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

[Steven Ryerse]

Amen!  I applaud Bill's comments.  I think that anyone who get an ipv4 address should get an IPv6 address if they want it - probably at the same or a nominal cost.  ARIN's mission is to find ways to get IP addresses out there and not to find ways to stop getting them out there.  I believe this is the mission for both IPv4 & IPv6 - not just IPv6.  I think many are so worried about IPv4 depletion that they lose sight of ARIN's primary mission to ASSIGN addresses.  How about a pricing strategy that gives us a discount on IPv4 numbers if we actually deploy (and you can verify) the IPv6 we receive as well.  How about making available IPv6 addresses for free if we already have a contract with ARIN for IPv4 addresses and we actually deploy the IPv6 addresses.  My Grandmother taught me that you can get a lot farther with honey than with vinegar.  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:34 PM
To: John Curran
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

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 _______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.