Instead we're making all our customers renumber into the /18
block we succeeded in finally wrestling away from the internic by
agreeing to returning over an /18's worth of ip address space.
Ah, the "Bill Manning Solution"(tm). Now if we could only get ISPs
like Sprint to play, Bill could get his Nobel Internet Prize. The ISP
you work for should be strongly commended, but I gather it wasn't done
entirely voluntarily...
That said, I don't think every new ISP should get an /18 block. For
example, there are four other ISP's in the community here, and only one
of them would probably even know what the term CIDR meant.
But what is the discriminator? RIPE-NCC and APNIC essentially use
charging (e.g., to get a service provider block in the AP region, we
request US $2500/year minimum). Would this be sufficient in the US to
reduce the number of ISP requests InterNIC is currently experiencing
(and I should note that the request rate has apparently doubled over 6
months)?
And what would InterNIC do with the money?
Regards,
-drc
>Instead we're making all our customers renumber into the /18
>block we succeeded in finally wrestling away from the internic by
>agreeing to returning over an /18's worth of ip address space.
Ah, the "Bill Manning Solution"(tm). Now if we could only get ISPs
like Sprint to play, Bill could get his Nobel Internet Prize. The ISP
you work for should be strongly commended, but I gather it wasn't done
entirely voluntarily...
Well, not entirely. We looked at the situation and decided it was now or
never to get our customers into a multihome-able block. Fortunately,
all of our customers have been more than understanding about why they
need to move, especially with some of Sprint's past connectivity problems.
>
>That said, I don't think every new ISP should get an /18 block. For
>example, there are four other ISP's in the community here, and only one
>of them would probably even know what the term CIDR meant.
But what is the discriminator? RIPE-NCC and APNIC essentially use
charging (e.g., to get a service provider block in the AP region, we
request US $2500/year minimum). Would this be sufficient in the US to
reduce the number of ISP requests InterNIC is currently experiencing
(and I should note that the request rate has apparently doubled over 6
months)?
Setting a high fee would definately keep the "two high school student ISP"
out of the /18 block business. However, I know that some startup ISP's
wouldn't blink twice at $2500 a year, but their technical people can't
even spell BGP.
And what would InterNIC do with the money?
Probably the same it's doing with the millions it's collecting from the
.COM, .ORG, and .NET domain registrations, whatever that is.
-forrestc@imach.com