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

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 28, 2013, at 04:45 , Brandon Ross <bross at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> But they are already paying $1,250/year now for their IPv4. Under the proposed structure, they could get a /36 and pay $250 less than they are paying now.
>> 
>> I am perplexed by your argument.
> 
> Which of these statements do I have wrong or is unclear:
> 
> 1. Under the new fee policy, an IPv4-only /22 holder will pay $500/year
> 

Correct.

> 2. Under the new fee policy, and under the current allocation policy, an IPv4 /22 holder will pay $1000/year starting at the time that they receive IPv6 space because the minimum IPv6 allocation size puts them into x-small.
> 

Correct.

> 3. $1000/year is double $500/year
> 

Correct.

> 4. Some service providers will either not request IPv6 space or will return IPv6 space to set their costs at $500/year.
> 

Perhaps...

However, since those providers are currently paying $1,250, your argument that their revenues are insufficient to support a payment of $1,000 per year in the previous message to which I responded is the part that perplexes me. If they can afford $1,250 today, how can they not afford $1,000 tomorrow?

> 5. As a community, it is bad to have incentives in place that encourage service providers to avoid requesting or return IPv6 address space

To some extent, yes. However, it is even worse to have incentives that encourage providers to save a few dollars by creating an address poverty situation for their end users.

Owen