Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
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-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Fee Philosophy (Matthew Kaufman)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Matthew Kaufman)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Matthew Kaufman)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Paul Vixie)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Owen DeLong)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(cb.list6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:31:03 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fee Philosophy
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
On 4/7/2013 4:46 AM, John Curran wrote:
> No NRPM change is needed because of the Revised Fee schedule; fees
> under the new schedule will be lower for smallest ISPs in any case.
> The question is whether the community also provide support for a
> xx-small category which is even lower ($500/year) but distinguished by
> only a /40 IPv6 allocation. This is being discussed in Draft Policy
> ARIN-2013-3, and while it is enabled by the Revised Fee schedule, it
> is an independent item for the community to consider and can be
> adopted or not based on its merits.
And what happens when next week ARIN's board comes up with the
xxxx-small category at $200/year, distinguished by a /60 IPv6
allocation. Are we supposed to create more bad numbering policy then too?
Matthew Kaufman
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:35:26 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
To: Steven Noble <[email protected]>
Cc: John Curran <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 4/7/2013 9:58 AM, Steven Noble wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 4:21 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It would be good to hear from ISPs who would qualify for the xx-small
>> $500/year category about the resulting temptation that it poses for
>> making smaller IPv6 customer assignments (and how they feel safer with
>> the /36 IPv6 minimum and corresponding $1000/year annual fee), as they
>> are the ones who are most affected by the outcome of this draft policy
>> consideration.
> I would love to have PI IPv6 space and as I have no IPv4 space from ARIN,
> adding IPv6 will raise my fees. What is the proposal to get legacy holders to
> adopt IPv6?
I'm in the same situation, and there isn't one. And it wouldn't be
numbering policy anyway, it'd require a board that wants to set fees to
zero or nearly so for your and my category.
>
> As noted before by others, I don't understand why a record has different
> costs based on what the record is for. The difference in fees seems to go
> against ARINs goal of allocating resources to the community.
>
> Is the overhead of an IPv6 allocation record 5x an ASN record?
It is just ARIN trying to figure out how to maximize its own revenue. It
knows that if it charged everyone the same amount, there would be some
large organizations who could easily afford to pay more but from whom
they aren't extracting any extra revenue. They justify this scaled
pricing by then claiming that if they charged everyone so little that it
was affordable to the smallest, they wouldn't bring in enough to pay for
the usual overhead of costs that happens when there's money in the bank
account to support those costs, despite the fact that the database
itself could be run by volunteers for free or nearly so. Simple
economics I'm afraid.
Matthew Kaufman
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:46:29 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 4/7/2013 1:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2013, at 19:58 , John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 5, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Seth Mattinen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I see no reason to have a policy motivated strictly by fees to remain after
>>> fee changes that may or may not negate it, and to determine that it should
>>> go back through the PDP. Otherwise we're just cluttering the NRPM with
>>> irrelevant policy.
>> Seth -
>>
>> The ARIN Board has often lowered the fee schedule as the
>> financial circumstances allow, and in general this has been
>> independent of number resource policy changes.
>>
>> The Revised Fee schedule is much improved over the existing
>> fee schedule with respect to organizations being able to
>> cost-effectively make use of IPv6 (as it is lower than the
>> existing fee schedule's smallest IPv6 category today.)
> Unless you are an end-user in which case adding IPv6 is still
> a (potentially significant percentage) increase over your IPv4
> fees.
Even more if you're a legacy IPv4 holder.
>
>> If the community does not support 2013-3, then smaller ISPs
>> will still have the current option of receiving a /36 of IPv6
>> (if they wish); this will put them in the x-small fee category
>> of $1000 per year.
>>
>> If the community supports 2013-3, then some very small ISPs will
>> gain an option of taking a /40 allocation of IPv6 space, which
>> will put them in the xx-small fee category with fees of $500 per
>> year.
>>
>> If very small ISPs receiving /40 of IPv6 space does not make good
>> technical sense, then the community should not support the draft
>> policy... it's that simple. (These ISPs will still have lower fees
>> under the Revised Fee schedule, just not as low as they might have
>> had otherwise...)
