[ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:15 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: John Santos; ppml at arin.net
>Subject: RE: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders
>
>
>On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> That sounds perfectly fair to me.  Now, let's talk about how long the
>> latecomers are expected to pay extra.
>
>The latecomer's aren't paying "extra". The price went up, just like the
>price of property rises in the late stages of development.  The first
>people in take the biggest risks, and get the lowest price.
>
>Second, the Legacy holders have an agreement which ARIN doesn't have a
>right to break or modify. ARIN is the custodian of the records, not the
>owner of the records.
>

ONLY for IPv4 records.

>> You see the problem isn't that the latecomers are paying extra.  The
>> problem is that they are paying extra and some of the homesteaders
>> expect the situation to continue FOREVER.
>
>Since there are so few legacy blocks, and since ARIN isn't short of
>money, and since your charges are nominal, this isn't really the problem
>or even _a_ problem, is it? Indeed, your expenses continue to decrease
>as more assignments are made.  ARIN now has a 20+million dollar surplus.
>The maintanance costs on a small number of long established blocks (half
>of which haven't changed in 15 years) is pretty trivial. So, I don't
>think you are really concerned money about here.
>
>> >Likewise, the Internet is here because of the efforts and risks of
>> >Legacy holders.  You don't seem appreciative of that.
>>
>> I would think that getting a free ride for so long is a good
>> expression of appreciation by the community?
>
>It hasn't been a free ride for legacy holders.  The latecomers are the
>ones getting the free ride: using free protocols, free software, and
>free operational experience that the legacy holders developed for them.
>
>As has been said previously, ARIN is the custodian of records for the
>IANA (DoC).  Even the non-legacy

IPv4

> delegations don't belong to ARIN.
>ARIN is just the agent of the IANA. The legacy holders have pre-existing
>agreements with the IANA.

for IPv4.

> ARIN has no standing and no justification to
>interfere with those prior agreements.
>

Incorrect.  If IPv4 becomes a menace on the Internet then ARIN has to
act to assist in removing it.

If IPv4 becomes fragmented and inflates the route table is must be
removed.

IPv4 is ALREADY a block to widespread adoption of IPv6.  If we had no
IPv4 we would all run to adopt IPv6.

Right now I don't thnk the legacy IPv4 holders are the largest part of
the foot-dragging-IPv4 holders out there.  So singling them out right now
may not be merited.  However if they ever become the bulk of the
foot-draggers
then they are going to have to be singled out.

>The true purpose of this proposal is not outreach, nor identification of
>abandoned delegations. Those purposes could be carried out by a
>newsletter, and those purposes are also not unique to Legacy blocks, but
>are relevant to all blocks.  So, when the legitimate purposes are
>completely and better served by alternate means, what does that mean for
>the purpose of this proposal?

It means you must either start employing those alternate means or you
must adopt this proposal.  One or the other.  But you cannot simply sit
on your hands and do nothing.

Ted