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 (Owen DeLong)
2. Re: Fee Schedule Change Consultation (Owen DeLong)
3. Re: Fee restructuring (Jimmy Hess)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 03:18:30 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: Jo Rhett <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Jo Rhett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:18 AM, 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.
>
>
> First, I don't believe that $300 is any significant amount of money to any
> operating business, profit or non-profit. I do believe that individuals who
> are using /24 blocks for personal use who could quite easily use
> provider-assigned space are going to pay more than they would like. I would
> like to note that I am one of those individuals myself, and yet I support
> this proposal against my own interests.
You are, in fact, incorrect about the first half of that statement.
> However, it would be stupid to ignore the fact that a large number of
> organizations are going to see their annual fee triple, and that could earn
> ARIN some angst that they don't need.
>
> I believe that we have an opportunity to use the fee schedule to forward ARIN
> policy and help IPv6 adoption here. If we were to move forward with the new
> fee structure, but give organizations that have or adopt IPv6 a break, then
> it would promote forward policy.
Agreed.
>
> For example: if I have an IP assignment and an ASN, I would pay $200. If I
> acquire an IPv6 assignment from ARIN, I would (temporarily) be returned to
> $100/year. This would help organizations which aren't moving forward to at
> least acquire the IPv6 assignment. Yes, they might sit on it. But perhaps
> they might actually start moving forward with it.
>
> Over time let this temporary thing expire, and then it may actually become a
> useful thing to help organizations move away from IPv4. Pay $300 a year, or
> return your IPv4 block and get a permanent reduction in fees.
I think the current trend is towards $100 covers your first of each resource
class permanently and $100 for each additional resource record. I'm fine with
that trend.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 03:47:08 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: "Jesse D. Geddis" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Owen,
>
> If you believe how things have been handled in the past have served us
> well I guess none of us would be having this conversation about rolling
> out IPv6 right now at all, right? Thank you for your reply but lets try to
> keep things constructive. A couple people have since suggested a sort of
> flat fee but this takes it a step further. Below is my response to a
> couple of John's questions:
I disagree. I think that protocols become obsolete for a variety of different
reasons. The problem with IPv4 is that it was designed for a different target
audience than is currently using it. As a result, it was sized for a
dramatically
smaller internet than what we see today. It has become obsolete because it
ran out of numbers. Frankly, EUI-48 is facing a similar problem at this point
and the IEEE is now looking at it as well. That does not change the fact that
the process for handing out EUI-48s has served us well, it simply indicates
that the expected number of EUI-48 devices underestimated demand.
The internet with NAT is not the internet. It is a shadow of what the internet
should be. We have lived in that shadow for so long that the vast majority of
internet users have no comprehension that they live in shadow. Nonetheless,
they do, in fact, live in shadow. There are roughly 6.8 billion people on the
planet. We are moving towards an era where each person will have, on average,
a lap top, smart phone, tablet device, and two desktop computers (one at home
and one at the office). In addition, you need to account for content servers,
home entertainment devices, sensor networks, utility devices (refrigerators,
thermostats, intelligent cupboards, etc.), routers, network infrastructure,
etc. The mere multiplication of 6.8E9 * 5 reveals that 4.3E9 is a woefully
inadequate address space for the future internet regardless of the allocation
policies.
We are discussing IPv6 because the internet has outgrown the IPv4 address
space. I suppose one could argue that the prior allocation policies have
accelerated the time at which this has become an issue, but, in reality, I
would argue that the unfortunate deployment of NAT and it's deleterious
effects on the internet have artificially delayed that date by roughly 25
years.
>From my perspective, policies in the past have, in fact, served us quite
well and contributed greatly to the fact that we even have this problem.
Had policies been different, we might never have had the internet escape
from the laboratory and the web, the popular consumer internet, etc. might
never have come to fruition. I believe that the ability to readily get
free addresses and naming references deployed quickly and easily drove
much of the early adoption that lead to the internet becoming the one
driving force in consumer networking above all others. Perhaps you do not
remember when there was a choice of walled garden consumer networking
experiences most of which did not even contemplate connection to the
internet. Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe, etc. all began as separate services
which had no connection with each other or with the internet. Most of
them just sort of glazed over when you asked about internet connectivity
and said "no, we don't do that". Over time, the open internet with its
easy adoption and diverse functionality won out, but this was never
a certainty before it happened and a more conservative set of allocation
policies or higher fees at the time might well have prevented it.
It is very common and popular to ignore the context of the past when
judging the actions of the past. However, doing so is fraught with
peril and rarely yields a valid perspective or conclusion.
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for your note. You're right about the policy part, however, it was
> purely a fee conversation and I didn't want to steer things off topic ;)
> Further, I think there is a mindset that comes with the existing
> progressively cheaper fee structure that encourages the kind of waste
> we've seen with IPv4. However, the issue of policy is of greater
> importance.
>
> I think there are a couple of ways to address it:
>
> 1. The current practice is to award larger and larger blocks to orgs. I
> think this has proven troublesome.
> 1. The point of this was to keep the table small but I think since newer
> hardware is required to support ipv6 in the first place this is no longer
> relevant. Besides ARIN can't really dictate how an org advertises their
> space <http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS35908&view=2.0>.
