[arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 21, 2021, at 07:04 , hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> 
> In the typical LRSA+RSA case, is the ASN number covered by the LRSA or the RSA?  If the RSA only covers V6, why not consider getting V6 from your upstream and dumping the RSA to save money?  I happen to get V6 addresses from both of my V6 upstreams, without additonal cost.  If the ASN is also part of the RSA, in many cases private ASN's can be used for routing with your upstream(s) without the need for an ASN.

Could be either way. In my case, my ASN is not under any RSA (fortunately).

Yes, I could switch to PA v6, but for a variety of reasons (stable DNS records among them), I prefer not to. I’m mutihomed in BGP and prefer to keep it that way.

Frankly, I’m more likely to simply stop providing IPv6 services if it comes to that.

> Personally, I would like to see this policy changed, as I can see it being used as a quite valid excuse to drop IPv6 because of the cost.  ARIN should not be doing things that make operators less likely to use IPv6, and this price change for those LRSA+RSA people clearly is bad.

We are in complete agreement on this matter.

Owen

> 
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
> 
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> 
>> 
>>      On Sep 19, 2021, at 14:35 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2021, at 1:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>>            On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> I actually haven’t said that – what I said is that your assertion that the costs are linear (i.e. per IP address represented) are not
>> realistic, nor is the single fee per-registry-object-regardless-of-size approach realistic. 
>> Our fee schedule scales in a geometric manner, so the smallest resource holders are paying only $250/year and the largest paying hundreds
>> of thousands per year.   Does it reflect perfect cost allocation?  Almost certainly not, since it generallizations the entire ARIN
>> customer base into a simple set of fee categories.  It may not be perfect but I believe it is as simple, fair and clear as is possible
>> under the circumstances. 
>> You got two out of three. It’s as simple and clear as possible.
>> Thanks – that’s good to hear. 
>> 
>>      It clearly subsidizes LIRs on the backs of end users that are just ever so slightly larger than the very smallest.
>> It is true that the 8022 end-user customers will be paying a larger portion of overall registry expenses (totaling approx. 1/3 of ARIN's total costs),
>> but “subsidizes” is probably not a correct characterization – as they will be paying $860 per year on average as compared to the $2341 paid annually
>> on average by the existing ISP customers. 
>> So your assertion is that LIRs only constitute 75% of ARIN’s expenses? Unless you can make that claim, it is, indeed, subsidy.
>> 
>>      Yes, this does mean an increase in annual fee for those end-users organizations who have more IPv4 number resources, but it also means a
>>      reduction for more than three thousand end-user organizations who have the typical single /24 IPv4 address block. 
>> That’s an extremely low cutoff for the end-user organizations worthy of consideration. A /22 can legitimately still be a very small end-user organization
>> and this latest fee hike, especially in light of double billing for LRSA+RSA end-users in light of the previous restructuring efforts to screw these
>> particular end users is quite painful.
>> Owen