In the typical LRSA+RSA case, is the ASN number covered by the LRSA or the
RSA? If the RSA only covers V6, why not consider getting V6 from your
upstream and dumping the RSA to save money? I happen to get V6 addresses
from both of my V6 upstreams, without additonal cost. If the ASN is also
part of the RSA, in many cases private ASN's can be used for routing with
your upstream(s) without the need for an ASN.
Personally, I would like to see this policy changed, as I can see it being
used as a quite valid excuse to drop IPv6 because of the cost. ARIN
should not be doing things that make operators less likely to use IPv6,
and this price change for those LRSA+RSA people clearly is bad.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
On Sep 19, 2021, at 14:35 , John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Sep 2021, at 1:12 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
I actually haven’t said that – what I said is that your assertion that the
costs are linear (i.e. per IP address represented) are not
realistic, nor is the single fee per-registry-object-regardless-of-size
approach realistic.
Our fee schedule scales in a geometric manner, so the smallest resource holders
are paying only $250/year and the largest paying hundreds
of thousands per year. Does it reflect perfect cost allocation? Almost
certainly not, since it generallizations the entire ARIN
customer base into a simple set of fee categories. It may not be perfect but I
believe it is as simple, fair and clear as is possible
under the circumstances.
You got two out of three. It’s as simple and clear as possible.
Thanks – that’s good to hear.
It clearly subsidizes LIRs on the backs of end users that are just ever
so slightly larger than the very smallest.
It is true that the 8022 end-user customers will be paying a larger portion of
overall registry expenses (totaling approx. 1/3 of ARIN's total costs),
but “subsidizes” is probably not a correct characterization – as they will be
paying $860 per year on average as compared to the $2341 paid annually
on average by the existing ISP customers.
So your assertion is that LIRs only constitute 75% of ARIN’s expenses? Unless
you can make that claim, it is, indeed, subsidy.
Yes, this does mean an increase in annual fee for those end-users
organizations who have more IPv4 number resources, but it also means a
reduction for more than three thousand end-user organizations who have
the typical single /24 IPv4 address block.
That’s an extremely low cutoff for the end-user organizations worthy of
consideration. A /22 can legitimately still be a very small end-user
organization
and this latest fee hike, especially in light of double billing for LRSA+RSA
end-users in light of the previous restructuring efforts to screw these
particular end users is quite painful.
Owen
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
