[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9

[Sweeting, John]

I would suggest that this is a situation better served by the local Better
Business Bureau. ARIN has no power over the business practices of their
members, only over the way they justify and use IP addresses on the public
internet. ARIN's scope should remain limited to its stated responsibilities
"....ARIN promotes the conservation of IP address space, maintains
impartiality while determining the size of address blocks to be allocated or
assigned, and supports efforts to keep the global routing tables to a
manageable size to ensure information can be routed over the Internet.
Continued operation of the Internet depends, in part, upon the conservation
and efficient use of IP address space." The policies that are in place today
have been developed over the last 5 years by the members and general public
and not by the entity "ARIN". ARIN staff only enforces the policies that
have evolved. I agree that the issues listed below are real and need to be
dealt with but I do not think they can be solved just by giving /24's out to
anyone that asks for one. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Beran [mailto:beran at beranpeter.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:59 PM
To: Trevor Paquette; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9


I think this Policy Proposal is a great one and would like to see it passed
at the end of the month.

Trevor Paquette wrote:

>Isn't this virtually the same thing as 2002-3???
>
>(The difference is that 2002-9 does not require multi-homing).

Well you answered your own questions. It is NOT the same as 2002-3 because
it does NOT require mulit-homing.

>*** Again I ask.. ARIN moved away from giving /24s to
>*** individual companies years ago, and decided to let
>*** the upstream ISPs handle it. There must have been
>*** a reason for this. Does anyone know why? Were the
>*** reasons recorded?

I do not know the reasons for this. However I do know that many of these
ISPs are:
1) difficult to deal with
2) Merging, going out of business, etc.
3) Changing policy's often
4) Charging for IP numbers at high prices which now has become a trend
5) The only companies they do charge this to are companies that don't
qualify for /20 address space... sticking it to the little guy!

>I'd hate to see this motion pass, only to repeat
>history again and move back to where we are now.

I disagree completely. I'd like to see this motion pass. Share the /24
responsibility with the ISP's. It will add some work for ARIN but it will
also provide better control and will likely result in many /20 trade-ins. It
will also help keep prices in check for ip address space below /20 sizes
when customers have a choice.

>As for people complaining about their ISP charging for
>IP space; either:
>1) Find a different ISP (Capitalism at it's finest..)
>2) Use it as a bargaining tool to get your monthly
>fees reduced. (I'm paying $X a month in IP fees..
>I want my monthly fees reduced by $X as well. EVERYTHING is negotiable.)

Well, It's an overall trend. The ISP's know that companies are stuck and
cannot qualify for a /20 so they end up taking advantage of this.
Geographic location often has an impact of availability of providers. Also
trying to negotiate with a provider when you are a small company is not as
easy as a larger business opportunity where you have the ability to go and
register your own /20. The smaller ISP's are often held hostage by the
bigger ones asking for a per $ per month for any IP given to their
customers.

Just my .02


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Member Services
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:20 AM
> To: arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9
>
>
>
> A copy of a message sent to the ARIN public policy mailing list
> on September 30, 2002, is provided at the bottom of this message.
> The author intended this message to become a new policy proposal.
>
> ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy
> proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting
> in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback
> received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be
> included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming
> Public Policy Meeting.
>
> This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public
> Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net).  Subscription information is
> available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html
>
> Richard Jimmerson
> Director of Operations
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
> ### * ###
>
> Policy Proposal 2002-9: To Allow Micro-Assignments for End-user
> Organizations
>
> Specific language to be adopted:
> Keep all the current IPV4 End-user Assignments language
> except to change
> in third paragraph change /20 to /24:
> The new paragraph will read:
> The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /24. If
> assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should
> contact their
> upstream provider.
>
> Arguments for the Proposal and General Discussion of the Issue:
> I started a company in 1991 and was able to obtain a Class C license.
> Our company did well and grew to more than a hundred
> employees. I left the
> company last year and started a new company. My old company still has
> the class C that I registered. (/24)
> My new company is growing but does not support the use of a
> /20 address
> space. My ISP is charging me for every ip address I use. I never paid
> for ip address in the past and do not feel good about it now.
> We should have a policy in place that supports small
> businesses and does
> not promote ripping off the small business's by the letting the large
> ISP's charge for each IP used.
>
> Proposed Timetable for Implementation:
> To be voted October 30th for immediate implementation.
>
> ## END ##
>
>
>
>