On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere <babydr@baby-dragons.com> wrote:
And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation maintenance fee table, would that really be "significant" in the grand scheme of things? S
Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't make enough to cover that
Jim, Not much sympathy for folks crying the blues about the cost of an address assignment that they're going to turn around and announce into the DFZ... http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:17 PM, <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the existant IPv4 pool?
Bill, ARIN has implemented a structure to facilitate IPv4 address transfers should an open market come to exist. Between an address market and the ever more creative use of NAT, it should be possible for IPv4 addressing to continue after free pool depletion as a zero-sum game. Exactly how long is a matter of debate with speculation ranging from months to decades. On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA?
Owen, ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled throughout.
Would it be equally onerous if ARIN simply stopped providing RDNS for you?
Probably not. SMTP is the only major service any more that cares. But that's immaterial; ending RDNS for legacy registrants has been an empty threat from the day the notion was first hatched. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004