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):
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?
Owen
On Apr 7, 2010, at 1:59 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Yah, thats what we are thinking here. We'll probably stick with IP4 only.
Sounds like ARIN has set a trap, so that virtually any contact with them will result in the ceding of legacy rights. We'll be sure to avoid any such contact. Thanks everyone for the info.
John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Greco" <jgreco@ns.sol.net> To: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:31 PM Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space. We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it stands, there isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the form of the fees. ... JG --
-- _________________________________________ Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM awacs@ziskind.us Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants