<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">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)?<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 21, 2021, at 07:49 , David Farmer <<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" class="">farmer@umn.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">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.</div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:04 AM <<a href="mailto:hostmaster@uneedus.com" class="">hostmaster@uneedus.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">In the typical LRSA+RSA case, is the ASN number covered by the LRSA or the <br class="">
RSA? If the RSA only covers V6, why not consider getting V6 from your <br class="">
upstream and dumping the RSA to save money? I happen to get V6 addresses <br class="">
from both of my V6 upstreams, without additonal cost. If the ASN is also <br class="">
part of the RSA, in many cases private ASN's can be used for routing with <br class="">
your upstream(s) without the need for an ASN.<br class="">
<br class="">
Personally, I would like to see this policy changed, as I can see it being <br class="">
used as a quite valid excuse to drop IPv6 because of the cost. ARIN <br class="">
should not be doing things that make operators less likely to use IPv6, <br class="">
and this price change for those LRSA+RSA people clearly is bad.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albert Erdmann<br class="">
Network Administrator<br class="">
Paradise On Line Inc.<br class="">
<br class="">
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:<br class="">
<br class="">
> <br class="">
><br class="">
> On Sep 19, 2021, at 14:35 , John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br class="">
> <br class="">
> On 19 Sep 2021, at 1:12 PM, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" class="">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br class="">
><br class="">
> On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br class="">
> 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<br class="">
> realistic, nor is the single fee per-registry-object-regardless-of-size approach realistic. <br class="">
> <br class="">
> Our fee schedule scales in a geometric manner, so the smallest resource holders are paying only $250/year and the largest paying hundreds<br class="">
> of thousands per year. Does it reflect perfect cost allocation? Almost certainly not, since it generallizations the entire ARIN<br class="">
> 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<br class="">
> under the circumstances. <br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> You got two out of three. It’s as simple and clear as possible.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> Thanks – that’s good to hear. <br class="">
><br class="">
> It clearly subsidizes LIRs on the backs of end users that are just ever so slightly larger than the very smallest.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> 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),<br class="">
> 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<br class="">
> on average by the existing ISP customers. <br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> So your assertion is that LIRs only constitute 75% of ARIN’s expenses? Unless you can make that claim, it is, indeed, subsidy.<br class="">
><br class="">
> 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<br class="">
> reduction for more than three thousand end-user organizations who have the typical single /24 IPv4 address block. <br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> 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<br class="">
> 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<br class="">
> particular end users is quite painful.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Owen<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
>_______________________________________________<br class="">
ARIN-PPML<br class="">
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br class="">
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br class="">
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br class="">
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br class="">
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br class="">
</blockquote></div><br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>-- <br class=""><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">===============================================<br class="">David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank" class="">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br class="">Networking & Telecommunication Services<br class="">Office of Information Technology<br class="">University of Minnesota <br class="">2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br class="">Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br class="">=============================================== </div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>