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: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(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
(Michael Sinatra)
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
(Michael Sinatra)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Steven Noble)
7. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Paul Vixie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:18:42 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
To: Paul Vixie <[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 2:05 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> ...
>
> 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.
Perhaps not. But we have clearly heard that we can't give everyone with
a /32 of IPv6 the same low price otherwise ARIN wouldn't have enough
money to operate. That's why there's this idea that somehow there need
to be smaller categories than this, and scaled pricing schemes like this
are always, at the root, a way to extract additional money from the top.
>
>> 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.
On this I'd definitely argue... We've heard several times that it
wouldn't do to have all of the orgs holding IPv6 paying $500/year for
that, because it wouldn't bring in enough money.
>
>> 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.
Well, some of the policy process and nearly all of the outreach are more
than I would want to pay for, personally.
Along with the entire travel budget.
But even if it is true that ARIN is being exceptionally frugal, the
draft policy is bad policy and we're only talking about it because ARIN
doesn't want to ("can't") simply charge everyone the x-small price and
be done with it.
Matthew Kaufman
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:32:50 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[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=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 4/7/2013 2:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 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.
Why not? As long as the price is reasonable I don't see who could
possibly be opposed to a model where the only added costs are for those
who actually cost ARIN more to service, not some arbitrary scaled scheme
where well-run large orgs pay more than the tiny ones that need lots of
handholding. Or, even better, a flat price for all. But of course there
*would* be some opposed, because for every choice it isn't "fair" to
someone.
This is just like the US tax system... nobody thinks that any of the
models are "fair". Flat tax? Unfair to the poor. Higher taxes for the
rich? Disincentive to working harder and unfair to the rich. You can't win.
And that's why we shouldn't be discussing the fee structure here at all.
We should be discussing what numbering policy results in the best
addressing plan for the Internet. And I believe that handing out /36 and
/40 to ISPs doesn't do that.
>
>> 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.
So we should be charging mobile operators more than we charge dialup
providers because the ARPU is higher?
>
> I don't see it so much as extracting extra revenue so much as differentiating
> the allocation of the total costs.
Those are exactly the same thing. One just sounds better than the other.
The idea is that you find the people who are willing to pay more, you
figure out how to charge them more. In this case, you take some of that
"extra" revenue and use it to drop the prices for the people who aren't
willing to pay as much. Classic pricing theory covers this, and I would
expect no less from any organization. But it doesn't make it "fair" either.
> 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.
We've had offers to do it for less.
>
>> 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.
Ok, then we agree on that front.
> 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 was there. It was a little of each. Lots of people volunteered to do
things for free, but instead we had to play by the rules that were set
up to make sure that a small number of people were able to sit at this
newly-created trough. And here we are. Yes, numbering has worked out a
lot better for the public interest than names did, but it still isn't great.
> 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.
Agreed.
>
> 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.
Yes. But one of those tradeoffs is that they apparently can't figure out
how to run ARIN in a world where everyone with a /32 pays the kind of
fees that these "extra small" ISPs claim they can afford. That's not a
numbering policy problem.
>
>>> 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.
Of course not. But "charge the new extra small fee for everyone with a
/32, and don't allocate anything smaller than /32" (which would provide
enough of a fix for enough of the people right away) we are told isn't
compatible with "don't drastically reduce ARIN's expenses", which is
also not something we can impact with the numbering policy process.
Matthew Kaufman
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 18:06:34 -0700
From: Michael Sinatra <[email protected]>
To: Paul Vixie <[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
On 04/07/13 14:05, Paul Vixie wrote:
> 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.
In many organizations, there's a perception of waste from those outside
looking in. That's unfortunate, and frequently it's a misperception.
My goal is to provide a revenue-neutral alternative to the current
proposals on the table. As I mentioned in my previous email, I think
we can just tweak the current fee schedule so that an IPv6 ISP
allocation of exactly a /32 allows for pricing based on the IPv4
category, rather than MAX(IPv4,IPv6) as would continue to be the case
for every other allocation in the ISP fee schedule. This attempts to
minimize the disruption to the proposed fee schedule while fixing the
incentive issues. It's revenue-neutral because ARIN would be holding
the /32 in reserve anyway, in order to comply with 2013-3.
I don't like discussing the fee schedule on PPML any more than anyone
else, but as an operator, I am being asked to support an
operationally-suboptimal policy as a band-aid for this one issue in the
fee schedule, and that's what's giving me heartburn right now.
michael
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 18:10:28 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <[email protected]>
To: Michael Sinatra <[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
...
Michael Sinatra wrote:
> ...
>
> I don't like discussing the fee schedule on PPML any more than anyone
> else, but as an operator, I am being asked to support an
> operationally-suboptimal policy as a band-aid for this one issue in the
> fee schedule, and that's what's giving me heartburn right now.
are you aware of the other arin mailing list, limited to members unlike
this public policy mailing list (PPML), where discussions of fees paid
would be somewhat more targeted since it would be a discussion of
fee-payers? this mailing list is documented here:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
paul
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 18:18:48 -0700
From: Michael Sinatra <[email protected]>
To: Paul Vixie <[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
On 04/07/13 18:10, Paul Vixie wrote:
> ...
