On 6/12/13, Brian Jones <bjo...@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 _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
