Send ARIN-consult mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-consult digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Fee restructuring (David Farmer)
2. Re: Fee restructuring (Christoph Blecker)
3. Re: Fee restructuring (Alexander McMillen)
4. Re: Fee restructuring (Chu, Yi [NTK])
5. Re: Fee restructuring (Joe Maimon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:52:31 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/26/12 09:18 , Andrew Dul - andrew.dul wrote:
> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
>> wrong direction.
>>
>> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
>> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
>> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
>> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:
>
>
> In general, I support the new fee schedule. There is one area which I
> believe needs consideration. For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN,
> 1 IPv6) their registration fees are going to triple from $100 to $300.
> I don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world
> at large and these smallest organizations. I don't know the number of
> orgs that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is
> a significant number of end-user orgs.
>
> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are
> $100, then $100 for additional records.
I would suggest a slight modification to this suggestion; one record of
each type (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) be included per end-user ord-id and then
$100 for each additional record. Its still 3 records, but not 3 records
of any type, one of each type that a typical organization would need.
If some organizations need additional resources of particular types they
pay more, but a typical organization gets what it needs for a flat fee.
Particularly, in the case of IPv6; This means that IPv6 is a one time
fee only for any end-user organization that already has either an ASN,
IPv4, or both resources, no change to the annual fee for most
organizations to receive IPv6.
Furthermore, this would set the precedence that if there were additional
new resource types created in the future, that are generally needed by
most organization, they should be included with the base end-user Org-id
annual fee.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:59:27 -0700
From: Christoph Blecker <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
Message-ID:
<cadx2oghdavx3k5dxgncokf0zzecparr2uc_y4+zaryuuxxc...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Andrew Dul - andrew.dul
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
>> wrong direction.
>>
>> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
>> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
>> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
>> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:
>
>
>
> In general, I support the new fee schedule. There is one area which I
> believe needs consideration. For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN, 1
> IPv6) their registration fees are going to triple from $100 to $300. I
> don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world at
> large and these smallest organizations. I don't know the number of orgs
> that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is a
> significant number of end-user orgs.
>
> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are
> $100, then $100 for additional records.
>
> Andrew
I agree with Andrew's views, although I would suggest perhaps 5
records per ORG. Think about it this way.. Small ORG, they instead
have 2 existing IPv4 blocks (which is common), and an ASN. We want
them to encourage them to *adopt* IPv6. In this case, the IPv6 block
would be record number 4, and therefor double the annual maintenance
that the ORG is responsible for.
Cheers,
Christoph
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:08:32 -0400
From: Alexander McMillen <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In terms of the ISP initial allocations and annual fees section, I think
there needs to be more consideration to smaller providers that are
adopting IPv6.
In my case, we have a /21 of IPv4 resources, and the *default* IPv6
allocation of /32. In looking at the proposed fee schedule, it's not the
IPv4 resources that end up costing me, it's the IPv6 resources; even
though I'm just taking the default allocation to start adopting IPv6
within our organization.
Per the fee schedule, if I had no IPv6 allocation - my fee would be $1000.
With the default IPv6 allocation - my fee is double that at $2000.
This will really turn off the rate of adoption especially in smaller ISP
environments that aren't seeing much of an IPv6 demand at this time,
such as ours.
Just my 2 cents.
Thanks,
--
Alexander McMillen < amcmillen(at)sliqua.com >
President and CEO - Sliqua Enterprise Hosting, Inc.
1.877.SLIQUA4 - 1.703.621.4813 x201 - http://www.sliqua.com/
On 10/26/12 10:59 AM, Christoph Blecker wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Andrew Dul - andrew.dul
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
>>> wrong direction.
>>>
>>> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
>>> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
>>> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
>>> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:
>>
>>
>> In general, I support the new fee schedule. There is one area which I
>> believe needs consideration. For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN, 1
>> IPv6) their registration fees are going to triple from $100 to $300. I
>> don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world at
>> large and these smallest organizations. I don't know the number of orgs
>> that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is a
>> significant number of end-user orgs.
>>
>> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are
>> $100, then $100 for additional records.
>>
>> Andrew
> I agree with Andrew's views, although I would suggest perhaps 5
> records per ORG. Think about it this way.. Small ORG, they instead
> have 2 existing IPv4 blocks (which is common), and an ASN. We want
> them to encourage them to *adopt* IPv6. In this case, the IPv6 block
> would be record number 4, and therefor double the annual maintenance
> that the ORG is responsible for.
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult
> Mailing
> List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN
> Member Services
> Help Desk at [email protected] if you experience any issues.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:20:19 +0000
From: "Chu, Yi [NTK]" <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
+1
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 10:53 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
<snip>
I would suggest a slight modification to this suggestion; one record of
each type (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) be included per end-user ord-id and then
$100 for each additional record. Its still 3 records, but not 3 records
of any type, one of each type that a typical organization would need.
If some organizations need additional resources of particular types they
pay more, but a typical organization gets what it needs for a flat fee.
Particularly, in the case of IPv6; This means that IPv6 is a one time
fee only for any end-user organization that already has either an ASN,
IPv4, or both resources, no change to the annual fee for most
organizations to receive IPv6.
Furthermore, this would set the precedence that if there were additional
new resource types created in the future, that are generally needed by
most organization, they should be included with the base end-user Org-id
annual fee.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Consult
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult
Mailing
List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN
Member Services
Help Desk at [email protected] if you experience any issues.
________________________________
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the
sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the
message.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:37:43 -0400
From: Joe Maimon <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Andrew Dul - andrew.dul wrote:
> On 2012-10-25 14:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> This fee restructuring places a number of incentives in the exactly
>> wrong direction.
>>
>> 1. In many cases (especially end users), their fees are doubled if
>> they adopt IPv6. At the very least, end users should not be made to
>> pay additional annual fees as a penalty for adopting IPv6. If
>> anything, I would suggest that ARIN consider a structure like this:
>
>
> In general, I support the new fee schedule. There is one area which I
> believe needs consideration. For the smallest end-user (1 IPv4, 1 ASN,
> 1 IPv6) their registration fees are going to triple from $100 to $300.
> I don't believe this is the message that ARIN wants to send to the world
> at large and these smallest organizations. I don't know the number of
> orgs that are subject to this fee increase but my guess is that this is
> a significant number of end-user orgs.
>
> My suggestion for end-users would be the first 3 records per org-id are
> $100, then $100 for additional records.
>
> Andrew
>
>
My suggestion was that for EU there be tiers, just as there are for
ISP's, but the tiers would be for number of records, not size of resources.
Joe
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-consult mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
End of ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 38, Issue 7
*******************************************
