[AusNOG] IPv4

Mark Newton newton at atdot.dotat.org
Tue Mar 5 09:13:29 EST 2013

On 05/03/2013, at 7:58 AM, Bevan Slattery <Bevan.Slattery at nextdc.com> wrote:

> It is easy - if the RIR's only have the courage.  Just an idea.
> Modify the "membership" criteria so that:
> (1) $1,000 base membership (or whatever number)
> (2) + an initial US$1 (or similar number) per IPv4 address "IPv4
> membership" cost per allocated IPv4 address (only fair that those that
> BENEFIT from a finite resource all equally share a cost for same)
> (3) Notice goes out in the next 60 days (provides notice that change is
> coming)

Will immediately cause those who have historical address space to cease
their RIR memberships to avoid the fees, if they were members in the first place.

They never got their allocations from RIRs in the first place, and RIRs 
can't take them back.  If they cease membership, they still keep their addresses.

So the legacy /8 holders everyone seems to be railing against would be 
untouched, free to do whatever they want with their addresses, including
selling them, without paying a $24m per annum RIR fee;  and the new entrants
would end up with a $1 per address per annum usage tax.

Every outcome has plusses and minuses, including the one we have right now.

A point that seems to be missed:

The people who claim that addresses are being wasted are implicitly accepting
that the addresses aren't "gone", they're just allocated to someone who is
capable of selling them.

So the only impact of the 2011 run-out was that APNIC ceased to be the go-to
guys for addresses, and the market is used instead.

It's only an historical accident that market mechanisms weren't used in the 
first place (and my observation is that a lot of the proposed solutions look
a lot like market mechanisms now!).  There's no particular reasons why it 
wouldn't or should have always been like it is now, where there's a pool of
addresses in use and another pool of addresses available for expansion if you're
willing to pay for them.

The people who claim that addresses aren't being wasted, just used, _are_ 
implicitly accepting that the addresses are "gone," and are consequently
quite right to urge against getting hot and bothered about the fate of IPv4.

  - mark

More information about the AusNOG mailing list