ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Matthew_Kaufman1 · April 7, 2010, 11:33pm

Dave Temkin wrote:

There are 117,351,239 domain names registered. If I had to guess, there are less than 1% of that total number in IP assignments (not allocations), but I don't have the patience to go compile those statistics. GoDaddy exists based on volume, which we don't have the same scale with IP assignments.

And when every entity only needs one IPv6 block and doesn't need to ever come back for more, RIR revenues will be even lower.

But that won't mean the spending stops... so I'm sure the shortfall will be made up somehow.

Matthew Kaufman

Bandy_Rush1 · April 7, 2010, 11:34pm

Do you mean the $2250 for a /32, or the $1250 for a /48? Compare the
relative costs to ARIN; ARIN's fees aren't set per IP address.

if not, then why are they not flat per-allocation?

randy

N_Yaakov_Ziskind · April 7, 2010, 11:40pm

I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is
*always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being
unregulated to regulated, whatever that means. I would think multiple
times before making that jump. Hence my suggestion to set up a separate
organization to request IPv6 space, and thus not 'endanger' whatever I
had before.

Owen DeLong wrote (on Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 02:06:54PM -0700):

Kevin_Stange · April 7, 2010, 11:47pm

APNIC has a calculator for the fees for the space. you pay max(IPv4 space fee, IPv6 space fee). So basically you don't pay anything to dual stack your current network.

It currently works the same way in ARIN's fee schedule. However, in
this discussion, we're talking about people who have legacy IPv4 space,
which is now administratively under ARIN's management, and for whom
there are currently no fees of any kind, which means that max(IPv4 space
fee, IPv6 space fee) == IPv6 space fee, and increase from nothing, ever.

Also, if you are current standing member, they don't even ask you to justify IPv6, they give you a similar space to your current IPv4 space on simple request. If you need more then you need to justify.

For an organization that didn't have to justify anything for IPv4 in the
modern sense in order to obtain their address space, it's arguably a
valid question to ask whether they have any need for anything similar in
IPv6.

John_Curran3 · April 8, 2010, 12:13pm

David -
Your assessment matches mine, with one important difference:

  While I'm certain that almost any new broadband user from any
  provider will be able to reach IPv4-only sites (required in order
  to meet consumer expectations of "This is Internet service"),
  the ability to provide scalable high-performance, low-latency,
  low-jitter path to IPv4 resources is questionable. If you are
  a hosting/content provider, and you decide to only source the
  content via IPv4 connectivity going forward, the assumption
  you're making is that each and every ISP out is in charge of
  the quality of your service, even when the ISPs are internally
  doing engineering gymnastics with types of NAT to provide the
  connectivity.

/John

Owen_DeLong · April 8, 2010, 4:34pm

This assumes that small = /40 and large = /22.

Still, with more realistic numbers:

The small guy (/48) pays $0.019073486 per /64
The large guy (/24) pays $0.000000032741808 per /64

FWIW.

Owen

Stephen_Sprunk3 · April 8, 2010, 5:25pm

If you are an end-user type organization, the fee is only $100/year
for all your resources, IPv4 and IPv6 included. Is that really what
you would call significant?


As always, the devil is in the deetails.

From: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers

The proper URL for the below quote is
<https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#legacy_fee>.

"The annual fee will be $100 USD until 2013, at which time ARIN's Board
of Trustees may choose to raise the fee."

Note that the LRSA specifies that the fee increase cannot be more than
$25/yr.

Then scroll down to the fees you can expect in 2013. Especially note
how the small guys get hit much harder per IP.

This is the section at
<https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers>.

That section applies only to _allocations_, which are what ISPs get.
The maintenance fee for _assignments_, which is what end users orgs get,
has always been $100/yr. No waiver is necessary, and AFAIK the BoT has
made never made any noises about increasing the assignment maintenance fee.

And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment
maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation
maintenance fee table, would that really be "significant" in the grand
scheme of things?

S

Stephen_Sprunk3 · April 8, 2010, 5:32pm

I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is
*always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being
unregulated to regulated, whatever that means.

ARIN is not a regulator. The "jump" is from not paying for services
that you have no contract for to paying for services that you do have a
contract for.

I would think multiple times before making that jump. Hence my suggestion to set up a separate organization to request IPv6 space, and thus not 'endanger' whatever I had before.

