Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 07:47 PM 7/14/2014, Matthew Petach wrote:
And as long as they're happy with their single upstream connectivity picture, more power to them.
You're assuming that the only way to be multi-homed is to have an ASN. That's not correct. ARIN's fees are discriminatory; a small ISP must pay a much higher percentage of its revenues than a large one for IPs, ASNs, etc. Clever small ISPs find ways to work around that, and it makes them more competitive. --Brett Glass
So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with them anyways cuz u have no ASN? On Monday, July 14, 2014, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
-- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
On Jul 14, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
Interesting use of the word "discriminatory", as it is usually used in the context of having different rates or fees for different categories of people or things... Used as you have, nearly everything (including equipment makers, conference fees, and the local coffee shop) all have "discriminatory" fees. Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform, but do recognize that such uniform fees have a disproportionate impact on smaller service providers. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote:
Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform,
Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger ones. And a much larger share of their revenues as the base fee for being "in the club" to start with.
but do recognize that such uniform fees have a disproportionate impact on smaller service providers.
If they were uniform, they would still have a bit of a disproportionate impact, but less so. If they were on a sliding scale, it might be fair. Remember: Our average profit is $5 per customer per month, and our customer base is limited by population. If I were in this business just for the business, I'd find a more profitable business, but I CARE about my community and accept a smaller return on my investment to help folks get connected. (This doesn't mean that I'm a charity, but it does mean I'll never get the profits or the ROI of a large, urban provider.) It would be nice if what I do was also understood and valued by the Internet community at large. --Brett Glass
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:05:21PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address argument: Annual Fee Max CIDR $/IP $500 /22 0.49 $1000 /20 0.24 $2000 /18 0.12 $4000 /16 0.06 $8000 /14 0.03 $16000 /12 0.02 $32000 > /12 Mastercard! Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume purchases. I note that even LARIAT does this. You charge $60 for 1000Kbps, but $80 for 1500Kbps. Shouldn't that be $90 for 1500Kbps, to ensure everyone pays the same price per Kbps?
It would be nice if what I do was also understood and valued by the Internet community at large.
I don't think human beings in general are wired that way. - Matt -- Politics and religion are just like software and hardware. They all suck, the documentation is provably incorrect, and all the vendors tell lies. -- Andrew Dalgleish, in the Monastery
Matt: Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers! Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little guys, who get disproportionate scrutiny. --Brett Glass At 12:24 AM 7/15/2014, Matt Palmer wrote:
I can't believe that you actually believe that Brett. The reason the cost goes down as the number of IPs goes up is because these blocks are not managed address by address, they are managed as a single entity. ARIN has almost the same amount of labor and management involved whether it is a /24 or a /8. That is why there is economy of scale involved. The bigger block of course costs more because they are trying to get people to use the smallest space possible. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Matt:
Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers! Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little guys, who get >>>disproportionate scrutiny.
--Brett Glass
On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers!
Actually, they're not even discrete numbers, but address blocks (If there were specific costs associated with administration of individual IP addresses, ARIN would have collapsed under the astronomical cost increase of receiving the allocation of 83,076,749,736,557,242,056,487,941,267,521,536 [/12] IPv6 addresses for this region...) Actual cost to administer, i.e. maintain in the database and ARIN systems, invoice each holder, provide reverse DNS, etc. is actually remarkably similar for ARIN regardless of address block size, e.g.whether it is IPv4 /8, /16, /20, /24 or an IPv6 /32 or /48. ARIN has consistently lowered ISP fees over the years (more than four times so far) but it is still worth revisiting, and there is a Fee Structure Review Report that will be forthcoming that looks at very approaches going forward. I will make sure to notify the NANOG community as well, as we want as many voices as possible in the discussion which will take place the latter half of this year. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
If you're an ISP and you can't afford even the highest price per IP on that list, you have bigger problems than how much it costs to bring Netflix traffic to your customers. Matthew Kaufman On 7/15/2014 7:58 AM, Brett Glass wrote:
When was the last time you did an ARIN request for resources for a large or x-large provider? I have reasonably recent (<2 years ago) experience doing requests for XX-Small, X-Small, Small, Large, and X-Large organizations, including 2 organizations that qualified for /24s (the max size for a large organization, one as an additional and one as an initial). I can tell you for certain that the scrutiny on ARIN's part has been very nearly identical in all cases. If anything, I got more scrutiny on some of the bigger requests than any of the smaller ones. Further, ARIN also has economies of scale, because you are paying for registration services, not IP addresses. No matter how much you want to keep trying to ignore that, the reality is that if anything, the bigger organizations are the ones potentially getting overcharged because the records for a /16 cost roughly the same to maintain as the records for a /48. There are some mitigating factors (numbers of SWIPs, frequency of additional requests, quality of request submissions, etc.), but exact cost accounting and billing based on it would be a bigger nightmare that might cost more to administer than is collected under the current system. While I will agree that some of the changes to the ARIN fee structure in the last round were not for the good, I really don't think your argument about price per IP has any merit whatsoever as it is completely divorced from the reality of what you are paying ARIN for. Owen On Jul 15, 2014, at 07:58 , Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 2014, at 23:24 , Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> wrote:
Annual Fee Max CIDR $/IP $500 /40 <0.01 $1000 /36 way<0.01 $2000 /32 way way<0.01 $4000 /28 far <0.01 $8000 /24 way far <0.01 $16000 /20 tremendoulsy <0.01 $32000 > /20 Mastercard!
More importantly, in those cases, you are paying for units of a product. ARIN is a registry, kind of like your local DMV. Have you noticed that if you own more than one vehicle, you don't pay the same amount for those vehicles? Did you know that most DMV's have fleet registration discounts where you pay less per vehicle to register multiple vehicles? In the case of ARIN, you are not buying IP addresses from ARIN. You are paying ARIN for the service of registering the block(s) to you for uniqueness among cooperating entities. So arguing about ARIN fees in terms of cost per IP is absurd. Oh, and I've taken the liberty of correcting the prefix sizes in the above table to reflect the modern internet, rather than the antiquated prefix and pricing data presented before. Owen
participants (7)
-
Brett Glass
-
John Curran
-
Matt Palmer
-
Matthew Kaufman
-
Mike Lyon
-
Naslund, Steve
-
Owen DeLong