[ppml] In$entive$

[Tony Hain]

At that point, it is not up to ARIN because they have already handed out
everything they can. Asserting that addresses are not tradable property only
works as long as people are willing to listen to someone with an
alternative. Once the RIR's can't offer an alternative source of addresses,
the market will establish the price and the little guys will be forced out. 

 

Tony

 

From: heh heh [mailto:dudepron at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:52 PM
To: alh-ietf at tndh.net
Cc: Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] In$entive$

 

Isn't this establish/forcing routing policy in a indirect way?  I can't
afford IPv4 so I have to use IPv6. I don't believe that ARIN would want to
set this precedent. 

Aaron

On 3/22/07, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:

While Leo's pricing model may not have any impact on the consumption rate
(because we are likely to run out before the price gets high enough), his
overall model of escalating prices is probably right as the commercial trade

in addresses takes hold. If that price escalation is going to drive small
providers out of business, that will happen despite whatever ARIN does.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:05 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] In$entive$
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto: ppml-bounces at arin.net
<mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net> ] On Behalf
> Of
> Leo Bicknell
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:31 PM
> >To: ppml at arin.net
> >Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ 
> >
> >
> >I'm going to start a thread with an offshoot idea, although it's not
> strictly a policy matter.  People keep >talking about incenting people
> to move to IPv6.  What if ARIN were to implement a new fee 
> >schedule:
> >
> >Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses
> >2007 Existing rates.
> >2008 2 * 2007 Rates
> >2009 4 * 2007 Rates
> >2010 8 * 2007 Rates
> >2011 16 * 2007 Rates 
> >2012 32 * 2007 Rates
> >2013 32 * 2007 Rates
> >2014 32 * 2007 Rates
> >2015 32 * 2007 Rates
> >etc
> >
> >Per http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html, someone with a
> single /19 would go from $2,250 a year in >2007 to $72,000 in 2012.
> >It's predictable so you can show management, there is a sense of 
> urgency, and it doesn't happen overnight to >create a run on IPv6
> addresses.  It also provides proportional incentive to the largest and
> smallest IP's.
> >
> >As an alternative, so as not to punish existing address space holders 
> this could be applied to initial >allocations only.
> >
> >I suspect, "hey boss, our IPv4 space is going to cost us 32x in 6
> years, and we can get IPv6 space for free" >would be a powerful 
> motivator.
>
> Meanwhile, every single small business service provider goes out of
> business because their IPv4 space costs just escalated to absurd
> levels.
>
>
> I hope you note that costs for IP addresses are already 
> disproportionate
> to the number of IPs you are allocated.  A /20 costs 55 cents per IP
> address.  A /13 costs 1.71 cents per IP address.  A /8 costs .053 cents
> per IP address.  Put another way, a small service provider is already 
> paying 100 times more per IP address than monster enterprise service
> provider with a /8 worth of IPs allocated to them.  After your proposed
> cost increases, small business provider with a /20 will be paying 
> $17.60
> per IP address, per year and monster enterprise provider will be paying
> $.169 per IP address.
>
> The last thing I need to worry about is ARIN jacking up my rates to
> $17.60 per IP address.   That would be a veritable death sentence for 
> my
> company.
>
> -Jay Sudowski
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> ( PPML at arin.net <mailto:PPML at arin.net> ).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

_______________________________________________ 
This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
(PPML at arin.net).
Manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070322/99c000b8/attachment.htm>