Signing an RSA to get new space does not _in any way_ "endanger" or
otherwise affect legacy resources. Putting legacy resources under LRSA
(or RSA, if you wished) is a completely separate action and is, for now
at least, completely optional. You do not need to set up a separate
organization; all that does is waste your time and ARIN's.

S

James_W_Laferriere · April 8, 2010, 5:49pm

Hello Stephen ,

If you are an end-user type organization, the fee is only $100/year
for all your resources, IPv4 and IPv6 included. Is that really what
you would call significant?

As always, the devil is in the deetails.

From: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers

The proper URL for the below quote is
<https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#legacy_fee>.

"The annual fee will be $100 USD until 2013, at which time ARIN's Board
of Trustees may choose to raise the fee."

Note that the LRSA specifies that the fee increase cannot be more than
$25/yr.

Then scroll down to the fees you can expect in 2013. Especially note
how the small guys get hit much harder per IP.

This is the section at
<https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers>.

That section applies only to _allocations_, which are what ISPs get.
The maintenance fee for _assignments_, which is what end users orgs get,
has always been $100/yr. No waiver is necessary, and AFAIK the BoT has
made never made any noises about increasing the assignment maintenance fee.

And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment
maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation
maintenance fee table, would that really be "significant" in the grand
scheme of things?
S

   Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't make enough to cover that '.' .
   Sorry this is getting to be a too frequent line of .... out of eveyones mouth & does not cover the facts for those who don't have the $ resources to break past this line of thinking to be able to forge ahead with plans to expand .
     Twyl , JimL

William_Herrin · April 8, 2010, 6:22pm

And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment
maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation
maintenance fee table, would that really be "significant" in the grand
scheme of things?
S
   Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic
region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't make enough to cover that

Jim,

Not much sympathy for folks crying the blues about the cost of an
address assignment that they're going to turn around and announce into
the DFZ...

http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html

What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the
existant IPv4 pool?

Bill,

ARIN has implemented a structure to facilitate IPv4 address transfers
should an open market come to exist. Between an address market and the
ever more creative use of NAT, it should be possible for IPv4
addressing to continue after free pool depletion as a zero-sum game.
Exactly how long is a matter of debate with speculation ranging from
months to decades.

What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA?

Owen,

ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the
event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled
throughout.

Would it be equally onerous if ARIN simply stopped providing RDNS for you?

Probably not. SMTP is the only major service any more that cares. But
that's immaterial; ending RDNS for legacy registrants has been an
empty threat from the day the notion was first hatched.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

bill3 · April 8, 2010, 6:37pm

>> And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment
>> maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation
>> maintenance fee table, would that really be "significant" in the grand
>> scheme of things?
>> S
>
> Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic
> region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't make enough to cover that

Jim,

Not much sympathy for folks crying the blues about the cost of an
address assignment that they're going to turn around and announce into
the DFZ...

assuming facts not in evidence there ... but ok.

> What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the
> existant IPv4 pool?

Bill,

ARIN has implemented a structure to facilitate IPv4 address transfers
should an open market come to exist. Between an address market and the
ever more creative use of NAT, it should be possible for IPv4
addressing to continue after free pool depletion as a zero-sum game.
Exactly how long is a matter of debate with speculation ranging from
months to decades.

  cool. I've used the transfer policy with limited success.
  I guess the interesting thing in your statement (and I suspect
  a trip to the ARIN NRPM is in order) is "should an open market
  come into existence" ... how do you see that happening?

but more to my point. If I'm using a single /24 out of my /20
(using an antiquated example) - would there be:

  ) interest in the other 15 /24s
  ) how would that interest be expressed (so I would know about it)
  ) complaints from the folks running w/o default about
    the new prefixes on offer? **

** remembering that as far as the routing system is concerned, a /32 is a /32

Owen_DeLong · April 8, 2010, 6:55pm

What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA?

Owen,

ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the
event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled
throughout.

Let's clarify here, however...

Nothing guarantees you that ARIN can not do so if you don't have any
contract with them.

There is a common fiction that ARIN somehow grants right to use or
otherwise gives/transfers/leases/etc. Addresses. That is not the case.

