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

Thu Apr 7 05:05:24 UTC 2022

> On Apr 5, 2022, at 15:04 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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. 

Well, I’m not as convinced as you clearly are that there are good deeds involved here.

I proposed a number of ways in which ARIN could have preserved the fee cap for v4 and allowed LRSA recipients to pay MAX(v4Legacy,V6) vs. the current situation where they pay SUM(v4Legacy,V6).

It really wouldn’t be all that difficult to do and, in fact, doesn’t differ significantly from previous ARIN billing structures (dating back pre-LRSA).

Fortunately, the problem is solved for me. I now have my legacy v4 resources registered in RIPE-NCC with no fees and no contract and my ARIN v6 is, indeed, charged separately, but at least I’m no longer being double-billed.

I highly recommend this avenue to other LRSA signatories.

>> 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. 

Spin it however you wish, the claim of “exactly the same” is NOT true if you continue to hold your LRSA. In a lot of cases, the amount of v4 held puts one in a higher fee tier then a basic v6 assignment or allocation, even with fairly minimal (0.75 /22s, for example) IPv4 holdings.

Yes, it is true if you give up your LRSA fee cap and merge your IPv4 resources into an RSA, but, as I mentioned, that often involves a substantial increase in annual fees, in many cases in excess of the double-billed amount that results from keeping two contracts.

Owen

> 
> 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/20220406/6680ff53/attachment.html>