<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 4:20 PM John Santos <<a href="mailto:john@egh.com">john@egh.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 4/19/2020 3:08 PM, David Farmer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at
12:28 PM John Santos <<a href="mailto:john@egh.com" target="_blank">john@egh.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Is there any way to ensure that an ISP requesting a /40
has fewer than 250 customers, so they can assign each a
/48 in order to be eligible for the smallest allocation
at commensurate cost with a /24 of IPv4?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>I don't think there is anything ARIN can reasonably do to
require that 3X-Small ISPs have fewer than 250 customers.
However, I'll note that even 3X-Small ISPs probably wants to
grow their business, eventually moving them into the 2X-Small
ISP category. Once they have something like 150 to 200
customers they should be able to justify an additional /24
moving them into the 2X-Small ISP category.<b> Further, even
for an ISP with 150 to 200 customers the additional $250 in
ARIN fees annually shouldn't be a significant roadblock to
their growth. </b>So, I think the natural incentives for
the growth of their business will be sufficient to regulate
this issue, and I don't think we need to micromanage this
issue through policy. </div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>If the bolded statement is true, why did 26 out of 30 3X-Small
ISPs elect not to double their fees? I posit they all have
significantly less than 150 to 200 customers to spread the cost
over, and their customers are extremely cost-sensitive. If they
have, say, 150 customers on average, the increased cost would be
less than 14 cents per month. If they only have 10 customers,
then the annual ARIN fees for each customer would double from $25
to $50.</p>
<p>It would be useful to hear from some of these 26 nano-ISPs about
what their customer base is and why they are so cost-sensitive. I
suspect most of us techies are completely oblivious to the
real-world concerns of these customers and that they aren't just
being incredible cheapskates. As in "$25, that won't even pay for
a decent meal" vs. "$25, I could feed my family for a week!"</p>
<pre cols="80">--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
</pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>You asked, "If the bolded statement is true, why did 26 out of 30 3X-Small ISPs elect not to double their fees?" I speculate because most of the 3X-Small ISPs that elected to not double their fees to get IPv6 have less than 150 to 200 customers. </div><div><br></div><div>You asked, "Is there any way to ensure that an ISP requesting a /40 has fewer than 250 customers". I'm suggesting that we don't need to worry about that because once they exceed somewhere between 150-200 users, nature will take its course, they will want to ensure they can continue to expand and they will get an additional /24 of IPv4 moving them to the 2X-Small category. In this case, they are moving into the 2X-Small category because they want to continue to expand their customer base, not because they want to deploy IPv6, these are significantly different business cases.</div><div><div><br></div><div>As you point out if they are 3X-Small regardless of the size of their customer base they don't want to double their fees to deploy IPv6 and they shouldn't have too. I think we agree. I'm simply pointing out that once they exceed 150 to 200 users they will want to ensure they can continue to expand and are likely to get another /24 of IPv4 doubling their fees as a result of their desire to ensure they can expand and not because they want to deploy IPv6. Further, this policy will also automatically expand their IPv6 allocation to /36 as a result of their desire to expand.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div><br></div><div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">===============================================<br>David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>Office of Information Technology<br>University of Minnesota <br>2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br>Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br>=============================================== </div></div></div></div>