Hello,
We’re setting up IPv6 network is USA. Our company has branches and different legal entities in EU and US. We’ve some ipv6 PI subnets already allocated by RIPE for EU datacenters. I have few questions:
Thanks
Both options work, there’s no need to pay additional fee to ARIN unless you need something like unblock some websites. You can of course use RIPE IP and ASN in United Sates.
xTom GmbH
Hello,
We're setting up IPv6 network is USA. Our company has branches and different legal entities in EU and US. We've some ipv6 PI subnets already allocated by RIPE for EU datacenters. I have few questions:
1) Is it possible to reuse some portion of RIPE allocated ipv6 addresses in USA ? Or we need to ask for the new ones by requesting in ARIN ?
Generally, you are free to do either.
2) Can i request in ARIN just ipv6 subnets for USA DCs, but to use the same AS number which was allocated by RIPE in EU ?
Yes.
Owen
Just for clarity - ARIN’s fee schedule is such that ISP customers (i.e. those with registration service plans) pay an annual services fee based on their higher category of IPv4 or IPv6 resources – i.e. those with IPv4 resources can obtain a corresponding size of IPv6 resources without any change in size category or increase in their annual fee.
[Also worth noting - as of January 2022, all end-user customers are moving to the same registration services plan, and similarly those with just IPv4 number resources be able to obtain corresponding IPv6 resources without change to their annual fee.]
None of the above is a comment or recommendation one way or the other one what address space to use for your US datacenter; it’s solely for clarity regarding the ARIN cost side.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
Just for clarity - ARIN’s fee schedule is such that ISP customers (i.e. those with registration service plans) pay an annual services fee based on their higher category of IPv4 or IPv6 resources – i.e. those with IPv4 resources can obtain a corresponding size of IPv6 resources without any change in size category or increase in their annual fee.
[Also worth noting - as of January 2022, all end-user customers are moving to the same registration services plan, and similarly those with just IPv4 number resources be able to obtain corresponding IPv6 resources without change to their annual fee.]
This, whether they want to or not… In many cases resulting in significant unwanted fee increases, especially if you have a mix of resources covered under RSA and LRSA due to ARIN’s accounting limitations that they are perversely disincentivized against fixing because it allows them to essentially double-bill.
Owen
Yes Owen, that is correct…
If an organization insists on maintaining multiple contractual relationships with ARIN (for whatever reason) then they will be billed for each relation separately - and that is indeed likely to be more than having a single consolidated agreement for all number resources.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
I would be more than happy to consilolidate my ipv6 addresses under my lrsa, but ARIN will not allow it.
Owen
Owen -
Correct - ARIN will not allow you to bring non-legacy resources under an LRSA agreement.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
And they are right in doing so. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Rubens
I’d also be willing to consolidate under RSA if I could get the same protections I have under LRSA. ARIN won’t do that, either.
Owen
Dear NANOGers,
I would be more than happy to consilolidate my ipv6 addresses under my lrsa, but ARIN will not allow it.
Hi Owen,
…so you want to convert community-based
INRs into legacy INRs?
Nope… I see no difference between community and legacy INRs… They’re all community INRs, the only difference is when they were registered and with which registry they were originally registered.
Please, brother, explain your peculiar need.
The difference between the lRSA and the RSA is strictly some base protections on how fast the fees can increase, protections which ARIN has already, in fact, found clever ways to violate.
It’s not all that peculiar… I’m just more vocal about it than others with both types of resources, in part, because those with vast holdings are more likely to participate in ARIN processes and those with little are less likely to even be fully aware of that ability. Those with vast holdings are receiving a subsidy in this latest fee structure change by the ARIN board, but that subsidy is being provided on the backs of those with less.
Owen
I actually agree… I’d much prefer that they solve the double-billing problem without forcing different agreements into different orgs rather than consolidate under LRSA.
However, my point is that I’m open to any solution that allows me to preserve the fee increase protections for my IPv4 resources, yet get rid of the double-billing.
The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources. IIRC, it was a year or two later when ARIN changed the fee structure to force the double billing issue. Unfortunately, the LRSA lacks a material adverse change clause allowing me to terminate without losing my resources, so for years now, I’ve been paying nearly triple what I signed up for not because of fee increases, but because of a change in the fee structure which altered the nature of ARIN billing.
I’m not trying to have my cake and eat it too… I’m trying to get restored to billing on terms similar to every other ARIN resource holder, with the exception that I’d like to preserve the fee increase protections in my LRSA for determining the price paid each year for my IPv4 resources.
Owen
There were some community participants that suggested
that having a formal relationship with the ARIN organization
by signing the LRSA was good for the resource holders,
and good for the overall commons. There were other
members that suggested that signing the LRSA would be
potentially disadvantageous at some future time.
While I still believe that having a formal relationship is the
better approach, even if it costs a bit more(*), I do
understand that some people may feel vindicated about
not signing a LRSA, or have changed their opinion about
whether they should have signed, or suggested others do
so. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned here.
(*) If the number resources no longer have value
exceeding their fees for an organization, I understand
there is a robust transfer market available 
Owen -
The RSA and LRSA agreements are identical, however, it is true that you would lose legacy holder resource status (for those IPv4 resources issued to you before ARIN’s formation) if you consolidate to a single Org with one bill under the RSA.
