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

Wed Sep 22 06:52:47 EDT 2021

Well, it must be nice to be in that position. In my network, ARIN fees are roughly 30% of my costs this year and under this travesty will come closer to 60% of the costs of running my network next year.

From my perspective, that’s rather painful and rather a high price to pay for 3 records in a database that update far less frequently than once per year.

I realize I need to subsidize my share of AC travel and ARIN socials, but the combination of escalating costs and this newest economic disincentive to IPv6 is troubling to me.

Owen

> On Sep 21, 2021, at 17:44 , David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> 
> The "double billing issue," as you refer to it, is financially immaterial to us. However, we would prefer one invoice with both Orgs IDs on it or two invoices but at the same time. The two invoices, at separate times, creates confusion. I get questions like "didn't we pay this already this year," when the second invoice comes later in the year. However, even that is mostly just an annoyance, and the accountants grumble about it, but they have to have something to grumble about. There was some sticker shock, at the $16,000 we would have to pay without the LRSA annual fee increase cap. However, in the end, the total fee really isn't an issue, even if we didn't have the LRSA annual fee increase cap, even at a total of $17,000 for the two Org IDs it is still one of the smaller costs of operating our network and the rest of our IT Infrastructure.
> 
> Oh, FYI, I always assumed the LRSA annual fee increase cap would be annually compounding, not a fixed rate based on the first year.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:11 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> Is your institution OK with the double-billing that results from that, or would you prefer to be treated like other organizations and pay MAX(v4,v6) instead of SUM(v4,v6)?
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
>> On Sep 21, 2021, at 07:49 , David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
>> 
>> I don't know what is typical, but it depends on when the ASNs were assigned. Our ASNs are all legacy and on LRSA, and all our IPv4 as well. Only IPv6 is on RSA.
>> 
>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:04 AM <hostmaster at uneedus.com <mailto: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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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 <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > On 19 Sep 2021, at 1:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >             On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net <mailto: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
>> > 
>> > 
>> >_______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
>> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ===============================================
>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota   
>> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>> ===============================================
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota   
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210922/cf9fb957/attachment.htm>