[ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses

Howard, W. Lee Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Sat Oct 6 18:58:30 EDT 2007

> >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?

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

> 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.

The large holders who are active have to show efficient 
utilization, which means assignment to customers, in order to get
more space.  If they don't (and I speak from experience), they
don't get more address space, which means they stop turning up
new customers.

> 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.  
> the fees have to be enough, at the top end, 
> to inspire more efficient use.

Is it just me, or does it seems like everybody wants to raise
fees on somebody else?

I'm not convinced that this particular stick would have
the intended effect.

> The fees have nothing to do with ARIN's costs, and everything 
> to do with the public policy needed to keep the Net 
> functional. 

The fees were set by figuring out roughly what ARIN's budget
needed to be, and setting up some simple tiers to meet those

> 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.

Interesting idea.  
>From what I've seen, assignments to organizations (with 
dedicated service) are included with the service.  Does that
make any difference?

> 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?  ;-)

This would go through the Suggestion Process, not the Public
Policy Process.  https://app.arin.net/suggestion/


> --JHG <jhg at omsys.com>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list