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
(cb.list6)
2. fee schedule (was: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs) (John Curran)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Curran)
4. Re: Fee Philosophy (John Curran)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Curran)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Matthew Kaufman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 20:28:12 -0700
From: "cb.list6" <[email protected]>
To: Paul Vixie <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<CAD6AjGT0HLzrXG-YFW=h_coj-cmwp-o_ar4mjy6+c3fzkhj...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> cb.list6 wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2013 7:19 PM, "Paul Vixie" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> i'm intrigued by this statement. i hope you are willing to share some of
>> your experiences as to how needs based justification has negatively driven
>> some design choices.
>
> I just wrote a page of explanation and deleted it.
>
> If I have to explain it, you would not understand. And you do not understand
> today's data networks at all. I feel bad and outrageous saying that. But,
> given hundreds of millions of mobile phone users behind cgn today, perhaps
> your question is outrageous
>
>
> i'm like that.
>
>
> Note that att and vz have both rolled cgn to their dsl subs.
>
> Yet arin is not exhausted.
>
> Interesting?
>
>
> no. if i wanted to roll out way more devices in the next few years than are
> in ARIN's free pool, and i had several competitors who i knew were doing the
> same, then i'd try pretty hard to run V6 native, and if my hardware partners
> said they wouldn't be able to do that as soon or as cheaply, i'd look at
> CGN.
>
> paul
What if it was 2 years ago and you wanted to launch a cloud service?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12859585
Then again, its not you, its them. Or, restated, it's us. And, here we are.
CB
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 03:57:56 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: [arin-ppml] fee schedule (was: Re: 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 1:35 PM, Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is just ARIN trying to figure out how to maximize its own revenue.
To be clear, the change in the Revised Fee schedule is revenue neutral;
please review the slides referenced earlier for additional information.
<https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/curran_fee_schedule.pdf>
> 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.
Actually, we could easily go to a single fee for all ISP regardless of
size. This would result in significantly higher fees for smaller ISPs
(as the per-ISP fee would approximately $2800 per year.) This does not
seem to be the right direction if we're trying not to burden smaller ISPs.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 04:19:47 +0000
From: John Curran <[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="us-ascii"
On Apr 7, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> wrote:
> More fair would be everyone pays the same. Or everyone pays based on the
> amount of service they actually require from ARIN.
We can have a fee schedule as complex or as simple as needed,
but our approach has been size categories based on total IP
address holdings, so we need to be certain to have community
support and confidence in any other schedule if it is a major
departure from that approach. Incrementing the schedule as we
have done over the years is easier, but not the only possible
type of change.
> 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.
A wonderful (but incorrect) characterization given that we
do not expect a meaningful change in revenue as a result of
the Revised Fee schedule.
> 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.
Actually, we get fairly close to a single fee per database row
with the Revised Fee schedule; this is exactly the case with
the end-user fees, whereas ISP fees still remain based on total
holdings but are quite algorithmic. If ISPs were subsequently
changed to be total records, you'd then have the structure that
you suggest.
Note that reducing the fees per record requires lowering the costs
associated with changes to registry services (example: feature
enhancements for ARIN Online, RESTful interfaces, DNSSEC, etc.)
That plus reducing the change in policy that also results in more
registry development work.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 04:34:27 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fee Philosophy
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Apr 7, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 -
You shouldn't support the Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 if don't believe
it to be fair and technically sound. If the draft policy is not
adopted, the fee schedule entry does not matter. If it is supported
by the community, then the policy change will happen because that
meant that overall people felt it was fair and technically sound.
IF the Board were to add a /60 xxx-small category, nothing would
change unless someone also introduced a policy proposal to lower
the minimum to that size. There's no obligation to make a policy
change, but if some ISPs thought it made sense, you'd likely see
it get submitted and also discussed here. If it were found to be
supported by the community, it would be adopted and would not be
"bad numbering policy" but just "policy Matthew doesn't agree with"
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 04:55:12 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[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 9:19 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We can have a fee schedule as complex or as simple as needed,
> but our approach has been size categories based on total IP
> address holdings, so we need to be certain to have community
> support and confidence in any other schedule if it is a major
> departure from that approach. Incrementing the schedule as we
> have done over the years is easier, but not the only possible
> type of change.
> ...
> Actually, we get fairly close to a single fee per database row
> with the Revised Fee schedule; this is exactly the case with
> the end-user fees, whereas ISP fees still remain based on total
> holdings but are quite algorithmic. If ISPs were subsequently
> changed to be total records, you'd then have the structure that
> you suggest.
As followup, I was reminded that the fee approach is not "either/or";
i.e. it is also possible to have a single flat fee per organization
plus a fee per IP block if this is viewed as more equitable, and
would be similar to the type of change that RIPE just went through -
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-566>
There is nothing to prevent ARIN from taking a similar approach
(I do not know if such a structure would be seen as beneficial or
not by the community) but it is very important to be certain before
restructuring of the fees since any switchover of that type requires
significant business process and system changes.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:00:31 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
To: Paul Vixie <[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; format=flowed
On 4/7/2013 6:41 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> ...
>
> 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.
Quoting John Curran from 28 March 2013 2:04 AM:
"Owen - It's not 300 ISPs; it really has to be all ISPs with the same
holdings
and with /32 as the lower bound, then that will be the _majority of all
ISPs_.
Even with some aggressive efficiencies baked into ARIN's operating
costs, the
fees would be $1500 or more per year as a result. This is truly a
question of
trying to achieve the lowest fees for these smaller providers, and being
able
to have some amount of stratification allows their fees to be lower than the
average otherwise."
I am making the small leap here that since John believes it would be
"$1500 or more per year as a result" best-case that numbers like
$500/year (the new XX-Small rate that I'm referring to as "the same low
price" above) would bring in about 1/3rd of what ARIN "needs". But I
don't think that's much of a leap.
>
>> ... 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?)
See above. Don't even need to make the above leap to figure out that
$500/year "wouldn't bring in enough money".
>
>> 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.
I'm not sure why the entire address-holding community needs to be
funding this outreach and worldwide face-to-face meetings for
governance. Never mind that the idea that the governance can't be done
over email just shows how useless this whole Internet thing is.
>
>> 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.
>
thank you
>
> 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.
or not, and just have it be unfair. but either way, having ISPs get
smaller than /32 of IPv6 is a bad idea.
>
>> 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?
well, the US tax system is certainly an incentive to move my income from
salary to long-term capital gains, but yes, we're way off the topic here.
>
>>> 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.
Willingness, ability, same thing. Since I started writing this reply,
John has chimed in to note that if everyone paid the same it would need
to be $2800/year. So ARIN has happily found a few ISPs that are willing
to pay so much more than some others can pay as little as $500.
>
>>> 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.
I wish my email archive searching was this good... way back when, in the
original formation of the RIRs days, several people volunteered to run
free address registries out of the goodness of their heart (and I'm sure
a few others had ulterior motives as well). I can't remember who right
off hand though.
>
>> [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.
Yes. Which is a good reason for all ISPs to have as few chunks
(preferably one) of as big as they need long term and to use them
wisely. In IPv6, "wisely" doesn't mean "crowd down to the bottom /40 or
smaller of a /32" however.
> 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.
But then constructed in a way that opens the address allocation policy
again. It happened once when /36 allocations were added (motivated
mostly) because of the fee schedule, it might happen again now when /40
needs to be added because of the fee schedule,... when will it end?
Matthew Kaufman
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 23
*****************************************
