[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)

[Mike Burns]

Hi Jimmy,

An increased annual fee on transferred addresses would indeed increase the 
carrying costs of those addresses.
I suppose this might provide some incentive to return addresses to ARIN, but 
I think that it is more likely they would sell them to someone else.
And by definition, if it is an "over" purchase for whatever purpose, the act 
will be non-competitive and self-correcting in the long run.
Whether extra addresses are held as a result of overpurchase, implementation 
of CGN, lost business, technological change or whatever, the same pressures 
will be placed on the holder- the lost opportunity of directing the 
otherwise wasted value of the addresses towards more productive purpose.
In addition, the impending transition to IPv6 and the resulting loss in 
value of IPv4 addresses provides additional incentive to realize value from 
unused address assets.

In any case, rather than impose an overpurchase restriction via the duration 
of the justification window, as we do now, I am proposing to limit 
overpurchase for every entity to a tiny fraction of the available pool, a 
fraction way too small to manipulate the market. I believe that removing the 
needs test for most transfers would have a salutary effect on the market for 
minimal risk.

Regards,
Mike



-----Original Message----- 
From: Jimmy Hess
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:36 PM
To: bjones at vt.edu
Cc: Mike Burns ; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN 
run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)

On 6/12/13, Brian Jones <bjones at vt.edu> wrote:
> Hi Mike,

There could be a risk of overpurchasing,  but I would suggest there is
a disincentive for doing so:  the cost paid for the resource,  AND,
the revenue that could be derived by correcting the overpurchase
(transferring away the overpurchased portion).

Another possibility, one could imagine is,  ARIN establishing a
"variable fee schedule"  that differentiates  transferred resources
from  "free pool resources".

Due to the additional costs incurred in managing transferred
resources,  it is conceivable that
transferred resources  could be assessed additional  variable annual
fees as a cost   per /24.

With a graduated pricing schedule.       Then organizations that were
holding an excessive number,  would be incentivized to  reduce their
overpurchase,  by returning resources.


Perhaps  it would make sense in that case to allow transfer recipients
to _choose_  between  "immediate justified need"  for the entire
allocation or   "higher annual cost per IP address".


[snip]
> It still seems that inefficient use of address space could occur when a
> bidder buys much larger blocks than needed due to the lack of any
> structured needs requirements. At a minimum a block of addresses could sit
> idle and unused while needs exists elsewhere. But really IPv6 should be 
> the
> best solution for those needing addresses moving forward any way... :)


> Brian
--
-JH