From: Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 1997 9:43 AM

On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Brett L. Hawn wrote:

...

On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, David R. Conrad wrote:

...

...

The way I see it, it is worth no more than $10,000. As that is what ARIN is going to charge any corp to get a Class B.

How much is your time (spent making up and writing the justification for a class B) worth?

I think you miss my point, since the ARIN is for all intents and purposes selling address space, who are they to say no?

But ARIN is *NOT* selling address space. That is not the intent of ARIN nor is it the purpose of ARIN. With that thought in mind, try reading through the material at http://www.arin.net once again.

...

doing, but I certainly can't say anything 'wrong' about it either.

Read RFC2050. It has this statement

7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR.

...

I change all the records to point to them, swip it out to them, basically do everything needed to make them the legitimate 'owners' of that block, they pay me a nice lump of cash and we're both happy.

According to that clause above, you can't SWIP it out to them without lying. Lying is wrong. According to the above clause, the new owner has to meet the same criteria for receiving address space as you do. If they did meet those criteria and if you charge them more than the cost of applying for free address space then you are ripping them off which is wrong.

Internet Service Providers provide a wide variety of services. Among them is loaning the use of IP addresses within the space allocated to them by one of the registries. Some providers are already charging for this service, ostensibly to apply economic forces to the conservation of their allocated space. This practice will certainly increase when ARIN begins charging registration fees. If the owner of the Class B in question allocates the vast bulk (let's say about 100% :-) of the space allocated to them to a single customer, it appears to me that even if this space is inefficiently used (let's say about 0% initially :-), the only recourse the registry has is to withhold future allocations to the "seller". In this case, I believe the seller could care less about that 'penalty', as they would appear to have no need for additional space. What am I missing here? -- Jim Browning