if
allocations to ISPs will be nibble-based then it makes sense to align
the fees that way as well; but the money you have to spend on IPv6
addresses for customers will be substantially smaller than the money
you need to spend on IPv4, for substantially more resources available
to hand out to the customer and more numbering / aggregation
flexibility for the ISP.

> They aren't. The problem is, there wouldn't be an end-user if they raise the
> end-user rates too much. The ISP is subsidizing ARIN for everyone else. I'm
> okay with this.

I really don't care how much Owen pays for his legacy allocations.  I
am sure its value to him is much greater than $300/year.  I am sure
I'm not the only one who would like it if there weren't any legacy
end-user allocations in the DFZ.  If the proposed change were to raise
the fees to be the same as those for ISP fees, I would absolutely
support it.

Jeff S Wheeler <jsw at inconcepts.biz>
Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list