Suggested modification to the ARIN IP Allocation Fee Policy

[John Fraizer - EnterZone]

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
tangible penalty. 



I suggest the following:

In this example, Joe has a legacy /16.  He actually only has a need for an
/18.

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
to ARIN.

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


---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc