[ppml] Policy 2002-7

McBurnett, Jim jmcburnett at msmgmt.com
Tue Jan 21 12:37:54 EST 2003

Following your conciseness request:
I feel that as a small-mid size business and in light of recent router memory improvements that the cost of a Class C from ARIN should be adjusted to reflect similiar costs as mentioned in 2002-7.
Some ISP's charge an exorbent amount for a Class C to multi-home, some are fair, but end result is this is unregulated and varies from carrier to carrier. (I know of one ISP that charges $60 for 5 IP addresses per month, and one that charges $75 for a Class C per month, and a third that charges $300 per month)
But with today's growth of the dependency of Internet connectivity, many small businesses cannot afford to be down extended for extended periods of time, and at the same time most cannot afford $2500 for a Class C from ARIN.
I know I have heard: "if you want to be redundant it costs".  But with IPv6 and some even say IPv8 on the horizon, IP addresses should not become the gold of ages past.

At my company we use VPN's extensively for remote office connectivity.  The redudancy granted by multi-homing mitigates a number of single point of failure problems.  Although that will not mitigate the proverbial backhoe fade, it would help it such cases as a T-1 or larger failure to local premises.

Should 2002-3 cover a price break in the cost of a class C, there should be some kind of "restrictor" plate addon to protect ARIN.  I do not expect, nor do I consider it fair, that an end-user with DS-3 level connections should rate a "small-mid sized" business rate for IP addresses.  But the end user with 2 T-1's from different ISP's should.

All of this flows back to renumbering.  Many people out there have renumbered. How many of you have renumbered due to a dotbom? And lost those IP addresses?  An end user assignment policy that is cost effective, and user driven may make future swamp space less soggy....


just a thought....


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:55 AM
To: 'richardj at arin.net'; McBurnett, Jim; 'Brian Wallingford'
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-7

Hello All,
Richard is correct.

The AC met via teleconference on January 16th to discuss outstand policy
proposals and other business.  The status of 2002-3 and 2002-7 was
ambiguous.  Both are quite similar.  Authors of both were invited to rewrite
their proposals and/or work together to eliminate the ambituity.  The
authors of 2003-3 have begun to rework their policy proposal and so it is
still viable.  Because the author of 2002-7 has not responded and because of
its similarity with 2002-3, the AC made a recommendation to the Board of
Trustess of ARIN to abandon consideration of 2002-7.  That recommendation
will presumably be considered during the next BoT meeting.

I thank you all for your interest in these proposals and of course I
understand from your emails that you think something in this area needs to
be done.  I encourage you to be specific in you interests.......what you
think needs to be done within a policy to mitigate some problem that you
face.  Posting clear and concise statements of problem and solutions as you
see them will likely help the authors of 2002-3 accomplish their edit with
the greatest possibility of creating an acceptable proposal.

Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:13 AM
> To: 'McBurnett, Jim'; 'Brian Wallingford'
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-7
> Hello Jim,
> > Well noting that there was a letter to the authors. 
> > I think we should reevaluate this one.
> After noting there was not community consensus to accept policy
> proposals 2002-3 and 2002-7, as written, the ARIN AC 
> requested the ARIN
> staff send a letter to the authors of the proposals.  The 
> letter pointed
> out that these two policy proposals were very similar and 
> that there was
> not consensus to accept either of them, as written.  The 
> letter provided
> feedback to their proposals as it was received on the mailing list and
> at the public policy meeting so they may refine them for further
> discussion.
> The author of policy proposal 2002-7 has not yet submitted a revision,
> however, the authors of policy proposal 2002-3 have been working on a
> revision that will be posted back to this list for discussion 
> very soon.
> Best Regards,
> Richard Jimmerson
> Director of Operations
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> > Behalf Of McBurnett, Jim
> > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:43 AM
> > To: Brian Wallingford
> > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-7
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks Brian!
> > 
> > 
> > Well noting that there was a letter to the authors. 
> > I think we should reevaluate this one.
> > I for one would benefit from this one.....
> > Anyone got comments?
> > Should we just kill it? 
> > Or should we move forward to help the small-mid sized companies?
> > Later,
> > Jim
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian Wallingford [mailto:brian at meganet.net]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:08 PM
> > To: McBurnett, Jim
> > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy 2002-7
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
> > 
> > :
> > :I think I missed something..
> > :Did this get passed?  Or is it still up in the air?
> > 
> > 
> > The most recent info available on 2002-7 is at:
> > http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ac/ac2002_1122.html#7
> > 
> > It would appear that it hasn't passed yet.
> > 
> > -brian
> > 

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list