[ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses

Jeremy H. Griffith jhg at omsys.com
Sat Oct 6 16:52:45 EDT 2007

On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:23:36 -0400, "William Herrin" 
<arin-contact at dirtside.com> wrote:

>The "Local Internet Registries" do. If you're a SOHO or hobbyist
>customer its not unusual to pay anywhere from $10 to $60 per IP
>address per year for as much as 32+1 static IP addresses.
>Why should a Regional Internet Registry, one step up the food chain,
>not charge the LIR's $1 per IP address per year? Fair's fair, right?
>They charge the end users per-address so why shouldn't ARIN charge
>them the same way?


You're onto something.  All the blather about deadbeat legacy
holders is pure misdirection.  The real issue is with the large
holders, under RSA or not, who have *no* reason to use their
assignments efficiently as long as the incremental cost of new
IPs is zero.  In fact, with v4 exhaustion on the horizon, it's
better for them to remain inefficient to the end of the free
pool, since that will give them breathing room at that point.

This isn't a moral judgement, it's simple economics.  As long
as an organization is profit-making, it *must* act that way,
or face shareholder suits if it acts to protect community
interests instead of its own monetary interests.  That's just
how the system works.

So, to change this, we have to work the system.  And that means,
as this thread has made blindingly clear, making every IP cost
money, per year.  No free rides for the big guys.  The fees
have nothing to do with ARIN's costs, and everything to do
with the public policy needed to keep the Net functional.  So
the fees have to be enough, at the top end, to inspire more
efficient use.

Discounts can be used either way.  Traditionally, larger
purchases earn bigger discounts.  But in California, for
energy (and water) purchase, it's just the opposite.  The
more power we use, the more the rate goes *up*.  This is
policy aimed at conservation and efficiency in action.
For example, this is what I pay for water (plus a basic 
meter fee of about $25/month):

  A unit of water is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.
  Prices per unit are as follows:
  Units         per unit Consumption Charge
  0 - 10        $ 1.95
  11-40         $ 2.55
  41 - 100      $ 3.05
  101 - 200     $ 3.30
  201 plus      $ 3.60

Applying this idea to ARIN, what if we had a basic fee
for any IP addresses of $25/year, which would include
the first 256 addresses (such as a legacy Class C, /24).
Then beyond that:
  /22     $ 0.20
  /20     $ 0.35
  /18     $ 0.50
  /16     $ 0.75
  /14     $ 1.00
  /12     $ 1.50
  /10     $ 2.00
  /8      $ 3.00
  more    $ 5.00
which is *still* at the very top less than *half* what
the LIRs charge at their *lowest* rate for a single 
static IP.  A 100% markup would seem quite sufficient.

This would be fairer *to the community* than the current 
scale, and would certainly promote fast action on IPv6...
especially with the fee waivers already in effect for v6.

Anybody want to draft a formal proposal?  ;-)

--JHG <jhg at omsys.com>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list