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

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Tue Sep 21 20:44:59 EDT 2021

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.


On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:11 PM Owen DeLong <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> 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> 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> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> 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:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer 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
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/20210921/7b9e3f6f/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list