My apologies to those who do not consider this to be an operational issue, however I feel that service providers who believe ARIN represents a positive step should express their support for the proposal, to ensure that it is not slowed by institutional intervention. Should the allocation of IP addresses become mired in the problems we have seen happen with domain names, it will certainly become a major operational consideration... ---------- I am writing this to express ATMnet's support for ARIN (the American Registry for Internet Numbers) in the strongest possible terms. It is of the utmost importance that the allocation of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses not be jeopardized by the turmoil currently surround the Domain Name System (DNS), and that immediate steps be taken to move in the direction defined in the ARIN proposal. DNS issues are primarily related to factors such as market leverage, and obtaining any particular domain name can be viewed as something of a luxury. IP Addresses, on the other hand, are of operational concern, and timely and appropriate access to this resource is absolutely required for the continued growth of the Internet. Obtaining consensus on any important Internet related topic is excruciatingly difficult in today's environment. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the debates over DNS and IP Addresses. Fortunately, there are stark contrasts between the two issues. The DNS debates are filled with rancor and punctuated by alternative efforts and litigation. While ARIN has been a subject of hot debate, there is nonetheless a rough consensus within the Internet community that establishing a non-profit entity to handle the administration of this vital function is both necessary and appropriate. Old-timers and newcomers have found some common ground. There are of course those who would like to see things taken in a different direction, as there always will be when something of this nature is discussed. There are also issues which still need to be resolved, and a lot of work which needs to be done. ATMnet is confident that the people trying to accomplish these tasks have the necessary skills, ethics and standing in the community to get the job done right. There is "rough consensus". There is "running code" in the form of the people and systems currently performing the function, and the two similar entities (APNIC and RIPE) which are already in operation under similar charters. It is time for ARIN to move forward unfettered by Federal intervention or oversight. When confronted with change and new alternatives, the appropriate direction to take is not always evident. In this case however, it is clear to ATMnet that ARIN deserves all our support simply because it is the right thing to do for the health of a growing and vibrant industry. -- Jim Browning <jfbb@ATMnet.net> CEO, ATMnet <www.ATMnet.net>
This message is in response to Jim Browning's support for ARIN. It doesn't belong on NANOG, but because it originated there I feel I have to address it. Feel free to hit the "D" key now ... While everyone is entitled to their opinion, ARIN is no magic bullet and is the wrong answer for our industry. The supporters of ARIN seem to fall into several categories: a) You have a very small network and have NOTHING to lose if ARIN goes forward, b) You are filty rich and you don't mind paying big chunks of money for something that your tax dollars already support, c) You are a Canadian or Mexican citizen and you are tired of the US Government managing the resources you require to run your business, d) You work for an ISP, but as a technical person you have no idea what all this stuff costs and you really don't care, e) You are trying to suck up to the political structure because you are afraid to really voice your opposition, f) You are vying for a position in the ARIN organization, or g) You really don't understand what this ARIN thing is anyhow. While the ARIN proposal has gotten much better in the past three months, I still assert that there is *nothing* ARIN will give me for my $10,000 per year allocation fee that I don't get right now from the tax dollars I currently pay to support the National Science Foundation. * 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. * It will increase my costs, which will have to be passed along to my customers, which will effect my business. * It will not allow me to increase the size of my current address allocations any faster than the current InterNIC slow start policy allows (slow start has impacted us substantially in some of the school districts we have brought online -- at least Cisco has a product to address this dilemna [the PIX]). * It will not decrease the amount of time it takes to get a new allocation (although this has improved tremendously under Kim Hubbard's leadership). Worse, if ARIN goes forward, my company will be forced to join and support this organization because our very survival will depend upon it. This is equivalent to holding a gun to our head and extorting us to pay the $10,000 (or more) annual fee. Frankly, this whole "pay for" address policy is crazy -- the InterNIC made 60 million dollars PROFIT last year issuing domain names (while funding the assignment of IP address space AT THE SAME TIME). This has to be the biggest money grab in history -- 60 million dollars isn't enough for one monopoly to make? Unbelievable. For the sake of discussion, this is the following fee structure that has been proposed by ARIN (see the ARIN proposal page at http://www.arin.net/arin_proposal.html): Small $2500/year /24 - /19 Medium $5000/year >/19 - /16 Large $10K/year >/16 - /14 X-Large $20K/year >/14 Fees are based on your total allocation for the previous year, plus another $1,000 per year to maintain membership in ARIN. It is safe to say that any ISP able to receive address blocks falls somewhere between Medium and X-Large on this chart. I want to address each of the elements Jim