[arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?

[Keith W. Hare]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ron Cleven
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:06 AM

> I stand corrected.  I would not expect legacy holders with a small 
> number of ip's to care much either way.  More precisely, I 
> should have 
> said "large legacy interests and large entrenched ISP's".  I 
> am curious 
> though to hear you elaborate more about two points:
> 
> 1) What would you consider a "reasonable" RSA?

I tend to agree with Steve Caine on this subject:

    If the community decides we need to sign an RSA, 
    that's OK, too, as long as it lets us keep that 
    Class C without any utilization restrictions.  
    (Note: I am explicitly only talking about IPV4. ...)

> 2) You also referred to "reasonable" fees.  Would you have 
> any problem 
> with having those fees scaled according to the number of 
> IP's?  Are you 
> suggesting / expecting a different fee schedule for legacy-holders?

If I read the ARIN pricing correctly, with the current pricing model, I
would either be charged $100/year as an end user, or $1,250/year for a
/24.  Of those two, I prefer the $100/year.

But the question you are really asking is if I had a /16 or a /8, would
I be willing to pay a lot more for that?  Since I don't have a /16 or a
/8, and we are using our /24 internally, I can't really answer that.

> While I was happy when I first started reading some of the 
> postings on 
> this list to see several people indicate support for per-IP 
> pricing to 
> instill some market discipline on the IPV4 space, I was 
> surprised to see 
> some of the militant opposition to it.

Part of the problem with the pricing discussion is that it keeps merging
the pricing model topic with the legacy IPv4 Address Holder topic. There
is an overlap but I don't think the issues can be handled in the same
discussion.

Keith