[arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers

[Jay Hennigan]

Leo Vegoda wrote:

> On 06/04/2009 1:56, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> My alternative is as follows:
>>
>> 1) ARIN continue to use moral persuasion on the legacy holders who
>> have excessive assignments but are not paying anything to renumber
>> or reduce their utilizations and return blocks.
>>
>> 2) ARIN embark on a project to identify abandoned and stale unused
>> IPv4, and return it to the assignment pool for reassignment.
>>
>> 3) ARIN institute a "bounty" program where someone who identifies
>> and provides supporting paperwork to "prove" a specific IPv4 block
>> is truly abandoned OR is in use ILLEGALLY is given a credit on their
>> yearly bill. (ie: the person here is basically doing the work that ARIN
>> staff
>> would have to do to certify an abandoned block is really abandoned)
>>
>> 4) ARIN modify pricing schedules to more closely bring prices of
>> IPv4 addressing in alignment across ALL allocations - in other words,
>> remove the discount for ISP's with large quantities of IPv4 - and
>> institute a temporary "credit" program to those ISP's who return
>> blocks they are already paying for.
>>
>> Check the current price list - the largest holders pay the least
>> amount of money per IPv4 address.  Big disincentive to returning
>> IPv4.
>>
>> 5) ARIN continue to apply good stewardship to IPv4 from these 4 sources
>> such as combining small blocks to larger aggregates before reassignment.
> 
> These aren't actually proposals, though. They are just statements of intent.
> 
> A proposal would define a decision making process, so that there was a
> mechanism for deciding which of the competing requests for a block of
> address space should receive it. That is unless by "ARIN continue to apply
> good stewardship" you mean it should continue with a first come first served
> process.

Items 1 and 2 aren't formal proposals, but good ideas.

Item 3 is a proposal, which I would almost certainly support depending 
on wording.

Item 4 is a proposal, which I support in principle.  I don't think it 
should be a completely flat rate per address as there is a cost involved 
in the administration per organization and netblock, but it could be 
made more equitable for the "little guys" and would tend to encourage 
those with excess space to return that which isn't needed, especially if 
pricing is tied to each CIDR power-of-2.  Return half of your space for 
slightly less than a 50% reduction in fees.

Item 5 isn't a proposal, but it's more than first come first served. 
The justification on need would still be in place, perhaps with more 
scrutiny.

All in all, I like it.


-- 
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV