That’s a one-time fee for end-users (and it can be as low as $250 unless you need a /40 or more).

If you’re an ISP, then yes, it’s $500 per year if you need a /40 or more (or as little as $250 if you can
get buy on less than a /40).

Owen


On Dec 1, 2019, at 17:23 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:

I get $500, not $150, when I read the price list.

On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 4:06 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
You’re saying that there are two networks that are of sufficient complexity/size/whatever to require PA addressing, yet lack the resources for $150/year in registration fees?

I suppose it’s not impossible, but I’m wondering how they afford the other expenses associated with maintaining such a network.

Owen


On Nov 30, 2019, at 09:00 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:

I administer two networks that use legacy IPv4 blocks (one also uses an allocation from the 44 net)

Both could have IPv6 if it was free, but neither organization has the funds to waste on a paid IPv6 allocation.

We should have given every legacy block matching free IPv6 space, because early adopters are still sometimes early adopters. 

But you’re right, what could have been supported on a volunteer basis is now a profit center. Especially for IPv6, which is once-and-done if sized properly.

Matthew Kaufman

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 2:29 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

If the commitment really was to spread IPv6 far and wide IPv6 blocks
would be handed out for free, one per qualified customer (e.g., if you
have an IPv4 allocation you get one IPv6 block free), or perhaps some
trivial administrative fee like $10 per year.

But the RIRs can't live on that.

We have put them under the management of a group of five organizations
which are very dependent on the income from block allocations and no
doubt were hoping IPv6 allocations would be a boon since there will be
very little if any income growth from future IPv4 block allocations.

Worse, once acquired an IPv6 block has so many billions of addresses
very few if any would ever need another allocation so it would hardly
act as a loss leader.

I realize many still would not deploy IPv6 for various reasons such as
their equipment doesn't support it or they don't have the in-house
expertise to support it, etc tho I can't think of much other etc, a
few points of resistance do come up.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@TheWorld.com             | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*