> It's not that simple because we have to balance differing tradeoffs
> as a result of the fee structure.
>
> If we don't support the policy, then we create a disincentive to deploy
> IPv6 at all among these smaller ISPs.
But only a little, because the fees are still going down for the smaller
ISPs... doing nothing with numbering policy and keeping the price change
is a net win for them and doesn't break the future Internet.
>
> If we support the policy, then we create an incentive to do things which
> do not make good technical sense in order to avoid creating a
> disincentive to deploy IPv6.
This *does* break the future Internet. I think I'd rather avoid that,
even if it slows IPv6 adoption a little due to the appearance of bad
pricing decisions (which are still lower than they were previously).
>
> The current fee structure creates a Sophie's choice in policy. IMHO,
> the board seriously erred in creating this situation and should do
> whatever is possible to have a correction ready to present prior
> to the discussion of 2013-3 in Barbados.
+1 on that.
>
> One possible way to distinguish ISP size for IPv6 would be to use
> annual gross revenue instead of total address holdings. I don't know
> if that would be an improvement or not. I realize it would be more
> complex to calculate and enforce. I think it would likely be more fair.
More fair would be everyone pays the same. Or everyone pays based on the
amount of service they actually require from ARIN.
Basing it on amount of space *or* gross revenue isn't "fair"... it is
just a way to extract extra revenue from those who (in theory) have more
to send to ARIN, which gives ARIN the opportunity to lower prices at the
other end to keep the masses happy, or to just increase its overhead to
ensure the money gets spent.
But we see this all over the world these days, so it isn't like I'm
surprised that they would behave this way. At least they're not creating
additional address registries and then telling people they need to
register their addresses there too in order to protect their trademarks,
like some other winners of the
how-can-we-charge-for-things-that-were-free game that the Internet
played some years ago.
>
> I would like to hear about other creative ideas on ways to measure
> size and/or appropriate metrics to be used for fee determination.
Each email or call requires a fee payment above and beyond a tiny fee
which everyone pays and which is equal for all. Or, worst case, a tiny
fee per database row.
Matthew Kaufman
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:05:28 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
Cc: John Curran <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
...
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 4/7/2013 9:58 AM, Steven Noble wrote:
>> As noted before by others, I don't understand why a record has
>> different costs based on what the record is for. The difference in
>> fees seems to go against ARINs goal of allocating resources to the
>> community.
>>
>> Is the overhead of an IPv6 allocation record 5x an ASN record?
>
> It is just ARIN trying to figure out how to maximize its own revenue.
i don't think that's a fair or true statement.
> It knows that if it charged everyone the same amount, there would be
> some large organizations who could easily afford to pay more but from
> whom they aren't extracting any extra revenue.
nor that one.
> They justify this scaled pricing by then claiming that if they charged
> everyone so little that it was affordable to the smallest, they
> wouldn't bring in enough to pay for the usual overhead of costs that
> happens when there's money in the bank account to support those costs,
> despite the fact that the database itself could be run by volunteers
> for free or nearly so. Simple economics I'm afraid.
i've been here nine years now and i've been looking for the avoidable
costs or the self-creating monetary vacuum that you're talking about
here. i havn't found them. i don't think we'd like (you, me, anybody) a
nearly-volunteer system without the controls, outreach, and policy
process we're all getting from the RIR system in its current form.
paul
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 14:14:47 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> One possible way to distinguish ISP size for IPv6 would be to use
>> annual gross revenue instead of total address holdings. I don't know
>> if that would be an improvement or not. I realize it would be more
>> complex to calculate and enforce. I think it would likely be more fair.
>
> More fair would be everyone pays the same. Or everyone pays based on the
> amount of service they actually require from ARIN.
I disagree completely here. An end-user with a single /48 is not in any way
reasonably expected to pay the same as an ISP with multiple ASNs, a /20 of IPv6
and an aggregate /6 of IPv4 space.
