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 a database that update far less frequently than once per year. I realize I need to subsidize my share of AC travel and ARIN socials, but the combination of escalating costs and this newest economic disincentive to IPv6 is troubling to me. Owen > On Sep 21, 2021, at 17:44 , David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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," when > the second invoice comes later in the year. However, even that is mostly just > an annoyance, and the accountants grumble about it, but they have to have > something to grumble about. There was some sticker shock, at the $16,000 we > would have to pay without the LRSA annual fee increase cap. However, in the > end, the total fee really isn't an issue, even if we didn't have the LRSA > annual fee increase cap, even at a total of $17,000 for the two Org IDs it is > still one of the smaller costs of operating our network and the rest of our > IT Infrastructure. > > Oh, FYI, I always assumed the LRSA annual fee increase cap would be annually > compounding, not a fixed rate based on the first year. > > Thanks. > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:11 PM Owen DeLong <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > 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 <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> 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 <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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. >> >> 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] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > On 19 Sep 2021, at 1:12 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , John Curran <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> >> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any >> issues. >> >> >> -- >> =============================================== >> David Farmer Email:[email protected] >> <mailto:email%[email protected]> >> Networking & Telecommunication Services >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 >> =============================================== > > > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:[email protected] > <mailto:email%[email protected]> > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > ===============================================
_______________________________________________ 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.
