[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9

Mury mury at goldengate.net
Wed Oct 2 15:36:33 EDT 2002

> Mury, with respect, you seem to indicate that changing ISP's is like
> changing a pair of socks.  If your ISP decides to jack up their IP price
> on you or suddenly start charging $10/mo per IP all you have to do is shop
> around a little and !poof! you are on a new ISP.
> Which planet does this happen on, just curious?

Mike, you do make a good point.  We have went through the renumbering
scheme a few times.  We were and still are basically a small ISP.  We have
purchased bandwidth from numerous Tier I providers and a few
local/regional ISPs.  In the early days we were getting IPs from those
local ISPs and when we renumbered it wasn't the funnest thing to
do.  However, we did make it through it and we renumbered out of multiple
/22's and /21's.  I know that renumbering out of a /24 is not the end of
the world.  Especially because in most cases those IPs are in dynamic IP
pools and in other easily changed areas.  Also it is not difficult to have
your new provider announce your old block for 3-6 months so you can work
through the renumbering at a reasonable pace.

But you are correct that you can't just snap your fingers.

Perhaps it would make sense to allocate /24's to ISPs, being defined as
having the need to further allocate space to customers.  I still don't
think so, but maybe there is a compromise somewhere in there.

> I believe the whole lively discussion regarding /24 allocations stems from
> one basic fact:  small ISP's feel very insecure about the fact that they
> have NO control over what their upstream ISP may decide to do from one
> month to the next, or from one renewal period to the next, regarding
> allocation and charging for IP space.

I know, I have been there.  It was an unpleasant feeling.  For the record
we still do have assigned space in markets where we are expanding in, so
we are still there.  So as one being in the situation I still don't think
ARIN should hand out /24's.

> Upstream ISP's are already charging for, and we small ISP's are already
> happily paying for all the internet and services being provided such as
> bandwidth, routing etc. so the argument that charging an additional amount
> for IP's is somehow justified is very weak at best.  Even $1 per IP per
> year could be considered high by many let alone the astronomical $10 or
> $15 per month that has been talked about on this list.  I can certainly
> understand justifying IP allocations.  But not IP fees, over and above
> what is being paid to ARIN by the upstream ISP in the form of annual dues,
> processing fees etc.

In some cases we have and still do pay extra for IPs.  We shopped around
and took what we thought was the best value with all things
considered.  Customers thinking about buying from us do the same thing.

> Small ISP's need some assurance or price protection against such tactics.
> Maybe ARIN is not the right platform, but ARIN has set a precedent by
> charging for IP's in the first place (directly or indirectly) so ARIN is a
> good starting point for this discussion.  True there are lot of ISP's out
> there, competition is tight etc. but in many markets you have little
> choice who your ISP is going to be, and even less choice in changing ISP's
> as it is costly and time consuming proposition to change ISP's, possibly
> moving all your equipment and renumbering all your networks.

All your points are valid and well spoken.  I still think the downsides
outweigh the benefits for the community as a whole.

But perhaps there is a compromise in there.  I haven't thought it through,
and I don't have the numbers to even start.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list