[ppml] In$entive$

Well that violates the agreement that the market has with the RIRs. I'm sure
that a blackmarket will/has spring up when that point is reached. Curious on
how the RIRs will police it.

Aaron

On 3/22/07, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:
>
>  At that point, it is not up to ARIN because they have already handed out
> everything they can. Asserting that addresses are not tradable property only
> works as long as people are willing to listen to someone with an
> alternative. Once the RIR's can't offer an alternative source of addresses,
> the market will establish the price and the little guys will be forced out.
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> *From:* heh heh [mailto:dudepron at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:52 PM
> *To:* alh-ietf at tndh.net
> *Cc:* Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC; ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [ppml] In$entive$
>
>
>
> Isn't this establish/forcing routing policy in a indirect way?  I can't
> afford IPv4 so I have to use IPv6. I don't believe that ARIN would want to
> set this precedent.
>
> Aaron
>
> On 3/22/07, *Tony Hain* <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:
>
> While Leo's pricing model may not have any impact on the consumption rate
> (because we are likely to run out before the price gets high enough), his
> overall model of escalating prices is probably right as the commercial
> trade
> in addresses takes hold. If that price escalation is going to drive small
> providers out of business, that will happen despite whatever ARIN does.
>
> Tony
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> > Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC
> > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:05 AM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] In$entive$
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto: ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf
> > Of
> > Leo Bicknell
> > >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:31 PM
> > >To: ppml at arin.net
> > >Subject: [ppml] In$entive$
> > >
> > >
> > >I'm going to start a thread with an offshoot idea, although it's not
> > strictly a policy matter.  People keep >talking about incenting people
> > to move to IPv6.  What if ARIN were to implement a new fee
> > >schedule:
> > >
> > >Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses
> > >2007 Existing rates.
> > >2008 2 * 2007 Rates
> > >2009 4 * 2007 Rates
> > >2010 8 * 2007 Rates
> > >2011 16 * 2007 Rates
> > >2012 32 * 2007 Rates
> > >2013 32 * 2007 Rates
> > >2014 32 * 2007 Rates
> > >2015 32 * 2007 Rates
> > >etc
> > >
> > >Per http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html, someone with a
> > single /19 would go from $2,250 a year in >2007 to $72,000 in 2012.
> > >It's predictable so you can show management, there is a sense of
> > urgency, and it doesn't happen overnight to >create a run on IPv6
> > addresses.  It also provides proportional incentive to the largest and
> > smallest IP's.
> > >
> > >As an alternative, so as not to punish existing address space holders
> > this could be applied to initial >allocations only.
> > >
> > >I suspect, "hey boss, our IPv4 space is going to cost us 32x in 6
> > years, and we can get IPv6 space for free" >would be a powerful
> > motivator.
> >
> > Meanwhile, every single small business service provider goes out of
> > business because their IPv4 space costs just escalated to absurd
> > levels.
> >
> >
> > I hope you note that costs for IP addresses are already
> > disproportionate
> > to the number of IPs you are allocated.  A /20 costs 55 cents per IP
> > address.  A /13 costs 1.71 cents per IP address.  A /8 costs .053 cents
> > per IP address.  Put another way, a small service provider is already
> > paying 100 times more per IP address than monster enterprise service
> > provider with a /8 worth of IPs allocated to them.  After your proposed
> > cost increases, small business provider with a /20 will be paying
> > $17.60
> > per IP address, per year and monster enterprise provider will be paying
> > $.169 per IP address.
> >
> > The last thing I need to worry about is ARIN jacking up my rates to
> > $17.60 per IP address.   That would be a veritable death sentence for
> > my
> > company.
> >
> > -Jay Sudowski
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> > ( PPML at arin.net).
> > Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070322/378bef19/attachment.html