ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah.

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

[note reply-to and cc]

David,

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, ARIN is no magic
bullet and is the wrong answer for our industry.

I don't think anyone is arguing it is a magic bullet. Whether it is
the right or wrong answer would depend, I guess, on your view of the
role of the US government in an international industry.

I still assert that there is *nothing* ARIN will give me
for my $10,000 per year allocation fee

Recently, at the APNIC meeting held in Hong Kong, the APNIC membership
voted to modify the APNIC pricing structure, the procedures by which
APNIC allocates the initial block of address space to new ISPs, and
whether or not APNIC should operate a service that could conceivably
compete with services offered by the membership.

How exactly do _you_ influence how InterNIC operates?

that I don't get right now from
the tax dollars I currently pay to support the National Science
Foundation.

Your tax dollars are NOT funding address allocation.

* It will take money that could have gone to support my network, my
   employees, and my customers, and instead divert that money to
   a yet another bureaucracy.

TANSTAAFL. Somebody has to pay for registry services. Right now,
they are being paid for by the domain name charges. Do you really
want something as critical to your business as address allocations
dependent on NSI given the myriad lawsuits against NSI over domain
issues?

* It will increase my costs, which will have to be passed along to
   my customers, which will effect my business.

Let's look at this a bit (simplifying and not to pick on US.NET, but...):

Size Fee Amt of space Per address per year fee

2

I'am I the only one that finds that the fact that the prices actually
*decrease* the larger the address blocks is disturbing? Not only does it
make entrace into the ISP market more difficult, but it allows the
creation of a highly profitable market for the resale of IP addresses if
you buy then in bulk to beging with (yeah, yeah I know about allocation
policies, but I seen people get large blocks easily).

Aleph One / aleph1@dfw.net
http://underground.org/
KeyID 1024/948FD6B5
Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61 8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01

4

  I'am I the only one that finds that the fact that the prices actually
*decrease* the larger the address blocks is disturbing?

I feel that it is disturbing as well. Since IP addresses are supposed to
come from a non-profit organization all prices should be equal.

You seem to have a model that the IP space is being sold as if it were a
commodity. What is being charged are the services. Please read the ARIN
proposal.

randy

5

> I'am I the only one that finds that the fact that the prices actually
>*decrease* the larger the address blocks is disturbing?

I feel that it is disturbing as well. Since IP addresses are supposed to
come from a non-profit organization all prices should be equal. Why should
US Sprint get a deal (not to single them out.. take any HUGE network
provider) on addresses and then have ARIN stick it to smaller NSPs such as
our own.

It makes no sense...

That's because you are misunderstanding what is happening. ARIN is not
selling IP addresses, If you want the costs to be spread evenly among all
ISP's then you can join ARIN and have a say in doing this but please be
aware that this will likely result in Sprint paying LESS and you paying
MORE. The fact is that in order to be independent of government, ARIN has
to pay its own way. This means that the members of ARIN and the users of
ARIN's services must divide the costs between them somehow. If you have a
better plan that takes into consideration ALL costs then please propose it
on the ARIN list. In fact, since ARIN is a member-run non-profit
organization, it is a certainty that if real costs go down, then fees will
also go down. This is what happened in Europe with RIPE.

Not to mention you will then create 2nd level IP allocation companies. I
could pay the bucks, misfile the paperwork and get a /14 or two and then
resell smaller blocks for less than ARIN's prices to NSPs starving for
address space.

This will not happen unless you lie to ARIN and forge documents to back up
your lies. If this did happen, not only would your criminal behavior be
made public but I would urge the FBI to lay charges against you. If the
FBI would not do this I would urge ISOC and EFF to file a civil suit
against you. I suspect the FTC would also have some interest if you are
selling IP addresses which you do not own since IP addresses are not
things which you buy, they are also not things which you can sell.

I don't understand why so many people want to push these ideas to reductio
ad absurdum. We all rely on a cooperative network in order to support our
businesses. Without a cooperative network there is no industry and we
would all be out of work. Why can you not see that ARIN is just another
form of cooperation in keeping the network running smoothly so that we can
all get on with business. As the network gets bigger there are more and
more activities that it makes sense to carve out and run autonomously.

Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com

6

You seem to have a model that the IP space is being sold as if it were a
commodity. What is being charged are the services. Please read the ARIN
proposal.

You misunderstand. ARIN may not sell IP space as if it where a commodity.
But by making cheaper large IP address blocks than smaller ones is allows
the creation of just such a commodity market at a second level. In anycase
how is a smaller block allocationa a chaper "service" than a smaller one?
They should all cost the same per IP address, or even increaser as the
block gets larger to give an incentive for intelligent use of address
space, aggregation, and things like NAT. Not the other way around.

randy

Aleph One / aleph1@dfw.net
http://underground.org/
KeyID 1024/948FD6B5
Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61 8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01

7

Ack! Could we leave this discussion just on the naipr list? PLEASE don't
cc nanog on this topic!

