[nanog] 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Approximately 40

Tue Apr 5 22:04:32 UTC 2022

On 5 Apr 2022, at 5:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
On Apr 4, 2022, at 17:40 , John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org<mailto:jcurran at istaff.org>> wrote:
...
Interesting – as ARIN’s fee schedule was designed specifically so that every IPv4 customer can get a corresponding-sized IPv6 block without any change in annual registry fees.
(i.e. I’d be interested in hearing more; on- or off- list as you prefer)   If you mean that you’d need to pay the same amount of fees of everyone else whose received similar sized IPv6 blocks, then yes, I am afraid this is the case.

Not exactly true… Any IPv4 customer with an LRSA does not have this option because you can’t put your v6 resources on your LRSA and if you have two accounts (whether you created a second account or whether ARIN
split your accounts without some much as asking you if that was desired), they get charged each and no possibility for the fee calculation you describe exists.

Correct - ARIN caps the total registry maintenance fees for legacy resource of those who do enter an RSA with ARIN to $150/yr (the cap increasing $25/year) – the legacy cap only covers the fees for registration services for IPv4 number resources, so it must be billed separately and not part of a registration services plan that includes both IPv4 and IPv6 resources.

You can consolidate to one relationship if you wish - and end up paying the very same registry fees as everyone else – but then the legacy fee cap doesn’t apply because you’ve got IPv4 and IPv6 resources under the same service plan.

This is a case where no good deed goes unpunished - by providing a registry fee cap specifically for legacy resource holders, it can sometimes lead to a financial disincentive for legacy holders to get IPv6 resources since they would then end up paying the exact same fees as everyone else.

As such, your claim here, especially in the context of a discussion of legacy resources is a bit disingenuous and we’ve discussed it enough times that you cannot claim to be unaware of this fact.

<chuckle>  No, Owen, it was not disingenuous, but rather speaking the truth about ARIN’s fee schedule and its properties, and as I clearly noted in earlier message "If you mean that you’d need to pay the same amount of fees of everyone else whose received similar sized IPv6 blocks, then yes, I am afraid this is the case.”   The legacy fee cap that ARIN provides (for those bringing legacy resources under a RSA) is appreciated by many, but the side effect can be seeing a net increase when you obtain IPv6 resources and return to the normal fee schedule used by everyone else.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220405/685fc2a1/attachment.html>