[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9
John M. Brown
john at chagres.net
Wed Oct 2 16:14:36 EDT 2002
Mike, I think that most of the conversations here
have been about non-ISP users of IP space being charged
for IP space by their ISP. It seems people think that
the end-user org (the ISP's client) should beable to get
address space directly from the RIR.
As far as ISP's needing policies with resepect to IP
alloction, thats a slightly different topic.
First, ARIN moved the min alloc from a /19 to /20
to help more ISP's have better control over their
networks and such. That helped thousands of small
providers just like your self.
Second, ARIN then created a policy that says, if you
are a ISP and you are multi-homed, you can request a
/20 from ARIN. Otherwords, multi-homed small providers
can get space from ARIN even if they aren't using a full
/20 today. I believe you need to be using at least
8 /24's to qualify.
Both of these policies have been created by input from
the membership, the community at large, and adopted by
I encourage any ISP to read each and every policy on allocations.
ARIN does make it easy to get address space if you read the policies
and follow the guidelines. Much easier than any of the other RIR's
I might add.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of A. M. Salim
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:53 PM
> To: 'ppml at arin.net'
> Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> best regards
> Mike Salim
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Mury wrote:
> > The pricing policies of ISPs is purely based on supply and demand.
> > There are enough ISPs out there where the market is
> dictating a fair
> > price, which for the last years has been too low. Look at all the
> > ISPs going out of business as proof. When the number of ISPs
> > stabalize the pricing for Internet services will fall close
> to where
> > they should be. If they rise too high we will see a influx of new
> > opportunists to drive the price back down.
More information about the ARIN-PPML