[ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

[John Thomas]

We just purchased another company that had an outstanding bill with ARIN
for 2 /19's. ARIN said pay the $8000 and you get both /19's or pay
nothing and ARIN would take them all back. 1 /19 was legacy from the
days when IP addresses were free. We would have been quite happy to give
back a /19 if ARIN would have been willing to do something for us
financially. 
I realize that we are a guppy in the big pond though.

John



-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
Stephen Sprunk
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:40 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Alexander, Daniel
Cc: ARIN PPML
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional
Requests

Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>
> 1) Return.  IPv4 runout will cause some organizations to begin the
> process of switching over to IPv6.  As they do this they will no
> longer have need of IPv4 and will be able to start renting/selling it
> or returning it to the RIR. Right now I feel a glaring policy hole is
> there does not seem to be financial incentive to return IPv4 and
> every time it's been suggested (primariarly in conjunction with the
> legacy holders) it's been shouted down - but sooner or later
> people will come to their senses and realize that getting orgs to
> return IPv4 will help to accellerate adoption of IPv6 - because
> even if the returned IPv4 is never used, you can point to "ACME,
> Inc" and state with authority that they have no allocated or
> assigned IPv4 and if they can do IPv6 you can too.

There _is_ policy that allows return; the problem is the fee schedule.
The 
73 orgs that fit in the "X-large" category have absolutely no financial 
incentive to return space because they pay a constant amount until they
get 
down to a /14, which in some cases means as little as 0.8% of their
current 
consumption.  Furthermore, since those orgs don't pay more as they
consume 
more, there's not even a disincentive for them to waste _more_ space.
These 
orgs currently hold 80% of ARIN-managed address space, so the small 
incentives (which do exist) for everyone else are just plain irrelevant
--  
even if smaller players conserve, that just leaves more space for the
big 
guys to waste before exhaustion hits.

If ARIN charged $0.268/yr/IP, just for the 26 /8s that show up as "ARIN"
in 
IANA's list, that'd be enough to cover ARIN's current budget.  Not only 
would that directly link consumption with fees (and thus encourage 
conservation/return), the vast majority of ARIN members would pay less
under 
such a model as well.  Of course, those 73 "X-large" orgs would be
rather 
unhappy, which is why it hasn't been done.

(There's also the lesser issue that end users with direct assignments
pay 
$100/yr regardless of how much space they have, or $0/yr if they're 
legacy-only, so there is absolutely zero incentive for them to return 
anything if they deploy v6 because their fees won't change.  We don't
need 
_another_ flamefest about legacy holders, though, so let's stick to LIRs
for 
the moment.)

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov 


_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Public Policy
Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN
Member Services
Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.