> 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 > 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.
Could be either way. In my case, my ASN is not under any RSA (fortunately). Yes, I could switch to PA v6, but for a variety of reasons (stable DNS records among them), I prefer not to. I’m mutihomed in BGP and prefer to keep it that way. Frankly, I’m more likely to simply stop providing IPv6 services if it comes to that. > 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. We are in complete agreement on this matter. Owen > > 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 <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: >> On 19 Sep 2021, at 1:12 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> >> On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , John Curran <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 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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