Indeed, the current IPv6 policy definitely does this in that if you
consume a /32, you get at least a /28 next time. The intent is that you
immediately stop making allocations into the /32 and eventually return
it through attrition if it ever becomes empty.
> 2. It creates waste because an org who has run out of their /16 would be
> foolish to request a /22 even if that's all they require. They are
> incentivized by allocation practice to request the largest they can and
> hoard it. VPLS is a prime example of that
> <http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/VPLSI/pft>. They have only 20 cabinets of
> dedicated servers but over half a million IP's. 98% of which they aren't
> using because they have abused ARINs progressive allocation practice in an
> effort to later sell those resources on ARIN's market at vastly inflated
> prices.
In IPv4 (which is where the prefix sizes you describe would make sense), this
actually isn't the case. One needs to demonstrate not only that they have used
up their /16 (80%), but also that they actually need a larger block. If they
can only demonstrate need for a /22, ARIN will only issue a /22. Admittedly,
ARIN uses the rate at which they consumed their /16 as a partial predictor of
this need, but also considers the statements made by the applicant regarding
their future intended utilization.
>
>
> 2. A linear fee might be worth looking into rather than a progressive one
> (i.e. A flat tax). One for IPv4 and one for IPv6.
> 1. It may help encourage more efficient usage
> 2. It wouldn't penalize smaller organizations as severely and be fair
> across the board.
> 3. Much simpler billing structure. Say you were to bill $x per /64
> starting with allocations made in 2013. For orgs that predate that move
> (because /32's used to be all that were issued) them to the new fee
> structure once they request more resources. For v4 you could do $x per /24
> or per IP.
>
I personally believe that the logarithmic fee introduced in the APNIC
region will actually be disastrous. It will incentivize residential
broadband providers to issue tiny amounts of address space, possibly as
restrictive as /64 to their customers and will once again set back
innovation on the internet almost to the extent that NAT has degraded
things.
Conserving IPv6 space in this way is quite harmful and will result in
costs beyond mere dollars.
>
> 3. I think ARIN could more aggressively enforce existing policies
> 1. During a transfer request ARIN affords itself the opportunity to
> revisit the allocation and reclaim it altogether. I haven't seen this
> happen in cases where it should have based on policy.
> 2. For IPv4 requests or transfers the question needs to be asked "why
> aren't you natting"? AT&T is a fabulous example of this. I have tens of
> thousands of residential users IPv4 NAT'd with no loss of functionality. I
> dual stack them with IPv6. If I can do it why can't AT&T? Why do they need
> tens of millions of IP's? There is simply no technical requirement for
> every end user on dsl and uverse to have a public IP.
>
How on earth can you claim no loss of functionality. They cannot put up a
web server. They cannot have a DNS entry that points to any of their devices.
They cannot receive a SIP call without involving an external rendezvous host.
There is tremendous loss of functionality.
NAT is a disastrous problematic hack designed to temporarily cope with a
shortage of addresses. It certainly isn't a desirable steady state and I
most strenuously object to codifying extreme implementations of it in policy
as you suggest.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:40:45 -0500
From: Jimmy Hess <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
Message-ID:
<caaawwbwdncybm26y-chj2h-xn6vteafayre9xhnsptac-p8...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
It's interesting the change in language "Registration Services
Subscription Plan (RSSP) provides Internet service providers of all
types (ISP, hosting companies, etc.) "
So hosting companies will be ISPs now, instead of End users, even
when they assign IP addresses to their own network and devices?
On 10/27/12, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Jo Rhett <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:18 AM, 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
....
>>> In general, I support the new fee schedule. There is one area which I
...
>>
>> First, I don't believe that $300 is any significant amount of money to any
>> operating business, profit or non-profit. I do believe that individuals
>
> You are, in fact, incorrect about the first half of that statement.
I don't believe he's incorrect about that. The significance of
maintenance of IP address resources at $300 for an end user or any
other price, is to be compared to other costs of maintaining the
network of the size those resources are assigned to; including shared
and per-device costs; including capital expenses, and including
operational expenses and labor costs required to install, maintain,
repair those devices, implement the network, and daily costs of any
staff or people the organization has using the devices to accomplish
tasks.
Try "$300 is not a significant amount of money compared to other
capital and operating costs for an operating organization, who has
purchased and has to maintain all the hardware required to need an RIR
end user allocation"
Since the end user allocates start at a /22; approximately averages
$0.30 per IP address, and maintaining anything close to computers and
network devices requiring 1000 IPs annually is otherwise so costly,
that $300 won't likely be a significant percentage of the
maintenance.
The electricity cost alone is likely $8 - $15 / year per host device
that is a computer, assuming 30W usage, powered on 4 hours a day;
in actuality, if devices are powered on that infrequently, the
number of devices supported by a DHCP pool with that many IPs should
be much larger than 1000, so you could double the electricity
cost per IP from that, except that some of those IPs may be
low-power devices such as smart phones.
So if the annual electricity cost per node averages $8; that puts
the $0.30 IP allocation cost per node at a measly 3.7%.
And you haven't started to calculate the costs of labor; the
staff/person using the node during that time.
Networks typically require repair of nodes, when hardware and
software components fail; human efforts to maintain and administer
nodes, including software maintenance cost, to keep nodes updated
and supported.
--
-JH
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-consult mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
End of ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 38, Issue 9
*******************************************