ARIN provides a REGISTRATION service which merely guarantees
that neither ARIN, nor any of the other cooperating participants in
the IANA/RIR system will register the same numbers to someone
else.

So, that clause really states that ARIN reserves the right to invalidate
your registration if ARIN feels you are no longer playing by the rules
under which that registration was granted.

ARIN doesn't have the power to directly prevent you from using the
address space. They merely have the ability to let the world know
that it is no longer registered to you, and, the ability to register it
to someone else.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no legal reason ARIN could
not do this with any legacy registration which is not the subject of
an RSA or LRSA, as I do not believe there is a legal obligation for
ARIN to provide services to customers without a service contract.

I'm not saying that ARIN will or should do such a thing, but, signing
the LRSA is about the only way to insure that ARIN can't do such
a thing to your legacy resources.

The "perceived" rights of legacy holders are dubious at best. The
LRSA does not take any actual rights away, merely enumerates
a very small number of the limitations that also exist without a
contract.

Would it be equally onerous if ARIN simply stopped providing RDNS for you?

Probably not. SMTP is the only major service any more that cares. But
that's immaterial; ending RDNS for legacy registrants has been an
empty threat from the day the notion was first hatched.

Sure... I'm not advocating any such thing, either. The point being that
while I think continuing to provide a free ride to IPv4 legacy holders
is a good idea, there is no reason to continue that concept into the
IPv6 world. I would like to see fee waivers for IPv6 initial assignment
fees to legacy holders who sign the LRSA. I think that would be a
good incentive for both the LRSA and IPv6 adoption.

However, when I suggested that, there was some negative feedback
from the community and I don't think the idea achieved clear
consensus for or against.

Owen

William_Herrin · April 8, 2010, 7:14pm

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere
> Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic
> region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't make enough to cover that

Not much sympathy for folks crying the blues about the cost of an
address assignment that they're going to turn around and announce into
the DFZ...
   assuming facts not in evidence there \.\.\. but ok\.

Hi Bill,

If you're not planning to announce a route into the DFZ, we have
RFC1918 or IPv6's ULA, address pools that are 100% and completely free
for your use.

ARIN has implemented a structure to facilitate IPv4 address transfers
should an open market come to exist. Between an address market and the
ever more creative use of NAT, it should be possible for IPv4
addressing to continue after free pool depletion as a zero-sum game.
Exactly how long is a matter of debate with speculation ranging from
months to decades.
   cool\.  I&#39;ve used the transfer policy with limited success\.
   I guess the interesting thing in your statement $and I suspect
   a trip to the ARIN NRPM is in order$ is &quot;should an open market
   come into existence&quot; \.\.\. how do you see that happening?

eBay?

Given a demand and a supply, markets don't traditionally need a whole
lot of help to come into being.

   but more to my point\.  If I&#39;m using a single /24 out of my /20
   \(using an antiquated example\) \- would there be:

   \) interest in the other 15 /24s
   \) how would that interest be expressed \(so I would know about it\)
   \) complaints from the folks running w/o default about
     the new prefixes on offer?  \*\*

The basic plan (ARIN NRPM section 8.3) is:

1. Request and be approved for addresses from ARIN (even though ARIN
won't have any addresses to give).

2. Find (pay) someone who has ARIN-managed addresses that they're
willing to give up in the quantity you want.

3. Current holder releases addresses to ARIN in the requested (paid)
quantity with instructions to provide those addresses to the
already-authorized recipient (in #1).

4. ARIN updates the registration accordingly.

If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on
demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would
ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money.

137 billion prefixes would crush the DFZ routers of course, but as we
all know the routing table isn't ARIN's lookout.

ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the
event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled
throughout.

Let's clarify here, however...
Nothing guarantees you that ARIN can not do so if you don't have any
contract with them.

Owen,

Your uneducated YANAL opinion about the governing law in the matter is
duly noted and filed beside my own differing viewpoint. Until and
unless ARIN attempts to forcibly reclaim a block of legacy addresses
from its legacy holder, the question remains theoretical.

The point being that
while I think continuing to provide a free ride to IPv4 legacy holders
is a good idea, there is no reason to continue that concept into the
IPv6 world.

The reason is that it could be structured to increase the rate of IPv6
deployment, to the benefit of all. To what degree that would achieve
value for cost is debatable, but it certainly qualifies as more than
"no reason."

