Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Dec 5, 2021, at 4:24 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 12:00 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
> > I would be more than happy to consilolidate my ipv6 addresses under my lrsa, but ARIN will not allow it.
>
>
> And they are right in doing so. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
>
> Rubens

I actually agree… I’d much prefer that they solve the double-billing problem without forcing different agreements into 
different orgs rather than consolidate under LRSA.

However, my point is that I’m open to any solution that allows me to preserve the fee increase protections for my IPv4 
resources, yet get rid of the double-billing.

The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 
resources. IIRC, it was a year or two later when ARIN changed the fee structure to force the double billing issue. 
Unfortunately, the LRSA lacks a material adverse change clause allowing me to terminate without losing my resources, so 
for years now, I’ve been paying nearly triple what I signed up for not because of fee increases, but because of a 
change in the fee structure which altered the nature of ARIN billing.

I’m not trying to have my cake and eat it too… I’m trying to get restored to billing on terms similar to every other 
ARIN resource holder, with the exception that I’d like to preserve the fee increase protections in my LRSA for 
determining the price paid each year for my IPv4 resources.

Owen