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

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:26 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> We certainly can have a fee table which ends at the bottom with a /32
> of IPv6 space, but given the number of ISPs in that size allocation then
> we would also likely have to carry with it very similar fees as today.

Hi John,

I'm not convinced that an ISP paying ARIN less than $200/month
represents a any kind of hardship. If there's an ISP out there for
which the difference between $2000/year and $500/year is big deal, I
want to know more about his service delivery infrastructure, because
he must have driven his costs down to something I'd desperately like
to emulate.

That or the supposed ISP consists of a guy in his garage doing wifi
with his neighbors.


On the other hand, I'm very much convinced that ARIN's fees should
encourage (or at least fail to discourage) immediate deployment of
IPv6 as designated by the presumptively technically sound number
policies. Whatever a registrant is paying for his IPv4, his fees
should not increase by a single nickle to gain what the number policy
suggests is a technically appropriate IPv6 registration.

I propose full cross-subsidy for IPv6 registration until IPv6 is ready
to stand on its own.  If ever there was a reasonable time and place
for cross-subsidy, this is it. If it's important to you that IPv6 be
promptly and universally deployed (and who among you cares to stand up
and say that it's not) then damn it all, stop trying to bootstrap it
on its own revenues. Bootstrap = slow!

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004