I don’t see how you can go back and start charging Legacy holders that obtained
their blocks before ARIN was created. You would have to charge big companies
like AT&T & IBM and you would have to somehow charge the Dept. of Defense and
so forth to make it fair to everyone. Seems like that ship sailed long ago.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392.0076 - Fax
[Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse Networks,
Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roberts, Orin
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:59 PM
To: Andrew Bagrin <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation
Upon Reassignment
I see obstacles but increased fees would lead to greater efficiency in IPv4
assignments and usage or at the very least aid in the migration to IPv6.
1. Charging a monthly fee (or higher monthly fee), means increased costs to
end-users for whatever services said company provides.
2. ISP’s with VERY LARGE inventory of IPs would lobby against such a
proposal. A typical ISP would have several /16’s in reservation - capacity
planning.
3. What’s to stop companies from doing what they do now? – Reassign or
Reallocate unused inventory (ie trade and monetize via brokers).
Orin Roberts
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Bagrin
Sent: November-27-17 3:35 PM
To: Austin Murkland
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Andre Dalle
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation
Upon Reassignment
I’d also like to see a $100 monthly fee per IPv4 /24 currently assigned.
I held onto a /16 at a previous company, just because it was cool but had no
use for it. I checked recently and it is still assigned to the same company
and not being used 15 years later.
By adding a $25k monthly fee, they would quickly return the block.
Currently we have to pay brokers or sellers to acquire more IPv4 space. I would
rather pay ARIN which could go to better funding the organization.
From: ARIN-PPML
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On
Behalf Of Austin Murkland
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:26 PM
To: Andre Dalle <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation
Upon Reassignment
Also support this
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Andre Dalle
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
All my IPv4 space is reassigned, and I discovered last year that not all of it
- from the same carrier - is properly associated with us.
Upstream created a POC for us (even though we were an existing customer with
multiple reassignments), and it's been sluggish getting them to
sort it out. We have rDNS, so most abuse reporting still finds us, but some
abuse mechanisms out there rely on POC info.
So I think this is necessary. +100 from here as well.
----
André Dalle
Systems Administrator
National Capital FreeNet [http://www.ncf.ca]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Provo" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "ARIN-PPML List" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 November, 2017 11:01:59
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation
Upon Reassignment
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 06:13:46PM -0500, David Huberman wrote:
> Thank you Scott. As the co-author, I very much recognize this
> proposal text is a ???first draft???. Working with my co-author
> Jason Schiller, and having solicited feedback from the AC, this
> proposal was submitted to solve the general problem. My hope was
> the mechanics would be looked at critically by the community during
> the PDP, and we would work together to improve them.
With my personal hat on I'm very happy to see this getting
to discussion. +100 for intent and I look forward to useful
language suggestions here.
--
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
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.
