From: David Conrad <davidc@apnic.net> there will be a cost associated with requesting address space: US $10,000/year for Large ISPs ... US $2,500/year for Small ISPs ...
The category is self-determined by the organization.
Everyone's going to classify themselves as the smallest, then... Such an approach is perhaps not as clean as charging for IP address space directly, but it does seem to be a reasonable compromise given political and theological constraints. ... Note that you should stress charging for registration services as opposed to charing for address space. The latter is a political minefield that will simply muddy the waters. If you vary your charge based on the size of the organization, how do you justify that in terms of what it takes you in internal resources? Surely a registration of a small ISP takes as much time/etc as a large one? I understand your hesitancy about the "charging for addresses" issue, but trying to effectively charge for addresses based on something nebulous like a varying registration fee based on organization size just isn't going to pass the "quack" test. People will see right through it... Heck, I don't mind charging for addresses, they are a limited resource. Use the money to fund IETF work. Noel
there will be a cost associated with requesting address space: US $10,000/year for Large ISPs ... US $2,500/year for Small ISPs ...
The category is self-determined by the organization.
Everyone's going to classify themselves as the smallest, then...
dunno about that - you are talking about rational behaviour vs Pride and Vanity. I'll back P & V any day!
Such an approach is perhaps not as clean as charging for IP address space directly, but it does seem to be a reasonable compromise given political and theological constraints. ... Note that you should stress charging for registration services as opposed to charing for address space. The latter is a political minefield that will simply muddy the waters.
If you vary your charge based on the size of the organization, how do you justify that in terms of what it takes you in internal resources? Surely a registration of a small ISP takes as much time/etc as a large one?
I understand your hesitancy about the "charging for addresses" issue, but trying to effectively charge for addresses based on something nebulous like a varying registration fee based on organization size just isn't going to pass the "quack" test. People will see right through it... Heck, I don't mind charging for addresses, they are a limited resource. Use the money to fund IETF work.
Noel - you are reacting as a rational human being - the ISP world doesn't necessarily act in that way! Geoff
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 15:50:30 -0400 From: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Message-ID: <9509261950.AA04633@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> From: David Conrad <davidc@apnic.net> >> The category is self-determined by the organization. Everyone's going to classify themselves as the smallest, then... Not necessarily, this may actually be quite clever. Apart from gih's vanity, which will tend to cause isp's to push themselves into bigger classes, and jnc's $s, which will tend to push them to smaller ones, there's also the issue of addr allocations - an isp that claims to be "small" can hardly then claim to need a /8 or even /16 or something, now can they? That should mean, that in practice, an ISP can't claim to be smaller than they are and still have available addresses for new clients. Particlarly vane ISP's may still pay the higher amounts, but as no statement has been made that connects the size of the ISP to addr space allocations, there is no obligation to give small ISP's with big egos lots of addresses. Whoever (at RIPE I assume) dreamed up this scheme did a good job. kre
participants (3)
-
Geoff Huston -
jnc＠ginger.lcs.mit.edu -
Robert Elz