[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Revised andforwarded to the Board

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri May 8 15:58:37 EDT 2009

On May 8, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On May 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> Indeed.  Right now, the cost of inefficiency is zero and the  
>>> benefit to fixing it is zero, while the cost of fixing it is  
>>> usually nonzero.  It's not surprising that we've seen the results  
>>> we have.  Attach a monetary value to the resource, though, and the  
>>> entire picture changes.
>> Perhaps, but, there may be unintended consequences of pricing  
>> perfectly
>> valid and efficient usage out of existence in the process.
> There are only two choices in front of us once IPv4 exhaustion hits:
> 1. New entrants can't enter the IPv4 market at all, because there is  
> no supply left.
> 2. New entrants have to pay someone else for enough supply to enter  
> the IPv4 market.
> Yes, #2 means that some new entrants won't be able to afford the  
> cost of entry, and that's bad -- but IMHO it's not as bad as  
> blocking _all_ new entrants.  In fact, some existing players may  
> decide to exit the market because that's more profitable than what  
> they're currently doing with their supply, and that's probably bad  
> too -- but IMHO that's the lesser of the various evils we are forced  
> to choose between.
Perhaps I misunderstood your suggestion.

I thought you were suggesting that ARIN go to an annual cost per IP  
which would in some way increase the cost of holding on to existing  


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list