With there being a fee structure coming into place for obtaining address space, businesses are going to end up being more conservative with their space requests. Maybe. I suspect many will. If you expect to assign a /17 worth of space over the next year, why ask for all /17 of it now. Why not get a /19 each quarter as needed. With the fee structure in place, there would be less panic about space becoming too scarce. Now if this does take place, and I believe it will although I am not sure to what scale, that will mean that each business and ISP will have more smaller prefixes. That means more BGP announcements and larger tables and an impact on routers. Thoughts? -- Phil Howard | w4x4y7z4@lame0ads.org stop7it6@no15ads1.edu no7way47@spam6mer.com phil | stop7ads@noplace9.net crash317@nowhere4.com no42ads2@noplace7.edu at | end0it76@spammer8.edu blow9me4@s9p4a3m3.com end0it61@noplace0.edu milepost | eat56me7@spammer8.org stop8944@no2where.com die3spam@noplace4.net dot | stop5ads@lame7ads.net suck1it0@anyplace.net w8x9y7z9@s4p0a5m4.org com | die4spam@dumbads4.com end2ads1@nowhere2.edu ads7suck@anywhere.edu
Phil Howard supposedly said:
With there being a fee structure coming into place for obtaining address space, businesses are going to end up being more conservative with their space requests. Maybe. I suspect many will. If you expect to assign a /17 worth of space over the next year, why ask for all /17 of it now. Why not get a /19 each quarter as needed. With the fee structure in place, there would be less panic about space becoming too scarce.
Now if this does take place, and I believe it will although I am not sure to what scale, that will mean that each business and ISP will have more smaller prefixes. That means more BGP announcements and larger tables and an impact on routers.
Thoughts?
This assumes that ARIN won't be giving you /19 out of a reserved /17 (or /16) and then giving you the other half of the /18, then the other half of the /17, etc, so all you need to do is change your prefix length not the number of announcements. Also your plan doesn't work so well, since ARIN will be charging you a member ship fee based on your expected *yearly* allocation. ---> Phil
Think of what happened way back when, when InterNIC began to charge for domain names. I for one was outraged at first, and then calmed down and learned to "bite the bullet", as did many others... However, looking at the high fees imposed by ARIN for address assignment, I really hope this practice will not remain in its current form. As anyone can clearly see, the fees are extremely high, and will surely cause a raise in costs that are incurred by the end user in one way or another. Put simply, I would LOVE to hear some justification for the high fees imposed by ARIN (in terms of administrative work on their end that is, not considering the whole scarcity of addresses factor). I sure hope millions of net users worldwide will not be driven to colocate their equipment abroad, or circumvent IP addresses by doing firewalling/port forwarding, or something wacky of the sort! :) -=asr On Tue, 23 Dec 1997, Phil Howard wrote:
With there being a fee structure coming into place for obtaining address space, businesses are going to end up being more conservative with their space requests. Maybe. I suspect many will. If you expect to assign a /17 worth of space over the next year, why ask for all /17 of it now. Why not get a /19 each quarter as needed. With the fee structure in place, there would be less panic about space becoming too scarce.
Now if this does take place, and I believe it will although I am not sure to what scale, that will mean that each business and ISP will have more smaller prefixes. That means more BGP announcements and larger tables and an impact on routers.
Thoughts?
-- Phil Howard | w4x4y7z4@lame0ads.org stop7it6@no15ads1.edu no7way47@spam6mer.com phil | stop7ads@noplace9.net crash317@nowhere4.com no42ads2@noplace7.edu at | end0it76@spammer8.edu blow9me4@s9p4a3m3.com end0it61@noplace0.edu milepost | eat56me7@spammer8.org stop8944@no2where.com die3spam@noplace4.net dot | stop5ads@lame7ads.net suck1it0@anyplace.net w8x9y7z9@s4p0a5m4.org com | die4spam@dumbads4.com end2ads1@nowhere2.edu ads7suck@anywhere.edu
At 8:29 PM -0500 12/23/97, Adam Rothschild wrote:
Think of what happened way back when, when InterNIC began to charge for domain names. I for one was outraged at first, and then calmed down and learned to "bite the bullet", as did many others...
Way back when? I still think that's recent history... Anyway, it didn't do anything to reduce the number of domain requests. Like 800 numbers, I think the price will continue to go up. Then after IPv6 is finally deployed, (if it doesn't get too complicated and fail like certain other good, but unmanagebly complex technologies).... Someday the price will come down. For now, companies that have to have it, *have* to have it. They will pay whatever it takes, and charge more for their products.
However, looking at the high fees imposed by ARIN for address assignment, I really hope this practice will not remain in its current form. As anyone can clearly see, the fees are extremely high, and will surely cause a raise in costs that are incurred by the end user in one way or another.
Put simply, I would LOVE to hear some justification for the high fees imposed by ARIN (in terms of administrative work on their end that is, not considering the whole scarcity of addresses factor).
Justification? Well, there's the porche, the boat, the lear jet. Maintenance is expensive... And people will pay the price for address space. Its a scarce resource. Its no longer a government run operation. Now you can empathize a little when government workers are forced into the business market. ;-0 --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997, Adam Rothschild wrote:
Think of what happened way back when, when InterNIC began to charge for domain names. I for one was outraged at first, and then calmed down and learned to "bite the bullet", as did many others...
In retrospect, I believe Internic's decision to control the flood of domain registrations has turned out to be a positive one. Charging for address space, on the other hand, is a seperate issue. Domain name registration is something that, as many are sure to agree, was being abused. Address space tends to require a more formal request, including justification, and (the discussion of GE's 3.0.0.0/8 and 4.0.0.0/8's aquisitions aside), I feel those delegating address space try their best to insure delegations aren't abused. I'm confident others have had their address space providers demand CIDR be well implemented before they receive any address space. Address space is, IMO, something that shouldn't be charged for, but should instead have procedures in place to insure those requiring additional space do, in fact, require it. Cheers, -Chris Portman Chris Portman ================================================= chris@unix.org Senior Systems Operations and Security iSTAR Internet Inc. (613) 788-7767 Ottawa, ON, CA
participants (5)
-
Adam Rothschild -
Chris Portman -
Dean Anderson -
Phil Howard -
Philip J. Nesser II