[arin-ppml] fee structure
jcurran at arin.net
Sat Mar 30 18:39:44 EDT 2013
On Mar 30, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately it is somewhat rare to see comments from legacy holders in this forum even though I know a lot of them at least "listen" to postings here as I've had several make comments to me off-line over time. I think comments from legacy holders should be aired in this forum as their comments would make these kinds of policy decisions better - even when philosophical issues come up like is happening in the current discussions.
Agreed. If anyone has interest in how the registry for the region is
operated, then I would strongly encourage them to speak up. While we
do have a mailing list specifically for members to address issues such
as fees and services, the fact is that you can't have fair discussion
about some items (such as equitable fees for membership) on a list of
which includes only members. The same obviously applies to number policy,
which effects everyone in the registry and hence one of the reasons
that we have always had the public policy mailing list open to all.
> In my humble opinion his most important point is that all of these rules are arbitrary. If you stand back and look at all the quibbling going on about whether someone should be able to get a /40 or a /36 or a /32 or a /whatever - it is easy to see that "community" wishes to limit the assignment of IPv4 and even IPv6 resources for their purposes - whatever they may be. All of these conversations boil down to how best to LIMIT IP resources!
As noted later in your email, "there should be NO LIMITS placed by
ARIN other than a simple justification of the size of the requested
block needed as we all obviously all don't need a /8."
Presently, we've got some fairly straightforward IPv6 allocation
policies for both ISPs and end-users, and no one is discussing
putting _any_ restriction on issuing an /32 to ISPs... the question
being discussed is whether we should allow them to request _less_
space (if that is what they desire) so that we can provide a lower
associated fee ($500/yr) as well. We can't move all ISPs to that
number but would like to allow the smaller category and fees if it
makes sense. We seem to have some folks who think that it would be
a worthwhile change, and some who believe it will encourage some
ISPs to economize their customer assignments to fit in the lower
fees (which are more than half of what they would pay otherwise.)
None of this is "driven" by ARIN... At the end of the day, the policy
as to whether ISPs can request a /40 (rather than /36 or /32) will be
set by the community. The Board has expressed willingness to have
these lower fee categories (they approved the IPv6 /36 already and
the change for /40 will be considered), but again, that's presuming
that the community wants to set some policies which would allow an
ISP to request _less_ IPv6 space than presently allowed today.
> I've said many times and I'll keep saying it as long as I can breathe that ARIN's mission is to ALLOCATE resources and not to find reasons NOT TO ALLOCATE resources. IPv4 depletion being the justification be damned!
I actually agree with that (personally), but despite what you may
have heard to the contrary, I not make policy for the ARIN region;
the community on this list does, based on lots of discussion against
policy proposals that are actually submitted. If you think that policy
should be different, then submit a proposal which describes how and
why it be changed.
> IPv4 depletion being the justification be damned! The big elephant in
> the room is that legacy holders are afraid of having their resources
> (and thus their businesses and their missions) impacted by all of the
> community policy discussions that are about somehow limiting resources
> or increasing fees or whatever. Who can blame them for taking the
> stance that better to be cautious and not sign anything that might give
> Arin any rights over them - just in case the "community" which is by
> design unpredictable - decides to do something harmful.
Perfectly reasonable concern when it comes to fees, particularly given that
the revised fee schedule does set legacy address holder fees to be the same
as any other end-user. However, I will also note that Legacy RSA (which
many folks talk about but never seem to read) actually has some protections
specifically regarding these concerns: <https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf>
"ARIN may increase the Legacy Maintenance Fee after December 31, 2012, provided
that (i) the Legacy Maintenance Fee cannot exceed the maintenance fee charged to
comparable non-legacy holders for the maintenance service as set forth in ARIN’s
Standard Fee Schedule as posted on ARIN’s Website for comparable number resources,
and (ii) ARIN must set these fees in an open and transparent manner through the
ARIN community consultation process."
"Whenever a transfer or additional IP address space is requested by Legacy Holder,
ARIN may review Legacy Holder’s utilization of previously allocated or assigned
number resources and other Services received from ARIN to determine if Legacy
Holder is complying with the Service Terms. Except as set forth in this Legacy
Agreement, (i) ARIN will take no action to reduce the Services currently provided
for Included Number Resources due to lack of utilization by the Legacy Holder,
and (ii) ARIN has no right to revoke any Included Number Resources under this
Legacy Agreement due to lack of utilization by Legacy Holder."
Legacy holders who enter into an LRSA are indeed bound contractually
to ARIN policies, but they also receive some fairly straightforward
protections in the process.
> My experience of applying for an IPv6 block in the Small Category and being approved one month, and applying and being denied for the current Minimum Size IPv4 block the next month - provides a real life illustration of just how arbitrary Arin's rules really are. I should have been approved for both or rejected for both!
Actually, it simply proves that the IPv4 and IPv6 policies are different.
If you want them the same, then you need to persuade your fellow service
providers and end-users on this list to change them accordingly.
> John said in his email to David Farmer yesterday "ARIN is here to serve the community, so the normal response to any request should be "Yes", unless there a clear reason (example, potential impacts to other parties) that something should be prohibited by policy". Obviously since I was approved for IPv6 and denied for IPv4, Arin found a reason to say "No" to me rather than "Yes" for IPv4 because of some arbitrary policy stemming from IPv4 depletion concerns. As I said IPv4 depletion be damned as it isn't Arin's Mission to NOT ALLOCATE even the Minimum block to a party with need.
> There should be NO LIMITS placed by Arin other than a simple justification of the size of the requested block needed as we all obviously all don't need a /8. Then Arin should ALLOCATE for a reasonable cost that covers Arin's bills. For the record I have no problem paying a to make sure Arin's reasonable bills are paid.
That is good to know; it's also similar to the reasoning that has led to
ARIN having 4 fee reductions since its inception; we need to only recover
reasonable amounts to cover our costs.
> I'm sure I will get the obligatory email response from John about this email (which I do think is good) but then my comments again will be ignored by this community - and unfortunately all of the legacy holders will continue to be cautious and stay away as long as they can. I applaud Mathew's attempt to contribute here and the sanity he is trying to provide!
> -1 This member is against the current changes as proposed because at least in part it further restricts ALLOCATION of resources which I believe to be against Arin's Mission.
As we're presently discussing: 1) The new fee schedule (aka the "Pending Fee
schedule) which the Board has adopted; 2) A potential change to the Pending
Fee schedule to make the xx-small category include IPv6 address holders with
as large as a /40 IPv6 allocation; #) A change to policy [Draft ARIN-2013-3]
to allow ISPs to request as small as a /40 of IPv6 (presently limited to as
low as a /36 of IPv6), and 4) A change to a policy [Draft ARIN-2013-2] which
would treat 3GPP networks in a manner similar to current cable providers for
purposes of showing utilization of past blocks when requesting additional
space, would it be possible for you to be just a bit more specific about
which "current changes as proposed" you are referring to above?
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML