Suggested modification to the ARIN IP Allocation Fee Policy
John Fraizer - EnterZone
arin at Overkill.EnterZone.Net
Thu May 10 22:18:40 EDT 2001
As we are all well aware of, there are many organizations who received
very large address space allocations from IANA way back when who are only
using a fraction of this address space. So, why don't these people return
this address space and simply apply to ARIN for a more suitable
allocation? Because it is not the financially sound thing to do.
They don't have to pay for their legacy /16. Why would they want to move
down to a /17 and PAY annually for it?
So, what we're faced with is the problem of their being no true tangible
incentive for returning unused/unneeded legacy address space and a VERY
I suggest the following:
In this example, Joe has a legacy /16. He actually only has a need for an
Joe contacts ARIN, tells them that he feels guilty for hogging address
space and tells them that he only needs an /18. THEY TAKE HIS WORD FOR
IT. (He doesn't have to return the /16 AT ALL. Why should he have
to justify keeping an /18 of it?)
ARIN gives Joe his new /18 numbers. Joe renumbers. Joe returns the /16
ARIN notes that Joe, out of the goodness of his heart, returned a /16.
This notation should be in the form of:
Joe receives an annual credit of UP to a /16.
This means, Joe shouldn't be billed for address space of up to a /16. He
didn't have to return the /16 he already had and to bill him for address
space (up to his original allocation) is a slap in the face.
Joe's new /18 (or whatever allocation he deems he REALLY needs at the
beginning of this process) is the only allocation that he doesn't have to
provide justification documentation to ARIN for. If 6 months down the
road, Joe needs another /18, and can show valid use of his existing /18,
blah blah, he gets it -- no bill.
Comments welcome. Direct flames to /dev/null
More information about the ARIN-PPML