For the curious, there are two implications to such a change:
a) you lose the $25 per year cap on fee increases (unclear if this is a substantial benefit at this point since we tend not to adjust the fees except every 3 or 4 years and the fees have been almost for those with the smaller total block sizes), and
b) there is different agreement exit conditions in the result of prevailing against ARIN in an arbitration dispute.
You have the choice to consolidate or not as you see fit; none of this is particularly germane to the original question of whether ARIN IPv4-only resource holders can obtain an IPv6 block without increase in their annual fees — to that that the answer is yes.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
> The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources.
There were some community participants that suggested
that having a formal relationship with the ARIN organization
by signing the LRSA was good for the resource holders,
and good for the overall commons.
I vaguely recall Owen being one of the most outspoken proponents.
There were other
members that suggested that signing the LRSA would be
potentially disadvantageous at some future time.
I confess: I do have the urge to say I told him so.
I do
understand that some people may feel vindicated about
not signing a LRSA,
Not yet. We're still at the stage where Darth Vader says, "I am
altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Regards,
Bill Herrin
The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would involve simply turning off IPv6.
Obviously, I would rather not have to do that, but more importantly, I really dislike the idea that ARIN is once again creating financial disincentives for the adoption or continued use of IPv6.
Owen
Owen -
The RSA and LRSA agreements are identical, however, it is true that you would lose legacy holder resource status (for those IPv4 resources issued to you before ARIN’s formation) if you consolidate to a single Org with one bill under the RSA.
I see no difference in the status of legacy holder resources vs. resources.
I care not about that.
However, there is (to some extent) a limit on how badly the board can elect to screw me financially year over year in the LRSA which simply does not exist in the RSA. To claim that an agreement which limits my fee increases year over year to $25 is identical to an agreement which has no cap on fee increases is ludicrous at best, and certainly a bit disingenuous, if not worse.
For the curious, there are two implications to such a change:
a) you lose the $25 per year cap on fee increases (unclear if this is a substantial benefit at this point since we tend not to adjust the fees except every 3 or 4 years and the fees have been almost for those with the smaller total block sizes), and
The last time you did a major change to fees, my fees tripled immediately as a result.
This time, they will more than double.
b) there is different agreement exit conditions in the result of prevailing against ARIN in an arbitration dispute.
You have the choice to consolidate or not as you see fit; none of this is particularly germane to the original question of whether ARIN IPv4-only resource holders can obtain an IPv6 block without increase in their annual fees — to that that the answer is yes.
But I was not given the choice to reconsolidate or not… When I signed, both contracts were under a single organization with a single annual fee for the organization. The board unilaterally changed that over my objections at the time and continues to take unfair advantage of their ability to do so, further compounding the fee increases.
In fairness, it was my lack of foresight as to how the board could behave in this matter that is partly to blame here. Had I properly foreseen that a complete rewrite of the fee structure and a forced separation of my contracts into two separate ORG IDs would allow the board to increase fees well beyond the expectations at the time of my original agreement, I would simply have not signed the LRSA and there would be no issue at this time.
Unfortunately, when the board did change the terms, it was made quite clear that the only way to terminate the LRSA was to surrender my resources in the process.
This continues to be a thorn in my side and each and every time the issue of fee increases comes up, so will this.
Owen
The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources.
There were some community participants that suggested
that having a formal relationship with the ARIN organization
by signing the LRSA was good for the resource holders,
and good for the overall commons.I vaguely recall Owen being one of the most outspoken proponents.
Indeed, I was. I was younger and foolish. I have learned my lesson and deeply regret that today.
There were other
members that suggested that signing the LRSA would be
potentially disadvantageous at some future time.I confess: I do have the urge to say I told him so.
But you did not. Not until after it was too late to do anything about it.
I do
understand that some people may feel vindicated about
not signing a LRSA,Not yet. We're still at the stage where Darth Vader says, "I am
altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Indeed, that sums up the current situation quite accurately IMHO.
Owen
I strongly encourage my competitors to turn off IPv6, so I hope you
convince one of them to do so. 
Rubens
Owen -
The RSA and LRSA agreements are identical, however, it is true that you would lose legacy holder resource status (for those IPv4 resources issued to you before ARIN’s formation) if you consolidate to a single Org with one bill under the RSA.
I see no difference in the status of legacy holder resources vs. resources.
I care not about that.
However, there is (to some extent) a limit on how badly the board can elect to screw me financially year over year in the LRSA which simply does not exist in the RSA. To claim that an agreement which limits my fee increases year over year to $25 is identical to an agreement which has no cap on fee increases is ludicrous at best, and certainly a bit disingenuous, if not worse.
Owen -
If you value the $25 per year cap in fee change, then feel free maintain a separate LRSA for your legacy resource services. If you’d prefer to consolidate under a single RSA and pay a single fee based on the larger IPv4 or IPv6 category based on total holdings in each, that’s also available to you – the choice is yours. If you choose to consolidate, then you will indeed have to pay the same fees as everyone else – even if a hypothecated future change to the fee schedule for that service category is greater than $25 annual. If you consider paying the same fee as other ARIN customers for your legacy resource services to be a form of hardship, then maintain a separate LRSA agreement for them if you wish,
Back to the question raised in the original post: organizations that just have ARIN IPv4 number resources can obtain a corresponding-sized IPv6 block without increasing their registration services category and corresponding ARIN annual fee.
Please direct followups on ARIN fee structure back to the ARIN-ppml mailing list as this thread is wandering far afield from the issue raised by the original post.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers