[arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?)
Keith W. Hare
Keith at jcc.com
Mon Apr 22 14:40:34 EDT 2013
Since I've been participating in the ARIN Policy and ARIN Discuss e-mail lists, there have been multiple threads disparaging legacy holders because they were not paying their fair share.
When we received our /24 in 1991, the documented agreement was pretty minimal -- we asked for a class C range and were granted a class C range. The entirety of the paperwork was less than two pages. When ARIN was formed in 1997 (or whatever year), it inherited the existing allocations.
Before the LRSA was created, a membership was the only mechanism through which a legacy resource holder who did not need more resources could support ARIN. Before the LRSA, there was no way I ever found for a legacy resource holder to bring those resources under the ARIN umbrella.
>From my point of view at least, the contractual obligations between ARIN and legacy resource holders is pretty ambiguous. Any attempt to revoke legacy resources or to unilaterally impose fees on legacy resource holders is likely to result in a non-productive legal battle.
The LRSA has been a reasonable mechanism to allow legacy resource holders to voluntarily join the ARIN fold. I haven't seen the adoption rate for quite a while, but last I looked it seemed reasonable.
Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc.
keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Granville Road
Phone: +1 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381
Fax: +1 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Tague
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 1:09 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4?)
Regarding the legacy holders. What is the justification for continuing the
legacy program? Some of our IP space (I think) fits under the legacy
program. When ARIN was organized they seemed to charge more for
registration of new IP than for what you already had: but it was always a
hybrid. We didn't pay anything until we registered new IP (after the
legacy) and then what we paid stayed more or less constant even though we
never got any more IP.
Are there legal limitations in what ARIN can do regarding legacy holders?
You seem to require them to sign agreements and pay something, so are you
Can you send the same graph updated for legacy holders?
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:29 PM
To: Jesse D. Geddis
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net List
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee structure (was Re: IPv6 as justification for
On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:57 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com>
> I will confer with some of the posters off list and work towards a
> consensus. If you could please clarify the aggregate sizes though I
> would appreciate it. It is my understanding that several providers
> hold greater than a /8 in total holdings. I think my question may have
> been poorly worded when I asked about allocations. I should have asked
> about range in total holdings by any single provider.
As requested - please find attached a histogram of total IPv4 ISP address
holdings. These are resources covered by standard RSA; as discussed, we
omitted legacy registrations not under any agreement and legacy resources
under LRSA as it is not apparent that they would be valid to consider in
your proposal for alternative fee structures.
Please let me know if this addresses your question or if any additional
information is needed.
President and CEO
Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 02JqFtnye) is
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-discuss