Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

Well, it must be nice to be in that position. In my network, ARIN fees are roughly 30% of my costs this year and under this travesty will come closer to 60% of the costs of running my network next year. From my perspective, that’s rather painful and rather a high price to pay for 3 records in

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

The "double billing issue," as you refer to it, is financially immaterial to us. However, we would prefer one invoice with both Orgs IDs on it or two invoices but at the same time. The two invoices, at separate times, creates confusion. I get questions like "didn't we pay this already this year,"

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

Is your institution OK with the double-billing that results from that, or would you prefer to be treated like other organizations and pay MAX(v4,v6) instead of SUM(v4,v6)? Owen > On Sep 21, 2021, at 07:49 , David Farmer wrote: > > I don't know what is typical, but it depends on when the

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> On Sep 21, 2021, at 07:04 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > 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 >

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

I don't know what is typical, but it depends on when the ASNs were assigned. Our ASNs are all legacy and on LRSA, and all our IPv4 as well. Only IPv6 is on RSA. On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:04 AM wrote: > In the typical LRSA+RSA case, is the ASN number covered by the LRSA or the > RSA? If the RSA

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

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

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> On Sep 20, 2021, at 04:51 , John Curran wrote: > > On 19 Sep 2021, at 9:52 PM, Michel Py > wrote: >>> John Curran wrote : >>> Michel - Organizations with a registration services plan don’t pay any >>> separate ASN maintenance fees so your >>>

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

Yep, Michel, you’re one of the lucky 3000 that got a $50 discount in this fiasco. Others, which had (e.g.) a /24+/23 LRSA and a /48 RSA went from ($150+$150)capped to $175 + $150 to $500 (capped to $175) + $250 and over the next 13 years will get progressively closer to $750. This for

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> On Sep 19, 2021, at 14:35 , John Curran wrote: > > On 19 Sep 2021, at 1:12 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> >>> On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , John Curran >> > wrote: >>> I actually haven’t said that – what I said is that your assertion that the

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

John - > John Curran wrote : > Michel - Organizations with a registration services plan don’t pay any > separate ASN maintenance fees so your > previous total of $300 annually ($150 for the /24 + $150 for ASN maintenance) > will now be $250 annually in total. It makes sense now. I must have

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

I have been running dual stack since 2007. Not only do I like to try out the new technology, but as a Federal Contractor, there has been a requirement for all networks that interconnect with the Feds to have IPv6 in place. They have also had a purchase requirement for technology that all new

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On 19 Sep 2021, at 9:52 PM, Michel Py mailto:mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>> wrote: John Curran wrote : Michel - Organizations with a registration services plan don’t pay any separate ASN maintenance fees so your previous total of $300 annually ($150 for the /24 + $150 for ASN maintenance)

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> Randy Carpenter wrote : > In regard to IPv6, I would not at all called it failed at all. The reason it > is not as > ubiquitous is because of ignorance and attitudes of companies and individuals > like you. I had IPv6 on a Cisco 2500, more than 20 years ago. I was on the 6bone. Who are you ?

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

They may be referring to this : Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block On Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 8:45 PM Randy Carpenter wrote: > > > - On Sep 19, 2021, at 9:52 PM, Michel Py via ARIN-PPML > arin-ppml@arin.net wrote:

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

- On Sep 19, 2021, at 9:52 PM, Michel Py via ARIN-PPML arin-ppml@arin.net wrote: > > > I probably missed something, but the registration services plan did not make > sense to me earlier. When I added it up, it was cheaper to pay separately. My end-user ORG has been opting for the

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

John - > John Curran wrote : > Michel - Organizations with a registration services plan don’t pay any > separate ASN maintenance fees so your > previous total of $300 annually ($150 for the /24 + $150 for ASN maintenance) > will now be $250 annually in total. I probably missed something, but

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 8:13 PM Michel Py via ARIN-PPML wrote: > > John Curran wrote : > > but it also means a reduction for more than three thousand end-user > organizations who have the typical single /24 IPv4 address block. > > I'd like to see where it is, as $job[0] is an end-user org with a

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On Sep 19, 2021, at 9:13 PM, Michel Py wrote: > >  >> >> John Curran wrote : >> but it also means a reduction for more than three thousand end-user >> organizations who have the typical single /24 IPv4 address block. > > I'd like to see where it is, as $job[0] is an end-user org with a

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On 19 Sep 2021, at 1:12 PM, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , John Curran mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> 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

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> On Sep 19, 2021, at 12:54 , David Farmer wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:05 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML > mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote: > > > > On Sep 18, 2021, at 03:04 , John Curran > > wrote: > > You can assert that ARIN's costs are

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:05 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML < arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote: > > > > On Sep 18, 2021, at 03:04 , John Curran wrote: > > You can assert that ARIN's costs are predominantly the result of “LIRs” > but that doesn’t reflect reality – many of our services and functions are >

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

+1, I feel the same Cheken On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 7:31 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML < arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote: > Let me be clear… > > I do not feel that the overall costs of operating ARIN at this time are > unreasonable. > > I do feel that the apportionment of fees in the new system is very

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

Let me be clear… I do not feel that the overall costs of operating ARIN at this time are unreasonable. I do feel that the apportionment of fees in the new system is very unfair to certain registrants. Owen > On Sep 19, 2021, at 08:51 , Steve Noble wrote: > > Your and my view of rich are

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

the Beltway? Paul From: "arin-ppml" To: "Martin Hannigan" Cc: "arin-ppml" Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 12:15:23 PM Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , Ma

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

In general, executives of (successful) profit-making ventures have lavish compensation that is usually proportional to the profit that the organization makes in some way. OTOH, the executives of NGOs usually have fixed compensation that is often well below that of executives of profit-making

