[arin-ppml] maintenance fees for legacy space holders

[Owen DeLong]

>
> Approaching 67000 discrete legacy objects, so that's your
> denominator.  You can do the math: 67k * $10 is $670,000.
> That's 5% of ARIN's 2008 budget.
>
> Would this be fairer?
>
> [J. R. W. >] Yes. I'd go along with that. In fact, not wanting to be  
> a real
> problem, I'd be willing to pay $20 per year. That would be almost  
> 1.3m. I
> only hold a class C /24 and have always asked myself about the class A
> people getting such a good deal but if legacy space was $20 or $25,  
> being a
> small consultant, I'd be much happier and be willing to jump on board.
>
But, to meet ARIN's current budget, everyone would need to go to
$200 per object... ($10 got you to 5% of the budget, so, you need
20 times that to meet the budget)

> We could debate whether that's a fair share, but it would be
> a matter of opinion of "fair."
>
The problem with this theory is that it ends up treating
assignments and allocations the same.  Allocations have
a disproportionately higher impact on ARIN registration
services than do assignments.  Assignments are made,
then enter a maintenance mode.  Allocations, OTOH,
involve SWIPs, RWHOIS, and churn of the way they
are carved, reclaimed, re-carved, etc. into sub-allocations.

> It would mean that those with a single allocation (say, a
> Class A) pay a single low fee, while those with multiple
> CIDR allocations pay several times as much.
>
It would mean that large mega-ISPs would pay a few
object fees while consuming a very large fraction of the
IP address space, often paying less than mid-size
multi-homed enterprises who got many different
blocks over time.  This could lead to substantially
increased use of the recently adopted aggregation
policy, but, that would lead to an increase in fees
if it did.

Owen