[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)

[Jimmy Hess]

On 6/12/13, Brian Jones <bjones at vt.edu> wrote:
> Hi Mike,

There could be a risk of overpurchasing,  but I would suggest there is
a disincentive for doing so:  the cost paid for the resource,  AND,
the revenue that could be derived by correcting the overpurchase
(transferring away the overpurchased portion).

Another possibility, one could imagine is,  ARIN establishing a
"variable fee schedule"  that differentiates  transferred resources
from  "free pool resources".

Due to the additional costs incurred in managing transferred
resources,  it is conceivable that
transferred resources  could be assessed additional  variable annual
fees as a cost   per /24.

With a graduated pricing schedule.       Then organizations that were
holding an excessive number,  would be incentivized to  reduce their
overpurchase,  by returning resources.


Perhaps  it would make sense in that case to allow transfer recipients
to _choose_  between  "immediate justified need"  for the entire
allocation or   "higher annual cost per IP address".


[snip]
> It still seems that inefficient use of address space could occur when a
> bidder buys much larger blocks than needed due to the lack of any
> structured needs requirements. At a minimum a block of addresses could sit
> idle and unused while needs exists elsewhere. But really IPv6 should be the
> best solution for those needing addresses moving forward any way... :)


> Brian
--
-JH