[ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

Stephen Sprunk stephen at sprunk.org
Wed Aug 15 15:39:30 EDT 2007

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.)


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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list