Browning sets forth in his message of support for ARIN: > "It is of the utmost importance that the allocation of > Internet Protocol (IP) addresses not be jeopardized by the > turmoil currently surround the Domain Name System (DNS)" The inference here is that by creating a costly new bureaucracy, all our problems will go away. I see absolutely NO evidence of any legal or procedural mechanism that will prevent turmoil. There is only one IPv4 address space, so the concept of "alternate registries" (aka, like the alternate TLD proposals) has no relevence to address space allocation. Comparing address space to domain name allocation is comparing apples to oranges. > "IP Addresses, on the other hand, are of operational concern, and > timely and appropriate access to this resource is absolutely > required for the continued growth of the Internet." I put an allocation request in last Monday and received my new allocation Thursday. Even if allocation requests could be turned around in one-hour, paying an annual $10K fee is not worth it to speed the process up three days. Think about it. > "Obtaining consensus on any important Internet related topic is > excruciatingly difficult in today's environment. Nowhere is > this more obvious than in the debates over DNS and IP Addresses." There is nothing about ARIN that says we will all be in concensus. If anything, there will be tremendous dischord because we will have hundreds of ISPs voicing their opinions at the semi-annual ARIN meetings. The current NSF sponsored system does not foster this level of turmoil. If anything, ARIN will turn the currently stable IP address policy mechanism into a semi-annual slug fest. Slow start was an important policy to conserve address space and (dispite is short comings) was a necessary at the time. ARIN will not eliminate slow start or any other policy. Having a vote on the ARIN board will not eliminate debate over IP address policy. > "While ARIN has been a subject of hot debate, there is nonetheless > a rough consensus within the Internet community that establishing > a non-profit entity to handle the administration of this vital > function is both necessary and appropriate." There is one -- the same one that has been funded by the NSF since the mid 1980's. Why change something that has worked so well in the past? There are no substantive advantages to ARIN, and it will cost all of us a lot more money. > "There are also issues which still need to be resolved, and a > lot of work which needs to be done." Anyone remember what it was like to register a domain name in 1994? And we want to do that to our IP address allocation mechanism? Start ARIN and then wait for the systems to fall in place? I think that is a recipe for total disaster. It took YEARS for the current InterNIC to get its act together. > "There is "running code" in the form of the people and systems > currently performing the function, and the two similar entities > (APNIC and RIPE) which are already in operation under similar > charters." APNIC and RIPE are not run by governmental entities and must charge for address space in order to exist. They get that address space from the current system that is under control of the NSF. As a US taxpayer, I pay taxes to support the NSF. Because the NSF has alternate sources for its funding, ISPs and their customers do not have to make direct payments for address space. This keeps prices for Internet access low. Starting ARIN will not reduce your US taxes, it will simply add to the cost of doing business. For no additional benefit. Comparing APNIC and RIPE to the current US model is not fair or accurate. > "It is time for ARIN to move forward unfettered by Federal > intervention or oversight." I believe (as a US citizen) that the Internet is strategic to the United States, and control over the address space should remain with the US Government. The US funded the development of the Internet, and there is a substantial portion of the US economy that is riding on top of it. Giving control over this strategic asset to a non-profit organization that is beholden to nobody is foolishness. > "ARIN deserves all our support simply because it is the right > thing to do for the health of a growing and vibrant industry." Charging for IP addresses will raise the cost of an Internet connection. Raising costs will not improve the health of a growing and vibrant industry -- it is anathma to our industry. ARIN is the wrong answer for our industry. As an example, in the radio and television industry, members have fought for years to prevent charges from being assessed against the limited radio spectrum they use. Compare this to ARIN, where we are trying to levy substantial fees against members of our own industry. ARIN is a bad idea. It will continue to be a bad idea because it will always cost more that what we currently have with the NSF, and it will provide no substantive benefit. Slow start is not going away, and ARIN will not quell address policy debates. ARIN will hurt our industry, it will make the Internet more expensive for customers, and it will form yet another elite club. Like I said in January, ARIN is equivalent to throwing your money away. Unfortunately, like it or not, ARIN will probably go forward anyhow. And we will be writing big expensive checks to ARIN to keep our businesses running. I urge people to speak up now if you think ARIN is a bad idea. Lets work together to reduce cost, not increase cost. Dave Stoddard, CEO US Net Incorporated 301-572-5926 dgs@us.net Jim Browning writes:
My apologies to those who do not consider this to be an operational issue, however I feel that service providers who believe ARIN represents a positive step should express their support for the proposal, to ensure that it is not slowed by institutional intervention. Should the allocation of IP addresses become mired in the problems we have seen happen with domain names, it will certainly become a major operational consideration...
