[arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml]Counsel statementon Legacy assignments?(fwd)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Barry Dykes
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:55 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml]Counsel 
> statementon Legacy assignments?(fwd)
> 
> One of the things that a flat fee would discourage is IP 
> address aggregation.  Today, most businesses get their IP 
> addresses from their upstream provider (most commonly at no 
> additional cost...).  Partially the no additional cost comes 
> from the fact that the service provider will incur a summary 
> cost increase only if he breaks into another payment tier.
>         However, should there be a flat fee per IP address 
> the incentive to use your upstream IP address allocation 
> would probably go away since the cost would surely be passed 
> on to the customer.  Once this occurs, the customer would do 
> just as well to get their own block from ARIN.  Now that 
> everyone has dis-contiguous IP blocks (even when connected to 
> the same provider), the routing tables increase dramatically 
> in size (no ability to aggregate announcements), every change 
> that occurs is no longer isolated to the providers backbone - 
> but propagates throughout the Internet (so let's all change 
> routing tables constantly).
>         So I'm not really on board with a flat IP cost...  
> There needs to be some incentive to aggregate, and the best 
> incentive is usually economic.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Barry Dykes
> Vice President Engineering/Operations
> ViaWest, Inc.
> Office: 303.407.4708
> Fax: 303.885.4999
> www.viawest.net
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chad Kissinger
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 11:29 AM
> To: Kirk Ismay; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementon Legacy 
> assignments?(fwd)
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem to me that the fee should be based on a per-IP number
> basis.  Why should some company that has many, many times my 
> allocation
> pay less than twice as much as I do per year?
> 
> I think the argument that what you are really paying for is 
> registration
> service is specious.... what am I paying for in a year in 
> which I don't
> require any registration services?  I've been in the ISP business now
> for 14 years and I think I've gone through approximately 5 allocations
> in that time... most years I don't need any registration 
> service at all.
> 
> 
> Why, during those years when I don't need more IP space, is my fee
> higher than someone else who actually did go through a registration
> process in that year... just because my existing blocks are bigger?
> 
> It would seem that existing policy is that you do pay on a 
> per-IP basis
> up to a certain point (/14 in IPv4), and then it's all you can eat.
> 
> I think the policy should be:
> 
> The Yearly cost of maintaining an allocation should equal Arin's total
> annual costs divided by the total number of IP numbers allocated times
> the total number of IPs being used by the member.
> 
> Right now, as your allocations get larger, you have less and 
> less of an
> incentive to worry about whether or not you are wasting IP 
> space.  A per
> IP number fee policy would align the community's interests (i.e.
> conservation of IP space) with the financial interests of the members
> using the space.  Right now IP space is effectively a "commons" and we
> are seeing the "tragedy of the commons".
> 
> 
> Onramp Access
> chad kissinger  |  president  |  onramp access, inc.
> p: 512.322.9200  |  f: 512.476.2878  |  www.onr.com
> your internet operations  |  built  |  deployed  |  managed
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kirk Ismay
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:11 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementon Legacy
> assignments?(fwd)
> 
> 
> >
> > I'd prefer that the communities' energies (and ARIN's) go 
> to promoting
> 
> > IPv6 traction rather than scraping the bottom of the IPv4 barrel,
> > especially when we don't _really_ know what's down there.
> >
> >
> I agree with focusing on the future.
> 
> --
> 
> Sincerely,
> Kirk Ismay
> System Administrator
> 
> --
> Net Idea
> 201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6
> P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512
> 
> Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the
> ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please 
> contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please 
> contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

Barry,

I am sorry. I must have missed the fact that IP resources are for ISP only.
That is why vehicle license plates, gasoline tax, and roadways are for
truckers only.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)