Regards,
Bill Herrin

bill3 · April 8, 2010, 7:39pm

>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere
>> > Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic
>> > region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't make enough to cover that
>>
>> Not much sympathy for folks crying the blues about the cost of an
>> address assignment that they're going to turn around and announce into
>> the DFZ...
>
> assuming facts not in evidence there ... but ok.

Hi Bill,

If you're not planning to announce a route into the DFZ, we have
RFC1918 or IPv6's ULA, address pools that are 100% and completely free
for your use.

  er... you misunderstand... there is no single "DFZ" anywhere...
  it is a fiction. no prefix in existance, save 127.0.0.0, ::1,
  and 0.0.0.0 is globally reachable. reachability depends on your
  POV, where "you" is roughly the number of addressable entities
  on the planet. folks announce a route to their peers, and last
  i checked, no ASN peered with -everyone-.

  that said, transient connectivity is even more popular now
  than it was twenty years ago. folks connect/disconnect/reconnet
  all the time.

  this is the primary reason why Globally Unique Addresses are so
  important - one cna nver tell when they will need to peer with
  someone else in the future.

>> ARIN has implemented a structure to facilitate IPv4 address transfers
>> should an open market come to exist. Between an address market and the
>> ever more creative use of NAT, it should be possible for IPv4
>> addressing to continue after free pool depletion as a zero-sum game.
>> Exactly how long is a matter of debate with speculation ranging from
>> months to decades.
>
> cool. I've used the transfer policy with limited success.
> I guess the interesting thing in your statement (and I suspect
> a trip to the ARIN NRPM is in order) is "should an open market
> come into existence" ... how do you see that happening?

eBay?

  last ebay transaction I saw was a posting by Martin Levy - and it was
  withdrawn after some urging by ARIN. Addresses are not sellable
  property. So what would an "open market" be in... rights to use?
  (come to think of it, I have seen submarine cable IRUs for sale on eBAY)

Given a demand and a supply, markets don't traditionally need a whole
lot of help to come into being.

  Ok... lets say there is a pent up supply ... and no good way to
  let those with demand know the supply exists. I'll consider
  acting as the "address Yenta" --- if folks have prefixes they
  are not using, and would like to let others know there is availablity,
  I'll be glad to be the "go between".

> but more to my point. If I'm using a single /24 out of my /20
> (using an antiquated example) - would there be:
>
> ) interest in the other 15 /24s
> ) how would that interest be expressed (so I would know about it)
> ) complaints from the folks running w/o default about
> the new prefixes on offer? **

The basic plan (ARIN NRPM section 8.3) is:

1. Request and be approved for addresses from ARIN (even though ARIN
won't have any addresses to give).

2. Find (pay) someone who has ARIN-managed addresses that they're
willing to give up in the quantity you want.

3. Current holder releases addresses to ARIN in the requested (paid)
quantity with instructions to provide those addresses to the
already-authorized recipient (in #1).

4. ARIN updates the registration accordingly.

I remember this. it suffers from two primary weaknesses:

) finding someone (see my address-Yenta offer above)
) this only works within the ARIN region.

David_Conrad3 · April 8, 2010, 7:51pm

BIll,

If you're not planning to announce a route into the DFZ, we have
RFC1918 or IPv6's ULA, address pools that are 100% and completely free
for your use.

er... you misunderstand... there is no single "DFZ" anywhere...

Pedantry alert.

Addresses are not sellable property.

Sure they are. I personally know of several cases where addresses have been sold. Right now, people have to go through a bunch of foo, creating dummy companies to hold the IP address assets, transferring the assets, selling the dummy companies, etc., but the end result is the same. Policy changes will make this somewhat less silly. Whether those policy changes will be sufficient to stop the creation of alternative "address title registries" remains to be seen.

Given a demand and a supply, markets don't traditionally need a whole
lot of help to come into being.

  Ok... lets say there is a pent up supply ... and no good way to
  let those with demand know the supply exists. I'll consider
  acting as the "address Yenta" --- if folks have prefixes they
  are not using, and would like to let others know there is availablity,
  I'll be glad to be the "go between".

Given current address space utilization efficiency, it isn't hard to find folks who have more address space than they are using. However, I suspect there are VCs who would be interested in discussing the idea...