---------- I am writing this to express ATMnet's support for ARIN (the American Registry for Internet Numbers) in the strongest possible terms. It is of the utmost importance that the allocation of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses not be jeopardized by the turmoil currently surround the Domain Name System (DNS), and that immediate steps be taken to move in the direction defined in the ARIN proposal. DNS issues are primarily related to factors such as market leverage, and obtaining any particular domain name can be viewed as something of a luxury. IP Addresses, on the other hand, are of operational concern, and timely and appropriate access to this resource is absolutely required for the continued growth of the Internet.
Obtaining consensus on any important Internet related topic is excruciatingly difficult in today's environment. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the debates over DNS and IP Addresses. Fortunately, there are stark contrasts between the two issues.
The DNS debates are filled with rancor and punctuated by alternative efforts and litigation.
While ARIN has been a subject of hot debate, there is nonetheless a rough consensus within the Internet community that establishing a non-profit entity to handle the administration of this vital function is both necessary and appropriate. Old-timers and newcomers have found some common ground. There are of course those who would like to see things taken in a different direction, as there always will be when something of this nature is discussed. There are also issues which still need to be resolved, and a lot of work which needs to be done. ATMnet is confident that the people trying to accomplish these tasks have the necessary skills, ethics and standing in the community to get the job done right.
There is "rough consensus". There is "running code" in the form of the people and systems currently performing the function, and the two similar entities (APNIC and RIPE) which are already in operation under similar charters. It is time for ARIN to move forward unfettered by Federal intervention or oversight.
When confronted with change and new alternatives, the appropriate direction to take is not always evident. In this case however, it is clear to ATMnet that ARIN deserves all our support simply because it is the right thing to do for the health of a growing and vibrant industry. -- Jim Browning <jfbb@ATMnet.net> CEO, ATMnet <www.ATMnet.net>
[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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 So, lets say you have a customer to which you'll be assigning a /22. Presumably you wouldn't eat the costs if they were a significant portion of the income you derive from a customer. Given you indicate you'd fall in to the "Large" category, this would mean you'll be passing along a US $3.41 to $12.80 per month cost increase or less that what you charge for secondarying the customer's domain in the worst case. To be more complete: % of US.NET's Connect costs* monthly "Evil Registry Surcharge" 128K/56K T1 Prefix min max min max min max ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ /32 $0.0033 $0.0125 0.0011% 0.0042% 0.0003% 0.0013% /31 $0.0067 $0.0250 0.0023% 0.0085% 0.0007% 0.0025% /30 $0.01 $0.05 0.0045% 0.0169% 0.0013% 0.0050% /29 $0.02 $0.10 0.0090% 0.0339% 0.0027% 0.0101% /28 $0.05 $0.20 0.0181% 0.0678% 0.0054% 0.0201% /27 $0.10 $0.40 0.0362% 0.1356% 0.0107% 0.0402% /26 $0.21 $0.80 0.0723% 0.2712% 0.0214% 0.0804% /25 $0.42 $1.60 0.1446% 0.5424% 0.0429% 0.1608% /24 $0.85 $3.20 0.2893% 1.0847% 0.0858% 0.3216% /23 $1.70 $6.40 0.5785% 2.1695% 0.1715% 0.6432% /22 $3.41 $12.80 1.1571% 4.3390% 0.3430% 1.2864% /21 $6.82 $25.60 2.3141% 8.6780% 0.6861% 2.5729% /20 $13.65 $51.20 4.6282% 17.3559% 1.3722% 5.1457% (*) connect costs taken from http://www.us.net/prices/serv-business.html Also, while I hesitate to mention it, a possible implication: to avoid the ERS to those nasty registry people, maybe your customers would only ask for the amount of address space they NEED?
