[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

[John Curran]

On Apr 7, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Steven Noble <snoble at sonn.com>
 wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 10:13 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> Actually, there is a significantly more registry operations 
>> and development costs associated with IP address blocks than
>> AS numbers, if only because IP address blocks for ISPs end up
>> with subassignments to customers, and this ends up in Whois
>> via SWIP or restful interfaces.  While we have lowered fees
>> (and doing so again with this change) for the smaller ISPs,
>> it still does not compare to either "free" or the nominal 
>> $100 per record fee for legacy holders.
> 
> This I understand, thank you John.  I do not consider $100 nominal, when the cost was $30 it was nominal, with the new fee schedule instead of lowering the fee back to $30 and charging for each ASN, ARIN is raising the fees for ASNs to $100 each.  
Steve - 

  The prior fee was $100 per year for all your resources;
  I am uncertain why you felt it was $30?
        
  The revised fee schedule changes this for end-users and
  legacy holders to $100 per year per resource record.

> Why not make a sliding scale?  Those who consume more resources as a single ORG pay more: $30 for first ASN, $60 for second, etc.

  It is a sliding scale under the revised fee schedule for 
  end-users and legacy holders, but at $100 per record not
  $30 per record as you suggest.

>> Do you have a view on whether or not policy should be changed
>> (as proposed in ARIN-2013-3) to allow ISPs to request an IPv6
>> allocation of /40 if they want to, or should they be limited
>> to at least a /36 allocation per current policy?
> 
> I believe it will allow for more IPv6 deployment which is the end goal.  I can debate in my head paying $500 to have IPv6 PI space, I cannot justify paying $1000+ yearly.

That is helpful to know - Thank you!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN