Hi Jimmy,
An increased annual fee on transferred addresses would indeed increase the
carrying costs of those addresses.
I suppose this might provide some incentive to return addresses to ARIN, but
I think that it is more likely they would sell them to someone else.
And by definition, if it is an "over" purchase for whatever purpose, the act
will be non-competitive and self-correcting in the long run.
Whether extra addresses are held as a result of overpurchase, implementation
of CGN, lost business, technological change or whatever, the same pressures
will be placed on the holder- the lost opportunity of directing the
otherwise wasted value of the addresses towards more productive purpose.
In addition, the impending transition to IPv6 and the resulting loss in
value of IPv4 addresses provides additional incentive to realize value from
unused address assets.
In any case, rather than impose an overpurchase restriction via the duration
of the justification window, as we do now, I am proposing to limit
overpurchase for every entity to a tiny fraction of the available pool, a
fraction way too small to manipulate the market. I believe that removing the
needs test for most transfers would have a salutary effect on the market for
minimal risk.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Hess
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Mike Burns ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN
run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
On 6/12/13, Brian Jones <[email protected]> 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
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