* It will not allow me to increase the size of my current address allocations any faster than the current InterNIC slow start policy allows
NOT "InterNIC slow start" -- ALL registries must use slow start and besides, it was originally implemented at RIPE. I will note in passing: in the case of APNIC, the membership voted to change our allocation policy such that it DID directly impact the amount of address space a new ISP obtains. Of course, we still have to abide by the global restrictions of RFC 2050, but the methods by which the registries follow those restrictions are at the descretion of the membership. Presumably this will be the case for ARIN as well.
This is equivalent to holding a gun to our head and extorting us to pay the $10,000 (or more) annual fee.
Does your electric company extort money from you too?
the InterNIC made 60 million dollars PROFIT last year issuing domain names (while funding the assignment of IP address space AT THE SAME TIME). This has to be the biggest money grab in history -- 60 million dollars isn't enough for one monopoly to make? Unbelievable.
You do understand that ARIN is an attempt to make address allocation independent of NSI and under the discretion of the people who need the resource ARIN allocates, right?
The inference here is that by creating a costly new bureaucracy, all our problems will go away. I see absolutely NO evidence of any legal or procedural mechanism that will prevent turmoil.
Please see RIPE-NCC and APNIC. There doesn't appear to be much turmoil in either of those organizations.
There is only one IPv4 address space, so the concept of "alternate registries" (aka, like the alternate TLD proposals) has no relevence to address space allocation. Comparing address space to domain name allocation is comparing apples to oranges.
No. The one thing domain name delegation and address allocation have in common is that they both reply on the Internet community to be implemented. If the eDNS crowd ever get a significant following (e.g., a major service provider takes them seriously), they will be relevant. If an AntiNIC becomes established, it would have exactly the same requirements for relevancy.
I put an allocation request in last Monday and received my new allocation Thursday. Even if allocation requests could be turned around in one-hour, paying an annual $10K fee is not worth it to speed the process up three days. Think about it.
Scenario: NSI loses one of the lawsuits against it. NSI must pay damages, etc. NSI declares bankruptcy. How long will it take you to get your IP address space? Of course, this would never happen.
There is nothing about ARIN that says we will all be in concensus. If anything, there will be tremendous dischord because we will have hundreds of ISPs voicing their opinions at the semi-annual ARIN meetings. The current NSF sponsored system does not foster this level of turmoil. If anything, ARIN will turn the currently stable IP address policy mechanism into a semi-annual slug fest.
I'm surprised you take such a dim view of democracy and such a positive view of (arguably enlightened) autocracy.
There is one -- the same one that has been funded by the NSF since the mid 1980's. Why change something that has worked so well in the past?
The cooperative agreement that created InterNIC (in 1992, not the mid-80's) expires in '98. NSF has (in the past) been uninterested in supporting production services (they are research oriented after all). As such, it is reasonable to assume they'll not be particularly interested in continuing in their oversight of the Americas registry system.
APNIC and RIPE are not run by governmental entities
Neither is the registration portion of InterNIC. Is is operated by a commercial entity under a cooperative agreement with the NSF.
They get that address space from the current system that is under control of the NSF.
No. We get our address space from the IANA, which was funded by DARPA.
Comparing APNIC and RIPE to the current US model is not fair or accurate.
True. Where APNIC and RIPE members have direct input into how their registries are operated, American (and South African) ISPs are subject to the political winds of the US government. Where APNIC and RIPE members control how resources are expended, American (and South African) ISPs must abide by a commercial company's decisions as (theoretically) moderated by the NSF. Where APNIC and RIPE members take responsibility for the administration of the resource on which they depend, American (and South African) ISPs rely on the US government to play mommy.
I believe (as a US citizen) that the Internet is strategic to the United States, and control over the address space should remain with the US Government.
And just how does the US government control the address space now?
Giving control over this strategic asset to a non-profit organization that is beholden to nobody is foolishness.
Please see what 501c6 means. The non-profit organization would be beholden to the industry it supports.
