[ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

John Thomas JThomas at Clarecomputer.com
Thu Aug 16 00:14:54 EDT 2007

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
I realize that we are a guppy in the big pond though.


-----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
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional

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.
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
down to a /14, which in some cases means as little as 0.8% of their
consumption.  Furthermore, since those orgs don't pay more as they
more, there's not even a disincentive for them to waste _more_ space.
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
guys to waste before exhaustion hits.

If ARIN charged $0.268/yr/IP, just for the 26 /8s that show up as "ARIN"
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
such a model as well.  Of course, those 73 "X-large" orgs would be
unhappy, which is why it hasn't been done.

(There's also the lesser issue that end users with direct assignments
$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
_another_ flamefest about legacy holders, though, so let's stick to LIRs
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 

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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list