<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#993366;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>At the end of the day, ARIN really has to take a hands-off
approach and let the market sort out bad behavior. While I would like to see
someone that is locked into 6rd pay substantially more than someone offering a
/48 to every customer (because I want the space in the home to innovate), that
is a market decision to sort out. If the fee structure gets too wound around
block size in an attempt to drive out 6rd, the unintended consequence will be
that smaller providers will opt for the minimum size block and reduce the
prefix space they allow a customer to have. This is counterproductive,
and economically punishes a /48 provider for the sins of the lingering 6rd
provider. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Putting in hard dates to try to sunset an address range will
just lead to endless debate. Putting in an explicit cost that is only borne by
those who need the crutch will result in a natural weaning. As much as I
don’t want to see 6rd in a different prefix range, maybe that is the out
here. Create a specific fee schedule for a dedicated use prefix range, which
would enable a path forward in the short term at the same time it motivates
providers to get off of the technology asap. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>To avoid blocking small players from getting started, the fee
would need to be fairly low. A fee that is significantly less than a rounding
error for a large provider will not provide incentive to move. Finding the
middle ground ... start with a modest fee, then after 3 years double the fee
for allocations within the 6rd prefix every year. Anyone with an IPv4 allocation
can get a 6rd /24 and keep it as long as they are willing to pay the doubling
fee. Any other IPv6 allocation they have would fall under the current fee
structure.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Tony<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Milton L Mueller
[mailto:mueller@syr.edu] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:07 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Tony Hain<br>
<b>Cc:</b> arin-ppml@arin.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [arin-ppml] Opposed to 2010-9 and 2010-12<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#993366'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#993366'>…</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>financial backpressure will be much more effective than any
proscriptive language that makes it past ppml. </span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#993366'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#993366'>This is definitely true<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#993366'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The hardest part of that approach is that the fee for a provider
that is offering dual-stack /48 to each customer should be substantially less
than a 6rd deployment offering /60. It is not ARIN’s role to define
end product offerings, so differentiating the fee schedule for 2 ISPs
requesting a /28 based on how they plan to use it is probably out of the
question.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#993366'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#993366'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#993366'>So how do you get your escalating fee structure without doing
that? This sounds like a hard problem, administratively and economically. And
you’re right, once the fees are set they will establish parameters around
which implementations are incentivized. I can’t tell from all the list
noise where things are going but it does seem to me that policy and fees are
becoming more closely related all the time, which may require another look at
ARIN’s separation of the two. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#993366'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#993366'>--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>