Regards,
-drc

bill3 · April 8, 2010, 8:13pm

BIll,

>> If you're not planning to announce a route into the DFZ, we have
>> RFC1918 or IPv6's ULA, address pools that are 100% and completely free
>> for your use.
>
> er... you misunderstand... there is no single "DFZ" anywhere...

Pedantry alert.

yeah yeah yeah... you passed that class last century. why are you still here?

> Addresses are not sellable property.

Sure they are. I personally know of several cases where addresses have been sold. Right now, people have to go through a bunch of foo, creating dummy companies to hold the IP address assets, transferring the assets, selling the dummy companies, etc., but the end result is the same. Policy changes will make this somewhat less silly. Whether those policy changes will be sufficient to stop the creation of alternative "address title registries" remains to be seen.

you might want to let the ARIN GC know of the particulars here.
selling dummy companies is not selling address space (technically).

>> Given a demand and a supply, markets don't traditionally need a whole
>> lot of help to come into being.
>
> Ok... lets say there is a pent up supply ... and no good way to
> let those with demand know the supply exists. I'll consider
> acting as the "address Yenta" --- if folks have prefixes they
> are not using, and would like to let others know there is availablity,
> I'll be glad to be the "go between".

Given current address space utilization efficiency, it isn't hard to find folks who have more address space than they are using. However, I suspect there are VCs who would be interested in discussing the idea...

bring them on. VC's are you listening?

William_Herrin · April 8, 2010, 8:33pm

   er\.\.\. you misunderstand\.\.\. there is no single &quot;DFZ&quot; anywhere\.\.\.
   it is a fiction\.

Meh. Fiction or no, it does a suitably effective job connecting my
users to my servers when and where they want to connect.

   last ebay transaction I saw was a posting by Martin Levy \- and it was
   withdrawn after some urging by ARIN\.

Section 8.3 is new. Just happened last year.

Addresses are not sellable
property. So what would an "open market" be in... rights to use?
(come to think of it, I have seen submarine cable IRUs for sale on eBAY)

The market would be for contracts to release particular blocks of
addresses to ARIN for re-registration to the buyer under the terms of
ARIN NRPM section 8.3. The legal fiction is that you're buying the
contract, not the addresses.

As for whether IP addresses will ever be sellable property... I think
it serves to recall that native Americans had no concept of real
estate when the Europeans first arrived. They fought the notion hard
once they finally realized the settlers were serious about it.

   Ok\.\.\. lets say there is a pent up supply \.\.\.  and no good way to
   let those with demand know the supply exists\.   I&#39;ll consider
   acting as the &quot;address Yenta&quot;   \-\-\-   if folks have prefixes they
   are not using, and would like to let others know there is availablity,
   I&#39;ll be glad to be the &quot;go between&quot;\.

Works for me. Maybe I'll drop you a line when the IANA pool finally
exhausts. I have some nice real estate down in the swamp that I'm
using for relatively low-value applications...

   I remember this\.  it suffers from two primary weaknesses:
   \) finding someone \(see my address\-Yenta offer above\)

With you volunteering, that problem is solved. See? Easy!

   \) this only works within the ARIN region\.

The other regions have their own structures... NIRs and LIRs that
aren't tied to ISP service and whose practices differ from the RIR,
for example.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

John_Curran1 · April 8, 2010, 10:46pm

David -

Please report these events to: <https://www.arin.net/resources/fraud/index.html>:

"This reporting process is to be used to notify ARIN of suspected Internet number resource abuse including the submission of falsified utilization or organization information, unauthorized changes to data in ARIN's WHOIS, hijacking of number resources in ARIN's database, or fraudulent transfers."

We do investigate, and if we can determine falsified information was used
to effect a transfer, we will revert the transfer and/or initiate resource
review as appropriate.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

Gary_E_Miller · April 8, 2010, 11:18pm

Yo Owen!

Since I just need one /64 that is $1,250/yr for the /64.

That puts me at a large competitive disadvantage to the big boys.

RGDS
GARY
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701
gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588

Owen_DeLong · April 8, 2010, 11:25pm

You are mistaken.

If you only need one /64, you cannot possibly be an IPv6 ISP.

As such, you would only pay the end-user price of $1250 one-time and $100/year.

That $100/year also covers your IPv4 space and your autonomous system number.

Owen