>
> Michael Sinatra wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> I don't like discussing the fee schedule on PPML any more than anyone
>> else, but as an operator, I am being asked to support an
>> operationally-suboptimal policy as a band-aid for this one issue in the
>> fee schedule, and that's what's giving me heartburn right now.
>
> are you aware of the other arin mailing list, limited to members unlike
> this public policy mailing list (PPML), where discussions of fees paid
> would be somewhat more targeted since it would be a discussion of
> fee-payers? this mailing list is documented here:
>
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
Yes. To be honest with you, I don't like discussing the fee schedule at
all. :)
I think it's relevant for PPML because we're being asked to support a
policy where I believe an operationally-superior option is to tweak the
fee schedule, so I wanted to explain my opposition to that policy.
However, I think it's a good idea to raise it on arin-discuss@, and I'll
do that...after dinner. :)
michael
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 18:31:59 -0700
From: Steven Noble <[email protected]>
To: Paul Vixie <[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=us-ascii
On Apr 7, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
> are you aware of the other arin mailing list, limited to members unlike
> this public policy mailing list (PPML), where discussions of fees paid
> would be somewhat more targeted since it would be a discussion of
> fee-payers? this mailing list is documented here:
I am a fee payer to ARIN, I pay $100 a year for my ASN. I do not have access
to these lists, so I disagree.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 18:41:38 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
Cc: "[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:
> ... we have clearly heard that we can't give everyone with a /32 of
> IPv6 the same low price otherwise ARIN wouldn't have enough money to
> operate. ...
can you hum a few bars? that is, i didn't clearly hear that.
> ... We've heard several times that it wouldn't do to have all of the
> orgs holding IPv6 paying $500/year for that, because it wouldn't bring
> in enough money.
this also. (somebody from ARIN, speaking for ARIN, said this?)
> On 4/7/2013 2:05 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, some of the policy process and nearly all of the outreach are
> more than I would want to pay for, personally.
>
> Along with the entire travel budget.
that's a short-sighted view. the thing we live on is round, and
telepresence doesn't reach to the hallways. the RIR system and the
larger internet governance community that the RIR system is part of,
meets all over the world. as someone who just crossed the 85K mile
threshold in the three months since january 1, i'm the first to admit
that we all travel too much. but the travel budget is there for good
reason. (as is the policy and outreach budgets.) if you think that stuff
is all silly or crazy, that helps me understand why you think a
mostly-volunteer org could do the important part of what ARIN does
(maintaining the database) but it also puts a discount on all of your
observations since it's so completely unrealistic.
> But even if it is true that ARIN is being exceptionally frugal, the
> draft policy is bad policy and we're only talking about it because
> ARIN doesn't want to ("can't") simply charge everyone the x-small
> price and be done with it.
i think that arin is reasonably but not exceptionally frugal. and i'm
listening carefully to your comments about the fee schedule.
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> ... Or, even better, a flat price for all. But of course there *would*
> be some opposed, because for every choice it isn't "fair" to someone.
i think it's safe to say that any fee schedule will be deemed unfair by
someone. that doesn't mean we should balance the perceived unfairness.
rather, it means we have to form and then follow a theory of objective
fairness.
> This is just like the US tax system... nobody thinks that any of the
> models are "fair". Flat tax? Unfair to the poor. Higher taxes for the
> rich? Disincentive to working harder and unfair to the rich. You can't
> win.
we're way off the topic of arin policy at the moment, but i'm concerned
that you think the progressive tax system is a disincentive to working
harder. no matter how high the next tax bracket up might be, you keep
more if you earn more. my incentives are based on what i earn and keep;
are yours based on perceived fairness?
>> I don't see it so much as extracting extra revenue so much as
>> differentiating the allocation of the total costs.
>
> Those are exactly the same thing. One just sounds better than the other.
>
> The idea is that you find the people who are willing to pay more, you
> figure out how to charge them more. In this case, you take some of
> that "extra" revenue and use it to drop the prices for the people who
> aren't willing to pay as much. Classic pricing theory covers this, and
> I would expect no less from any organization. ...
this is... completely wrong. the ARIN fee schedule is based in no way on
willingness to pay more.
>> 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.
>
> We've had offers to do it for less.
can you be more specific? has someone offered to maintain ARIN-like
registry records for you, at a lower cost? got a URL? if someone out
there can do it for less it may simply be that their real business model
is in trading addresses and the registry function is a sunk cost for them.
> [the ARIN Board] apparently can't figure out how to run ARIN in a
> world where everyone with a /32 pays the kind of fees that these
> "extra small" ISPs claim they can afford. That's not a numbering
> policy problem.
i think it is a numbering policy issue. in an address space with 4
billion /32's, the dominant cost to the community of any allocation will
be the global routing table slot not the allocation, but the need for
size categories still exists, simply because larger allocations (when
justified) are a more conservative use of those routing table slots.
that's a settled issue, though you're welcome to reopen it with a policy
proposal of course. from the settled policy on this topic, fee schedules
are constructed.
paul
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 21
*****************************************
