[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

On 6/28/07, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Here's an attempt to partially drain the swamp and create some
> incentives
> for legacy holders to both return available IPv4 space and start using
> IPv6.

Owen,

I don't object to your proposal but I question its value.

I'm a legacy registrant with a /23 down in the swamp and until a
couple years ago I was the lead engineer for a registrant holding two
legacy /18's. The policy offered by your proposal does not appeal to
me in either role.

As a /23 holder, why should I return the /23 or part of it (a /24)? I
pay ARIN nothing now so a fee waiver is meaningless. A full fee waiver
for the initial assignment of an IPv6 block might be nice but I'd want
a more definite statement than "if you qualify" before both making the
effort to apply and turning in IPv4 addresses.

As the engineer for the /18s registrant, I recognize that renumbering
folks out of part of that space is a major undertaking. It will cost
me many thousands of dollars of manpower and will impose additional
and unexpected engineering costs on my customers leading some to
reconsider their service contracts.

Even if I approach it opportunistically and just don't reallocate
space in a particular part of the block when old customers depart, I
fail to see how giving up precious IPv4 space (and doubly-precious
fee-free legacy space) could possibly be compensated by saving a
pittance on my new IPv6 block.

It just doesn't make good business sense.


I don't want to be the kind of guy who just says, "No!" so what would
it take to get me to sign an RSA, turn in part of my space or both?

Before I'd step forward with my legacy registration and either sign an
RSA or give back part of it, at least one of two things would have to
be true:

1. I'd have to realize some appreciable gain for my activity, to
offset the loss.

What if, for example, I could trade up to a /48 of IPv6 addresses with
no initial assignment fee and no justification for each /24 of IPv4
addresses I turn in with the requirements that I also place any
retained IPv4 addresses under the RSA and that do so no later than
12/31/2008? Now you have a real enticement. I can get something
cheaply now that may not be available later at any price but I have to
behave in a way that meaningfully benefits the community to get it.


2. My action would have to REDUCE future uncertainty about the status
of my registration.

At present, ARIN guarantees that legacy assignments will be managed
under the policies then active while assignments under the RSA are
subject to whatever policies we folks here on ppml can convince the
board to implement. Thus signing an RSA and undertaking related
activities would serve to INCREASE my uncertainty around continued
holding of the address space.

On the other hand, I presently have no contractual rights associated
with my legacy registration. Any rights I might have had expired with
the implied contract with Network Solutions when they quit the IP
registry business. ARIN has chosen to obligate itself to maintain that
registration, but if they reinterpret that obligation to my
disadvantage I might not even have standing to sue.

If I could sign a modified RSA that contractually obligated both ARIN
and I to follow the policies in place today but exempted me from any
future policy until such a time as I found it advantageous to accept
the regular RSA, that might well REDUCE the uncertainty associated
with my registration. As a legacy registrant, I would at least find it
worth considering.

Offered as food for thought.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin                  herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr.                        Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004