[ppml] Re: 2005-1:Multi-national Business Enablement

*-----Original Message-----
*From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen at unfix.org]
*Sent: 4 mai 2005 04:39
*To: Howard, W. Lee
*Cc: ppml at arin.net
*Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: 2005-1:Multi-national Business Enablement
*
*
*On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 18:06 -0400, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
*> > Behalf Of Jeroen Massar
*<SNIP>
*> > The real problem you seem to be having is that you do not 
*> > want to give address space to endusers. Because then you 
*> > can't have a 'business case' and letting them pay for more 
*addresses.
*> 
*> Why do you assume this motive?  
*
*Because that is the current business case of many ISP's ?
*And they earn money with this? There are only few customers ISP's who
*actually give out multiple IP's to end users.
*
*1 IP address for 'home users', multiple for 'business 
*accounts', for the
*latter you pay a lot more. Thus if you want to have multiple 
*PC's online
*with IPv4 addresses you end up doing either NAT, going to a 
*friendly ISP
*or getting yourself a very expensive business type account.

There are many differences between a "business account" and a "home user"
account; number of IP addresses is just one. Normally "home users" can
obtain 
additional IP addresses for a small administrative fee but if they want
additional services normally reserved for a "business account" then they
sign up for a "business account". 

*
*Funny that ISP's claim they can't assign more IP addresses to endusers
*because "there is a shortage", while they can simply request them from
*their local RIR.

I have never heard that reason but do not doubt that it is used; it is 
just not valid though.

*
*Note the above is for IPv4 and I sincerely hope that ISP's 
*don't do this
*for IPv6 and nicely give endusers a /48 routed towards the endpoint of
*that enduser, including reverse dns delegation if that user asks for it
*of course.
*
*If ISP's don't do this, then we can stick to IPv4 and NAT just as well
*and not even bother with IPv6.

There are other benefits to IPv6 than just more address space.

*
*(I am btw glad to know a friendly ISP ;)
*
*> > RIRs exist in those regions to be able to help out their 
*> > local members better. Never realized that it is easier for 
*> > Japanese/Korean/Chinese organizations to be able to talk in 
*> > their own tongue to their RIR, or do you want everything to 
*> > be 'owned & regulated by the US', if you want that, please 
*> > sign up with the ITU, they want that too.
*> 
*> I think Dr. Zhao would disagree with you.
*> 
*http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-*wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.doc
*> I believe the NIRs in Japan, Korea and China operate in the local
*> languages.
*
*That is exactly what I meant with the above. I should have added a
*colon/newline behind the "to their RIR" part to separate the sentence
*apparently. As for the ITU part, read between the lines of the 
*following
*presentations: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/ngn/200505/program.html
*IETF = open free end-2-end connectivity, ITU = regulate+charge 
*for every
*single application, and it seems they want to bring this weird idea to
*the internet unfortunately...
*
*Greets,
* Jeroen
*
*