Send ARIN-consult mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://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: Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization (Steve Noble)
2. Re: Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization (Ross Tajvar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 20:48:37 -0700
From: Steve Noble <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:02 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 10, 2023, at 2:28 PM, Steve Noble <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>> I have a lot of questions:
>>
>> 1. The above paragraph states that there are approximately 6800
>> organizations holding a single ASN and more specifically 313 with multiple
>> ASNs, what is the actual number of organizations with a single ASN and no
>> other resources?
>
> Steve ?
>
> The ~6800 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) with a single ASN.
> The 313 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) who have multiple
> ASNs.
>
John -
You did not answer the question, the 6800 is approximate, ARIN must know the
actual number.
>> 2. How many single ASN holding organizations are members of this mailing
>> list?
>
> Unknown. The arin-consult mailing list is open to all interested parties who
> comply the Mailing List AUP and ARIN Participants Expected Standards of
> Behavior ? these are not correlated to ASN holders.
This is concerning since 6800+ organizations would be affected and may not know
so since they have not been members and would not be part of the members
mailing list, etc.
>
>> 4. The customer impact is significantly unbalanced where over 95% of the
>> organizations fees increase vs the 2021 changes
>> (https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN49/materials/426_feemembership.pdf
>>
>> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN49/materials/426_feemembership.pdf>
>> slide 7) where ~50% stayed the same. Why is this not clearly stated in the
>> document?
>
> That?s not quite correct - ASN Only Holders represent 30% of total customers
> [where total customers are Service + General + ASN Only.]
>
> (If one adds uncontracted legacy customers to that total, ASN-Only holders
> represent only ~18% of total customers.)
John, I am talking about the affected parties, the ~7113 ASN-Only holders, 95%
of them will be affected negatively. What percentage they are of the total
number of customers is moot as the document I point to clearly states :
"? Transitioned all customers with IPv4 or IPv6 number resources to the same
RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule:?
This does not cover ASN only holders. If ASN only holders were included in the
not affected list and chart that would be incorrect as they were not included
in the list of customers this was positioned as being.
>
>> 5. Of the impacted organizations, how many pay for membership separately?
>
> None, as paid membership was removed as part of the 2022 fee schedule change.
> This change (ASN Fee Harmonization proposal) in fact provides Service Member
> status to all ASN holders.
So accordingly, zero ASN only organizations applied to be members, I don?t see
how forcing them to pay more for something that they never applied for is a
valid benefit.
>
>> 6. Of the impacted organizations, how many have requested IPv4 resources?
>
> Indeterminate, as it is often possible to request resources without supplying
> ASN holding information and thus correlated.
ARIN should know how many ASN only members requested IP addresses at least on
an org level. If the ASN belongs to a different organization, that would not
apply here as we are talking about organizations that only hold ASNs.
>
>> 7. What is the overlap of single ASN holding organizations paying for
>> membership and requesting IP space (two items claimed in the benefit
>> section).
>
> No one is paying for ARIN Membership since the 2022 fee schedule change
>
> (All organizations holding IP number resources under agreement have had
> service member status since Jan 2022, and can request General Member status
> if they wish to participate in voting & ARIN governance discussions).
>
> ASN-Only holders will now have Service Member status as part of the ASN Fee
> Harmonization proposal AND will be able to request corresponding IPv4 and
> IPv6 space if they choose with no change in fee category.
But according to above you have provided information that zero ASN only
organizations that have done this so far, so ARIN is forcing ~6800
organizations to pay more for a benefit that they have not requested.
>
>> 8. For due diligence, based on the data ARIN has compiled, how many of those
>> single ASN organizations would qualify for IPv4 resources and be approved
>> and have them allocated within the billing period that this change would
>> happen? Does ARIN have 6800 /24 IPv4 blocks available to allocate to the
>> affected parties?
>
> They would all qualify for IPv4 or IPv6 if they are running a network and
> using their ASN to run BGP. It probably goes without saying that there is
> more than enough IPv6 resources for all ASN-only customers...
>
> For IPv4 resources, many would end up on the IPv4 waiting list today, but
> note that for those who wish to run IPv6, there is enough 4.10 transition
> IPv4 space (~14.5k /24s are available under 4.10 as of June 2023) to
> theoretically issue 4.10 IPv4 transition blocks to all of the ASN-Only
> holders.
