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

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Sun Apr 7 16:35:26 EDT 2013

On 4/7/2013 9:58 AM, Steven Noble wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 4:21 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> It would be good to hear from ISPs who would qualify for the xx-small
>> $500/year category about the resulting temptation that it poses for
>> making smaller IPv6 customer assignments (and how they feel safer with
>> the /36 IPv6 minimum and corresponding $1000/year annual fee), as they
>> are the ones who are most affected by the outcome of this draft policy
>> consideration.
> I would love to have PI IPv6 space and as I have no IPv4 space from ARIN, adding IPv6 will raise my fees. What is the proposal to get legacy holders to adopt IPv6?

I'm in the same situation, and there isn't one. And it wouldn't be 
numbering policy anyway, it'd require a board that wants to set fees to 
zero or nearly so for your and my category.

> As noted before by others, I don't understand why a record has different costs based on what the record is for.  The difference in fees seems to go against ARINs goal of allocating resources to the community.
> Is the overhead of an IPv6 allocation record 5x an ASN record?

It is just ARIN trying to figure out how to maximize its own revenue. It 
knows that if it charged everyone the same amount, there would be some 
large organizations who could easily afford to pay more but from whom 
they aren't extracting any extra revenue. They justify this scaled 
pricing by then claiming that if they charged everyone so little that it 
was affordable to the smallest, they wouldn't bring in enough to pay for 
the usual overhead of costs that happens when there's money in the bank 
account to support those costs, despite the fact that the database 
itself could be run by volunteers for free or nearly so. Simple 
economics I'm afraid.

Matthew Kaufman

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list