[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9

[Mury]

With all due respect, especially in light of agreeing with everything else
you said, the BBB is not going to be much help in solving a dispute
for a business that is being jacked around on IP space by an upstream
provider.

I think there should be some consideration on ARIN's part to address some
of these issues, even though I agree with you that their primary concerns
are elsewhere (as you listed).

Mury

On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Sweeting, John wrote:

> 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 ##
> >
> >
> >
> >
>