8

It will take the exact same level of effort for a NIC to assign you a /24
as it does to assign you a /14, provided numbers are available. When you
consider this, the LARGER providers should be screaming about how much THEY
are getting ripped off.

There are patently obvious reasons to charge this way:

1. A large block uses less space in routing tables than hundreds of small
blocks. Slow-start will undoubtedly be changed in favor of a policy that
encourages providers to get a single appropriate-sized network instead of
having to register dozens of non-contiguous blocks over time.

2. Most SMALLER providers will be getting addresses from a larger provider,
and will only have to pay that provider's price for their addresses (plus
profit, of course). Not only is this a good deal for all parties involved,
it also encourages route aggregation.

Remember, ARIN policies and prices will change based on member input. If
you don't believe ARIN will work, then you need to get into the debates and
get what you don't like changed.

Stephen Sprunk

9

This will not happen unless you lie to ARIN and forge documents to back up
your lies. If this did happen, not only would your criminal behavior be
made public but I would urge the FBI to lay charges against you. If the
FBI would not do this I would urge ISOC and EFF to file a civil suit
against you. I suspect the FTC would also have some interest if you are
selling IP addresses which you do not own since IP addresses are not
things which you buy, they are also not things which you can sell.

Michael I know you are a bright guy. I've run into you in enough mailing
lists. You are making some big assumtions here:

a) That the offending company will be in the US.
b) That people wont lie to ARIN (people are lying InterNIC now, surely
   they will lie to ARIN).
c) That I (we?) dont like the ARIN proposal.

   I for one like the idea of ARIN. It's the pricing structure that is
compleatly wrong. The structure will create a market for companies to
"lease" large quantities for address space from ARIN, and then "sublease"
them cheaper than ARIN it self. You may claim you can not sell address
space but we have all seen it happen.

   As a capitalist you must also know that if you leave the oporunity for
such a market to exists even if ARIN does not intended to happen that way,
it will appear. You cannot control market forces. Where there is an
opportunity there will always be someone to exploit it. Not me, not you,
but someone.

I don't understand why so many people want to push these ideas to reductio
ad absurdum. We all rely on a cooperative network in order to support our
businesses. Without a cooperative network there is no industry and we
would all be out of work. Why can you not see that ARIN is just another
form of cooperation in keeping the network running smoothly so that we can
all get on with business. As the network gets bigger there are more and
more activities that it makes sense to carve out and run autonomously.

   To reiterate: I'am all for ARIN, but their pricing structure is
upside-down.

Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com

Aleph One / aleph1@dfw.net
http://underground.org/
KeyID 1024/948FD6B5
Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61 8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01

10

I'm not claiming that ARIN is perfect and that it will instantly solve all
problems. But I do believe that it will be far more responsive to the
industry than the Internic could be. And if enough ISP's join ARIN and
come up with a better funding/pricing scheme then I believe it *CAN*
be implemented. The fundamental feature of ARIN is that it will be
responsive to the needs of those organizations who use IP address space.
It's just a first step in the right direction, not the ultimate goal.

Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com

11

how is a smaller block allocationa a chaper "service" than a smaller one?

We have all been here before many times. Please read the archives.

randy

12

> Size Fee Amt of space Per address per year fee
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Small $2500/year /24 - /19 $9.77 - $0.31
> Medium $5000/year >/19 - /16 $0.61 - $0.08
> Large $10K/year >/16 - /14 $0.15 - $0.04
> X-Large $20K/year >/14 $0.08 -> $0.00

   I'am I the only one that finds that the fact that the prices actually
*decrease* the larger the address blocks is disturbing? Not only does it
make entrace into the ISP market more difficult, but it allows the
creation of a highly profitable market for the resale of IP addresses if
you buy then in bulk to beging with (yeah, yeah I know about allocation
policies, but I seen people get large blocks easily).

Yup, I noticed that too.

Of course, according to every network CFO's spreadsheets, the real
Internet money at the moment is in co-location and T1 connections for
businesses.

The nightmare scenario for UUnet, MCI, Sprint and so on is easy to
imagine. What if small local providers got that business? Unlike almost
any other business, smaller ISPs have *less* costs per user. Larger
routers are *more* expensive per port then smaller routers. What if people
used PCs running Linux instead of Cisco/Bay routers? Economy of scale in
reverse.

Could we have 4000 10 people companies provide Internet connectivity to
the majority of US business within a couple of years? At $80-200/month for
a T1? This is what "they" are trying to avoid/slow down.

Seems that the Internet turns some things on its head. Like the need to
have large corporations for providing large scale Internet services.
According to Boardwatch magazine, about 4000 2-10 people ISPs are
providing Internet services to the majority of the US. ATT, Sprint and so
on can't make money at it but it sure is a great way for a technical
person to make $100K/year from with a T1 in a living room.

Dirk

13

Precisly. If the goal is to use a financial incentive to make IP
allocation more efficent, then the price per address should go up with the
number of addresses allocated at one time.

Dirk

14

Excuse me? EFF?