[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications

Daniel Senie dts at senie.com
Wed Mar 7 18:56:21 EST 2007

At 06:37 PM 3/7/2007, Randy Bush wrote:

> > Yes, I'd wager everyone on this list has been clear on that for
> > sometime.
>hmmm.  then why are fees proportional to the amound of resources
>one holds?

And why are they different for ISPs vs end users for the same size 
blocks? The reasoning I've heard is that ISPs are expected to be 
doing more with SWIPs and thus generate expense, but is this really 
reasonable or fair? As a member with a /22 and a handful of SWIPs 
that rarely change and no expectation of adding or removing any 
(after all, SWIPs for /32's aren't done), what expense structure am I 
really incurring on ARIN?

>suggest looking at ripe fee model, now being considered in apnic,
>where resources are 'aged' for the purpose of fee calculation, on
>the assumptions that
>   o fees are for service not rental of resource, and
>   o service cost declines the longer you hold the resource

Indeed. I'd argue that the present fee structure at ARIN is 
problematic for smaller companies, especially smaller ISPs (since 
multihomed end users don't pay based on their address space size). 
Perhaps a base fee and a fee per event that generates a drain on 
resources (SWIP, support, etc.) would be more reasonable?

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list