I can't imagine in what possible universe anyone could imagine that to be fair.
> Basing it on amount of space *or* gross revenue isn't "fair"... it is just a
> way to extract extra revenue from those who (in theory) have more to send to
> ARIN, which gives ARIN the opportunity to lower prices at the other end to
> keep the masses happy, or to just increase its overhead to ensure the money
> gets spent.
We can agree to disagree on what constitutes "fair" here. I believe it is
"fair" for those that are extracting a greater amount of revenue from the
community resources they hold to contribute a greater share to the costs of
maintaining said community resources.
I don't see it so much as extracting extra revenue so much as differentiating
the allocation of the total costs. I don't believe for a second that ARIN is
increasing its overhead just to ensure the money gets spent. I have reviewed
the ARIN public financials several years in a row and I believe that ARIN does
a great deal for the community at a very reasonable cost to said community.
> But we see this all over the world these days, so it isn't like I'm surprised
> that they would behave this way. At least they're not creating additional
> address registries and then telling people they need to register their
> addresses there too in order to protect their trademarks, like some other
> winners of the how-can-we-charge-for-things-that-were-free game that the
> Internet played some years ago.
This really isn't a fair characterization of either structure. First, I agree
that what has happened in the DNS realm has been badly mismanaged and that most
of the mismanagement has come about as a result of various profit motives.
However, to claim this was strictly a matter of "how can we charge for what was
free?" is not at all accurate. The original switch to "charging for what was
free" was an effort to sustain the existing infrastructure from a new funding
source since the previous government contracts were about to become unfunded.
I think that the number registries have done a vastly better job of the
transition and keeping things cost-recovery based while providing the services
the community has said it is valuable for them to provide at a very reasonable
cost to the community.
As much as I think that the new fee structure contains some really poor
decisions that will drive poor number resource policy as a consequence, I do
think that the board is trying to balance a number of tradeoffs and has made a
reasonable attempt at doing so in a fair and consistent manner.
>> I would like to hear about other creative ideas on ways to measure
>> size and/or appropriate metrics to be used for fee determination.
>
> Each email or call requires a fee payment above and beyond a tiny fee which
> everyone pays and which is equal for all. Or, worst case, a tiny fee per
> database row.
The problem with this is that it would again create negative incentives. It
will financially incentivize the following negative behaviors:
1. Avoid updating records to reflect changes.
2. Downsize customer assignments to avoid having to request
additional space.
3. Avoid interacting with ARIN until it's absolutely necessary and
cannot be avoided
through other contortions of ones own address space.
I don't thin that's a desirable outcome any more than what is proposed in the
adopted fee structure combined with what is proposed in 2013-3.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 11:11:15 -0700
From: "cb.list6" <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<cad6ajgsn51qm9aamegxcaiktdj-3fnn8hacv63g7nnmlueh...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Apr 7, 2013 11:04 AM, "John Curran" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 10:30 AM, "cb.list6" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Generally speaking we need to move away from conservation as goal for
both ipv4 and ipv6
>>
>> Structurally there is no need in v6 and the market will force it in v4
>>
>> conservation at the rir level creates costly externalities in routing
and other areas such as system design.
>>
>> Ripe is on the right track
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03
>
> CB -
>
> Could you be a little more specific with regards to whether you support
> "Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs"? It would
> provide an option for ISPs who wish to be issued IPv6 allocations of
> /40, which is smaller than present policy allows. The referenced RIPE
> policy proposal is with regards to IPv4 allocation policy, not IPv6, so
> it is hard to discern whether you support allowing ISPs to request a
> smaller allocation if they wish to.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
Do not support.
I believe all allocations should be assigned at the /32 level and be
automatically coupled with ASN assignment.
The RIPE policy is too narrow, and unless someone beats me too it (please
do ), I will introduce a similar but more general idea to ARIN that applies
to v4 and v6.
Without a conservation and audit mandate, I believe the arin community
would benefit from smoother and more predictable interactions and business
process.
CB.
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/90247db7/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 20
*****************************************
