[ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Jo Rhett wrote:

> John, I'm a little confused by your math.
> 
> 2000 customers * cost of changing IP addresses equals... $200 per  
> customer if they have to pay an outside consultant to do it for them,  
> usually less than $20 for inside help... Not a big number.
> $40,000 <=> $400,000

Maybe $400,000 is noise to your company.  My company has to think
long and hard before spending $40,000.  Your perspective is seriously
warped.

> 
> Cost of upgrading a single big iron box to have more routing table  
> slots > $100,000
> Multiply by the number of big iron boxes who can't use a default  
> route, say at least 400?

Are you talking about the cost of upgrading all the backbone routers
in the world to handle /25's vs. /22's?  (I forget the size Leroy 
was originally looking for, but it was about 1/8 the minimum 
assignment under the current rules.)

Aren't all these big boxes going to need to be upgraded anyway to
support IPv6?

> 
> The only difference is who is paying for it, and who is gaining value  
> for it.  You want us to pay, so that your business can gain value.

Who is "us"?

> 
> You do the math, and tell me again why I should be paying out of my  
> pocket for your customer.  You very well could have explicit  
> instructions sent to the customers for IP address changes.  You could  
> very well purchase multiple IP ranges from different providers, and  
> thus make the importance of any IP address change negliable.  Or you  
> could pay $49/month to get a second uplink and then qualify for PI  
> space based on multi-homing.

Don't you need to be able to justify a /22 to get the PI multihoming
space?  That was the basis of this whole discussion.

> 
> Every one of those options is trivially cheap and easy to implement.   
> This is why I reject your desire to make our businesses pay hard cash  
> so that your business can avoid building even the most trivial  
> resiliance into your process.

Why does it cost your business any more if Leroy has a /25 that he
is using most of versus if he has a /22 that he doesn't really need?

Are you on about routing table size again, or something else?

> 
> On May 31, 2007, at 4:39 PM, John Santos wrote:
> > It is the 2000 customers who would have to pay the cost.  It may be
> > small for each, but its cumulative, and will certainly generating lots
> > of support calls back to Leroy's company.
> >
> > My company is in a similar situation to Leroy's customers.  We have an
> > external mail filtering service.  Our published MX records point to
> > the service, and they then forward the (filtered for spam, viruses,
> > RBL, etc.) mail to us, so we have had to open up our firewall to SMTP
> > from their specific IP addresses.  We are certainly *not* going to let
> > them manage our firewalls for us, nor are we going to willy-nilly  
> > change
> > our firewall rules on their request without minimally verifying the
> > origin of the request (a support call to them.)  Multiply by several
> > thousand customers.
> >
> > If they were to start changing IP addresses frequently, we would start
> > looking for a new service provider.
> >
> > This is an *extremely* unlevel playing field, since ACME GIANT ASP,
> > INC. (which is many times the size of Leroy's company), could easily
> > justify an allocation, and thus could promise their customers that
> > their IP addresses and firewall rule would never change.
> 
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> senior geek
> 
> Silicon Valley Colocation
> Support Phone: 408-400-0550
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539