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , John Curran wrote: > > On 19 Sep 2021, at 12:15 AM, Mark McDonald > wrote: >> >> Our rate hike alone covers the cost of responding to concerned organizations >> questioning why such a massive rate hike is needed that targets the

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> On Sep 19, 2021, at 05:06 , John Curran wrote: > > On 18 Sep 2021, at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ... >> We’re taking about the fact that if you’re an end user, this latest fee hike >> is pretty abominable, while it’s a pretty nice subsidy for most LIRs paid >> for on the backs of the

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

Your and my view of rich are obviously different but let's put that aside. But my point was very specific, if people are talking about ARIN running a deficit and having to raise rates, you should look at the costs of the organization. If you are complaining to John that the rate increases are

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

What does being non-profit have to do with not paying the executives that run the day by day of the organization ? Fernando On Sun, 19 Sep 2021, 01:33 Steve Noble, wrote: > Since they are a non-profit, they could also cut executive salaries. As of > 2019, John was being paid over $546,000 to

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 12:33 AM Steve Noble wrote: > Since they are a non-profit, they could also cut executive salaries. As of > 2019, John was being paid over $546,000 to respond to posts on mailing > lists. > > https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541860956 > Key

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On 19 Sep 2021, at 12:15 AM, Mark McDonald mailto:ma...@siteserver.com>> wrote: Our rate hike alone covers the cost of responding to concerned organizations questioning why such a massive rate hike is needed that targets the smallest half of ARIN’s user base. You realize the only reason

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On 18 Sep 2021, at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > ... > We’re taking about the fact that if you’re an end user, this latest fee hike > is pretty abominable, while it’s a pretty nice subsidy for most LIRs paid for > on the backs of the end users. Saying “if you’re an end user, this latest fee

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

Since they are a non-profit, they could also cut executive salaries. As of 2019, John was being paid over $546,000 to respond to posts on mailing lists. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541860956 Key Employees and Officers Compensation JOHN CURRAN (CEO AND PRESIDENT)

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

Our rate hike alone covers the cost of responding to concerned organizations questioning why such a massive rate hike is needed that targets the smallest half of ARIN’s user base. You realize the only reason people are complaining (and you’re on these forums defending it) is because such a few

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> On Sep 18, 2021, at 03:04 , John Curran wrote: > > On 17 Sep 2021, at 11:40 PM, arin-ppml wrote: >> >> Why not let them choose? They don’t really get any benefit from being an LIR >> member and since they aren’t running a local registry even though they are >> an ISP, why force them into

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On 17 Sep 2021, at 11:40 PM, arin-ppml wrote: > > Why not let them choose? They don’t really get any benefit from being an LIR > member and since they aren’t running a local registry even though they are an > ISP, why force them into the LIR category? They don’t need to have a relationship

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> On Sep 17, 2021, at 20:28 , David Farmer wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 8:26 PM Owen DeLong > wrote: > > >> On Sep 17, 2021, at 10:57 , David Farmer via ARIN-PPML > > wrote: >> >> The lines between what is an end-user and what

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 8:26 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On Sep 17, 2021, at 10:57 , David Farmer via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > The lines between what is an end-user and what is an ISP are getting very > blurry these days. Is there really a difference between a data center, a > university campus

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> On Sep 17, 2021, at 10:57 , David Farmer via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > The lines between what is an end-user and what is an ISP are getting very > blurry these days. Is there really a difference between a data center, a > university campus network, an enterprise network, and a small ISP each

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

Similarly, I have 4 records in the ARIN database… 3 are registered to me and covered by RSAs. One is thankfully effectively registered to me and not covered by an RSA. I will discuss the three that are RSA’d here. 2620:0:930::/48 Registered in November, 1994 shows last updated in March, 2018.

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On 17 Sep 2021, at 2:21 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: While everyone is worried about their fee increase, maybe it is time to look at the other side of the ledger and find out exactly what is being paid for, and if things can be done to help control those

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

So I'm a relatively new member, so thanks for sharing that discussion with us all. I really like proposal number 4 and I find the counterpoints to it not to be very compelling. 1) Large users will have to pay a lot more Good? If they are not extracting at least the same value as a small operator

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

While everyone is worried about their fee increase, maybe it is time to look at the other side of the ledger and find out exactly what is being paid for, and if things can be done to help control those costs. Is there a breakdown of exactly what are the things that our fees pay for, and are

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

The lines between what is an end-user and what is an ISP are getting very blurry these days. Is there really a difference between a data center, a university campus network, an enterprise network, and a small ISP each with a /20? No, this isn't revenue neutral for ARIN, but they have been running

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

John, I just came across your spreadsheet of fee increases. It pretty much summarizes what I’ve been saying - this isn’t a neutral harmonization of fees, it’s a 20% rate hike on roughly 40% of ARIN’s customers that disproportionally affects ARIN’s smaller customers, with Large being

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On 17 Sep 2021, at 3:52 AM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: Some have suggested the fee should not have a relationship to the number of addresses, but I strongly disagree. For the most part, the more addresses you have, the more SWIP transactions and reverse

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

ath either. __ From: "Mark McDonald" To: "John Curran" Cc: "arin-ppml" Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 5:20:51 PM Subject: {Spam?}  R

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> > From: "Mark McDonald" > To: "John Curran" > Cc: "arin-ppml" > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 5:20:51 PM > Subject: {Spam?} Re: [arin-ppml] Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for > Legacy Users > > Hi John, > >

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

long. My math doesn't match Owen's ? math either. From: "Mark McDonald" To: "John Curran" Cc: "arin-ppml" Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 5:20:51 PM Subject: {Spam?} Re: [arin-ppml] Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users Hi John, We mu