While I admit it is not completely clear reading the proposal outlined on the web page at http://rs.internic.net/arin, charging $2,500 for a /24 will *kill* the small business market, and the ISPs that exist to service that market. Most of the associations and small businesses we deal with choke when thay have to pay $750 for a router to handle their dedicated Internet connection. Added to the fact that the LECs want to charge per minute charges for POTS lines used for dedicated dial-up, a $2,500 IP address charge will guarantee that the small business portion of the market will disappear. We all depend on the net for a living folks -- I don't think we should consider any proposal that would have a negative effect on our own industry. Dave Stoddard US Net Incorporated 301-572-5926 dgs@us.net
If you need to get a /24 from the registry, you need to pay the price. If you just want a /24, get one from your upstream. If they have a /17, the cost per /24 drops down _quite_ a bit; $7500/128 = ~$60 for a one-time fee. Generally speaking, right now you can not get a /24 from the InterNIC and have everyone listen to your advertisment so this really doesn't change that much for the small guy. I think it will, however, cause a good number of people with legacy class Cs allocated a long time ago to renumber into provider assigned space to reduce their costs. I have some big concerns about some of the details; with some things I don't like what I see (there seems to be more behind the ideas than what is being stated; that "hidden agenda" of sorts isn't a bad one, but I think it is hidden and that is bad), others there simply needs to be more details on, however I don't think that the overall plan is as bad as you make it out to be. I think further discussion should really go to the naipr list that Kim mentioned; some of the issues aren't clear, the details aren't finalized yet and there is a potential for a lot of useless bickering. On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, David Stoddard wrote:
While I admit it is not completely clear reading the proposal outlined on the web page at http://rs.internic.net/arin, charging $2,500 for a /24 will *kill* the small business market, and the ISPs that exist to service that market. Most of the associations and small businesses we deal with choke when thay have to pay $750 for a router to handle their dedicated Internet connection. Added to the fact that the LECs want to charge per minute charges for POTS lines used for dedicated dial-up, a $2,500 IP address charge will guarantee that the small business portion of the market will disappear. We all depend on the net for a living folks -- I don't think we should consider any proposal that would have a negative effect on our own industry.
Dave Stoddard US Net Incorporated 301-572-5926 dgs@us.net
There is a VERY serious flaw in this plan. The effective pricing drops with size. Yet the registry is technically required to be stingy in its IP allocations. Can you say "lawsuit"? I knew you could. Imagine if ivory sold large bars and small bars and the small bars were more cost effective. Then they would only sell you a small bar because you wouldn't need the large bar for a few months, thus causing you to pay more. Think about it. David Schwartz
That is why: " The Advisory Council is to act on behalf of the membership on all issues including, but not limited to: ¤ Registry goals ¤ Future funding ¤ Allocation policy guidelines ¤ Training ¤ Nominations for Advisory Council ¤ Database maintenance ¤ Registry procedures " and: "ARIN members will nominate candidates for the the Advisory Council." This allows: "The point has also been made that the management of the IP space should be put in the hands of those that depend on it - the users. Whether those users are ISPs, corporate entities, universities, etc., they should all play a role." BTW, let's move this to the NAIPR list.
There is a VERY serious flaw in this plan.
The effective pricing drops with size. Yet the registry is technically required to be stingy in its IP allocations.
Can you say "lawsuit"? I knew you could.
Imagine if ivory sold large bars and small bars and the small bars were more cost effective. Then they would only sell you a small bar because you wouldn't need the large bar for a few months, thus causing you to pay more.
Think about it.
David Schwartz
David, ISPs in Asia, the Pacific Rim, Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa pay similar fees for allocation services from APNIC or RIPE-NCC and most of these regions are growing faster than the US. Further, small businesses should *NOT* be obtaining addresses from a regional registry directly -- they should be obtaining them from their provider. Regards, -drc ---------
While I admit it is not completely clear reading the proposal outlined on the web page at http://rs.internic.net/arin, charging $2,500 for a /24 will *kill* the small business market, and the ISPs that exist to service that market. Most of the associations and small businesses we deal with choke when thay have to pay $750 for a router to handle their dedicated Internet connection. Added to the fact that the LECs want to charge per minute charges for POTS lines used for dedicated dial-up, a $2,500 IP address charge will guarantee that the small business portion of the market will disappear. We all depend on the net for a living folks -- I don't think we should consider any proposal that would have a negative effect on our own industry.
Dave Stoddard US Net Incorporated 301-572-5926 dgs@us.net
participants (5)
-
Daryn D. Fisher -
David R. Conrad -
David Schwartz -
David Stoddard -
Marc Slemko