[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Recovery Fund

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Mon Nov 24 16:28:07 EST 2008


In a message written on Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 01:13:06PM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > 4.10.2 Recovery of IPv4 Space
> > 
> >        ARIN still believes that organizations should voluntarily
> >        return unused and/or unneeded IP resources to the community.
> >        However, upon implementation of this policy, ARIN will offer
> >        monetary incentives for the return of IPv4 resources to ARIN.
> 
> 
> "return of IPv4 resources to ARIN and relinquishment of any future claims
> to them"

I'll add this to my list of language changes to consider for the next
draft.

> > 4.10.2 Distribution of Recovered Space
> 
> strike this entire section.  ARIN needs to set a fee schedule of the return
> incentives and go by that.  ARIN is not Ebay.

To be sure I understand, you would like ARIN to simply post a listing
of how much a particular size block will cost in terms of recovery
fee based on the price ARIN had to pay to have it returned?

I guess my concern with that is it would seem to me to leave ARIN
without a good mechanism to understand what people are willing to
pay.  Yes, if the price is too low ARIN will "sell out", and if it
is too high there will be "excess inventory".  Those are fairly
crude measures to provide feedback.

> > 4.10.4 Cost Recovery
> 
> Strike this section.  There should be no effort to manage this in such
> a way as to be revenue neutral.  If it is, great.  But, reclamation of
> abandonded IPv4 resources is also costly.  Paying bounties for returned
> IPv4 is likely going to be cheaper than reclamation efforts in many cases.

The idea is that those obtaining resources post run out should shoulder
the costs.  If it is not cost recovery (more or less) then one of two
things is likely to happen:

1 ARIN would eat into its operating reserve to provide addresses at a
  subsidized price.

2 ARIN would make a profit on the reclamation of IPv4 addresses and
  subsequent distribution.

#2 simply raises the costs for all new participants and the money would
go back into ARIN's general fund; and since ARIN already has a nice
general fund that hardly seems necessary.

#1 Eats into the fund, a small amount might be ok, but any sigificant
amount jeopardizes the long term stability of ARIN, which is not good.

So I guess the question to you is, why should ARIN subsidize or maket a
profit on this activity?

And of course, do you like this proposal, and/or do you find it better
than 2008-2 (now defunct) or 2008-6?

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20081124/726aab7a/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list