I think that is a false equivalence comparing transition space to available
space. For example I applied for my ASN 23 years ago, IPv4 space was much
easier to get. Had you charged the same fee whether I had space or not, I
would have applied for space.
>
>> In summary, based on the information provided so far, I believe that raising
>> prices for 6800+ organizations to slightly lower the cost burden of 313 is
>> unfair and unreasonable. There has been no data provided to show what the
>> cost of serving a single ASN organization is other than your aggregate
>> groups showing that it is <=$15.
>
> This change provides for recovering costs more equitably for services to
> across the ARIN customer base, with the added benefit of making ASN-only
> customers ARIN Service Members, thus providing them with the opportunity to
> become General Members and participate in ARIN governance if they so choose.
John - How much does it cost to provide service to an ASN only holder? What
actual, tangible benefit do they get with this change? The affected
organizations could have asked to be members or for IP space the entire time.
There is no upside to this that has been documented and it?s certainly all
negative from my position.
>
> In addition to bringing all ARIN customers into a unified, equitable fee
> schedule, the ASN Fee harmonization will facilitate ASN-only resource holders
> obtaining IPv4 and/or IPv6 resources if they choose to do so.
And to this point they should be able to choose, If an ASN only organizations
wants resources or to be a member, they can pay more. If they want to stay how
they are they can stay how they are. Forcing ASN only organizations to foot
the bill for those who have or want more is not equitable.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230710/d1127362/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 01:27:02 -0400
From: Ross Tajvar <[email protected]>
To: Steve Noble <[email protected]>
Cc: John Curran <[email protected]>, "<[email protected]>"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
Message-ID:
<CA+FDdDR7eg_vAP=moz28f50b8_ahbwh05+2uyetmc98nn_x...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi all,
While I do think there's merit to Steve's point that ASN-only customers
have chosen not to become members, I have to say, I would care about this a
lot more (at all, really) if the fees were higher. For a business doing
anything real, $250/yr is negligible. Even $500 or $1000 is not a big
deal...keeping an LLC open costs a few hundred dollars a year. Buying
transit (in order to use the ASN) costs a couple hundred dollars a MONTH.
I understand that there is administrative overhead associated with
maintaining a registry of internet numbers, keeping whois services highly
available, handling support requests, etc. ARIN must recover these costs by
charging fees to its customers. I couldn't say what the average cost per
ASN is (maybe John has some estimate there?), but $250/yr for up to 3 ASNs
does not seem wildly unreasonable to me.
I also think there is value in the added simplicity achieved by adopting a
unified fee structure.
For these reasons, I take no issue with this proposed change.
Best regards,
Ross
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 11:48 PM Steve Noble <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:02 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 10, 2023, at 2:28 PM, Steve Noble <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> I have a lot of questions:
>
> 1. The above paragraph states that there are approximately 6800
> organizations holding a single ASN and more specifically 313 with multiple
> ASNs, what is the actual number of organizations with a single ASN and no
> other resources?
>
>
> Steve ?
>
> The ~6800 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) with a single
> ASN. The 313 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) who have
> multiple ASNs.
>
>
> John -
> You did not answer the question, the 6800 is approximate, ARIN must know
> the actual number.
>
> 2. How many single ASN holding organizations are members of this mailing
> list?
>
>
> Unknown. The arin-consult mailing list is open to all interested parties
> who comply the Mailing List AUP and ARIN Participants Expected Standards of
> Behavior ? these are not correlated to ASN holders.
>
>
> This is concerning since 6800+ organizations would be affected and may not
> know so since they have not been members and would not be part of the
> members mailing list, etc.
>
>
> 4. The customer impact is significantly unbalanced where over 95% of the
> organizations fees increase vs the 2021 changes (
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN49/materials/426_feemembership.pdf
> slide
> 7) where ~50% stayed the same. Why is this not clearly stated in the
> document?
>
>
> That?s not quite correct - ASN Only Holders represent 30% of total
> customers [where total customers are Service + General + ASN Only.]
>
> (If one adds uncontracted legacy customers to that total, ASN-Only holders
> represent only ~18% of total customers.)