Charging for IP addresses will raise the cost of an Internet connection. Raising costs will not improve the health of a growing and vibrant industry -- it is anathma to our industry.
I'm surprised you, as a businessman, would have this attitude towards government intervention in free trade. Oh, right, as long as it is a subsidy its OK.
Lets work together to reduce cost, not increase cost.
And how would you go about doing this, given you have no input as to how the registry operates? Regards, -drc
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, David R. Conrad wrote:
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). 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
At 11:37 AM 3/29/97 -0600, Aleph One wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, David R. Conrad wrote:
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).
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... 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. Gimme a break. Just my $.02, no flames made nor requested
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
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Randy Bush wrote:
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
Ack! Could we leave this discussion just on the naipr list? PLEASE don't cc nanog on this topic! -- Paul R.D. Lantinga #planting@vfi.com# Systems Administrator, Verifone IC "...'proactive' and 'paradigm', aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?"-The Simpsons
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 On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Aleph One wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Randy Bush wrote:
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
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Matthew Pearson wrote:
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
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Michael Dillon wrote:
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
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Aleph One wrote:
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.
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
At 11:09 AM -0800 3/29/97, Michael Dillon wrote:
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.
Excuse me? EFF? _______________________________________________________________________ Wayne D. Correia Electronic Frontier Foundation tel: +1.415.436.9333 <wayne@eff.org> 1550 Bryant Street, Suite 725 fax: +1.415.436.9993 San Francisco, CA 94103 USA <http://www.eff.org>
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 At 13:39 29 03 97 -0500, you wrote:
At 11:37 AM 3/29/97 -0600, Aleph One wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, David R. Conrad wrote:
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).
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...
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.
Gimme a break.
Just my $.02, no flames made nor requested
Cathy, So, does this mean that our new budget needs to include $20K for ARIN "membership"? --Elise
At 11:37 AM 3/29/97 -0600, Aleph One wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, David R. Conrad wrote:
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).
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...
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.
Gimme a break.
Just my $.02, no flames made nor requested
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Aleph One wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, David R. Conrad wrote:
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
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
<Stuff Deleted>
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.
I am not sure how you can come to thus conclusion. Where do you think the 4000 10 person businesses are getting their connectivity from? I do not see them forming their own connectivity to each other. There is a need for large providers as well, and they need your business. Jonathan
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
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
I agree, there is a need for long-haul providers. But they also don't have to be that big. 20-30 people companies with an annual gross of, say 10 million, would probably do it. All they need is a T3/OC3/OC12 nation wide mesh which is expensive, but not that expensive. Plus peering arangements. Try selling a third T3 to a local ISP with 100 T1 clients and two T3s to larger networks. The local ISP will most likely talk about pricing plus how hop-counts can be reduced for his customers. Pricing being the more important factor at this point. Dirk On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 babylon@mokushi.psybernet.com wrote:
<Stuff Deleted>
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.
I am not sure how you can come to thus conclusion. Where do you think the 4000 10 person businesses are getting their connectivity from? I do not see them forming their own connectivity to each other. There is a need for large providers as well, and they need your business.
Jonathan
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
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
Dirk Harms-Merbitz wrote: I agree, there is a need for long-haul providers. But they also don't have to be that big. 20-30 people companies with an annual gross of, say 10 million, would probably do it. All they need is a T3/OC3/OC12 nation wide mesh which is expensive, but not that expensive. Plus peering arangements. Try selling a third T3 to a local ISP with 100 T1 clients and two T3s to larger networks. The local ISP will most likely talk about pricing plus how hop-counts can be reduced for his customers. Pricing being the more important factor at this point. Dirk Rest of thread deleted... Dirk, You are showing a lack of knowledge about the real costs of long haul networking. Economies of scale do not even begin to come into play until the revenue hits $50 million or so given the need for a network that is not sparsely connected or under provisoned in the backbone. This is the reality. There is a definitive place for the "big boys" as transit aggregators of bandwidth. Without them our collective costs would skyrocket. Mike Gaddis Savvis Communications
Dave,
While the ARIN proposal has gotten much better in the past three months, I still assert that there is *nothing* ARIN will give me for my $10,000 per year allocation fee that I don't get right now from the tax dollars I currently pay to support the National Science Foundation.