>
>
> John, I am talking about the affected parties, the ~7113 ASN-Only holders,
> 95% of them will be affected negatively. What percentage they are of the
> total number of customers is moot as the document I point to clearly states
> :
>
> "? Transitioned all customers with IPv4 or IPv6 number resources to the
> same RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule:?
>
> This does not cover ASN only holders. If ASN only holders were included
> in the not affected list and chart that would be incorrect as they were not
> included in the list of customers this was positioned as being.
>
>
> 5. Of the impacted organizations, how many pay for membership separately?
>
>
> None, as paid membership was removed as part of the 2022 fee schedule
> change. This change (ASN Fee Harmonization proposal) in fact provides
> Service Member status to all ASN holders.
>
>
> So accordingly, zero ASN only organizations applied to be members, I don?t
> see how forcing them to pay more for something that they never applied for
> is a valid benefit.
>
>
> 6. Of the impacted organizations, how many have requested IPv4 resources?
>
>
> Indeterminate, as it is often possible to request resources without
> supplying ASN holding information and thus correlated.
>
>
> ARIN should know how many ASN only members requested IP addresses at least
> on an org level. If the ASN belongs to a different organization, that
> would not apply here as we are talking about organizations that only hold
> ASNs.
>
>
> 7. What is the overlap of single ASN holding organizations paying for
> membership and requesting IP space (two items claimed in the benefit
> section).
>
>
> No one is paying for ARIN Membership since the 2022 fee schedule change
>
> (All organizations holding IP number resources under agreement have had
> service member status since Jan 2022, and can request General Member status
> if they wish to participate in voting & ARIN governance discussions).
>
> ASN-Only holders will now have Service Member status as part of the ASN
> Fee Harmonization proposal AND will be able to request corresponding IPv4
> and IPv6 space if they choose with no change in fee category.
>
>
> But according to above you have provided information that zero ASN only
> organizations that have done this so far, so ARIN is forcing ~6800
> organizations to pay more for a benefit that they have not requested.
>
>
> 8. For due diligence, based on the data ARIN has compiled, how many of
> those single ASN organizations would qualify for IPv4 resources and be
> approved and have them allocated within the billing period that this change
> would happen? Does ARIN have 6800 /24 IPv4 blocks available to allocate to
> the affected parties?
>
>
> They would all qualify for IPv4 or IPv6 if they are running a network and
> using their ASN to run BGP. It probably goes without saying that there is
> more than enough IPv6 resources for all ASN-only customers...
>
> For IPv4 resources, many would end up on the IPv4 waiting list today, but
> note that for those who wish to run IPv6, there is enough 4.10 transition
> IPv4 space (~14.5k /24s are available under 4.10 as of June 2023) to
> theoretically issue 4.10 IPv4 transition blocks to all of the ASN-Only
> holders.
>
>
> I think that is a false equivalence comparing transition space to
> available space. For example I applied for my ASN 23 years ago, IPv4 space
> was much easier to get. Had you charged the same fee whether I had space
> or not, I would have applied for space.
>
>
> In summary, based on the information provided so far, I believe that
> raising prices for 6800+ organizations to slightly lower the cost burden of
> 313 is unfair and unreasonable. There has been no data provided to show
> what the cost of serving a single ASN organization is other than your
> aggregate groups showing that it is <=$15.
>
>
> This change provides for recovering costs more equitably for services to
> across the ARIN customer base, with the added benefit of making ASN-only
> customers ARIN Service Members, thus providing them with the opportunity to
> become General Members and participate in ARIN governance if they so choose.
>
>
> John - How much does it cost to provide service to an ASN only holder?
> What actual, tangible benefit do they get with this change? The affected
> organizations could have asked to be members or for IP space the entire
> time. There is no upside to this that has been documented and it?s
> certainly all negative from my position.
>
>
> In addition to bringing all ARIN customers into a unified, equitable fee
> schedule, the ASN Fee harmonization will facilitate ASN-only resource
> holders obtaining IPv4 and/or IPv6 resources if they choose to do so.
>
>
> And to this point they should be able to choose, If an ASN only
> organizations wants resources or to be a member, they can pay more. If
> they want to stay how they are they can stay how they are. Forcing ASN
> only organizations to foot the bill for those who have or want more is not
> equitable.
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230711/beed6cf9/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ARIN-consult mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
------------------------------
End of ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 98, Issue 4
*******************************************