Name one allocation policy that you have had a say in. ARIN will give you that opportunity. While you don't have to join ARIN, its members will have the opportunity to influence policy on something that affects your business.
Frankly, this whole "pay for" address policy is crazy -- the InterNIC made 60 million dollars PROFIT last year issuing domain names (while funding the assignment of IP address space AT THE SAME TIME). This has to be the biggest money grab in history -- 60 million dollars isn't enough for one monopoly to make? Unbelievable.
As has been pointed out, your numbers are totally wrong.
There is nothing about ARIN that says we will all be in concensus. If anything, there will be tremendous dischord because we will have hundreds of ISPs voicing their opinions at the semi-annual ARIN meetings. The current NSF sponsored system does not foster this level of turmoil. If anything, ARIN will turn the currently stable IP address policy mechanism into a semi-annual slug fest.
I don't know, I get quite a bit of turmoil everyday :-) At least with ARIN I'll be allocating address space based on what the consensus of ISPs in our region want and need.
Slow start was an important policy to conserve address space and (dispite is short comings) was a necessary at the time. ARIN will not eliminate slow start or any other policy. Having a vote on the ARIN board will not eliminate debate over IP address policy.
No, but there are many changes that could be made to improve the current policies and procedures but without some form of community discussion and consensus they won't happen. It took 18 months to get the current IP allocation policies approved for BCP and they were actually outdated long before that happened.
"While ARIN has been a subject of hot debate, there is nonetheless a rough consensus within the Internet community that establishing a non-profit entity to handle the administration of this vital function is both necessary and appropriate."
There is one -- the same one that has been funded by the NSF since the mid 1980's. Why change something that has worked so well in the past? There are no substantive advantages to ARIN, and it will cost all of us a lot more money.
Because NSF is no longer funding IP allocation. The cooperative agreement between NSF and NSI ends next year, are you saying that NSI should continue administering IP space after the cooperative agreement ends?
APNIC and RIPE are not run by governmental entities and must charge for address space in order to exist. They get that address space from the current system that is under control of the NSF. As a US taxpayer, I pay taxes to support the NSF. Because the NSF has alternate sources for its funding, ISPs and their customers do not have to make direct payments for address space. This keeps prices for Internet access low. Starting ARIN will not reduce your US taxes, it will simply add to the cost of doing business. For no additional benefit. Comparing APNIC and RIPE to the current US model is not fair or accurate.
You do not pay for IP support with your tax dollars, everyone else pays for your IP support with their DNS money.
I believe (as a US citizen) that the Internet is strategic to the United States, and control over the address space should remain with the US Government. The US funded the development of the Internet, and there is a substantial portion of the US economy that is riding on top of it. Giving control over this strategic asset to a non-profit organization that is beholden to nobody is foolishness.
ARIN isn't going to control anything, it's members, along with the IANA will be determining policies and procedures.
Charging for IP addresses will raise the cost of an Internet connection. Raising costs will not improve the health of a growing and vibrant industry -- it is anathma to our industry.
ARIN is the wrong answer for our industry. As an example, in the radio and television industry, members have fought for years to prevent charges from being assessed against the limited radio spectrum they use. Compare this to ARIN, where we are trying to levy substantial fees against members of our own industry. ARIN is a bad idea. It will continue to be a bad idea because it will always cost more that what we currently have with the NSF, and it will provide no substantive benefit. Slow start is not going away, and ARIN will not quell address policy debates. ARIN will hurt our industry, it will make the Internet more expensive for customers, and it will form yet another elite club. Like I said in January, ARIN is equivalent to throwing your money away.
You're right, you will have to pay for a service that has been "free" because the US government decided to stop subsidizing this service. But is it their responsibility to continue subsidizing your business? Kim
participants (15)
-
Aleph One -
babylon＠mokushi.psybernet.com -
David R. Conrad -
David Stoddard -
Dirk Harms-Merbitz -
epg＠corp.home.net -
Jim Browning -
Kim Hubbard -
Matthew Pearson -
Michael Dillon -
mikeg＠savvis.com -
Paul R.D. Lantinga -
randy＠psg.com -
Stephen Sprunk -
Wayne D. Correia