[ppml] New ARIN Sub-region Policy Proposal (Rural-America)

John Brown john at chagres.net
Tue Oct 7 23:03:07 EDT 2003

Hi Bill,

Interesting comments.

As a person that has lived and built companies, including
2 ISP's and helped dozens more, in rural america, I'd have
to disagree....

Rural America is *NOT*  New Jersey.  Rural America is
thousands of square miles of open land.  Its miles between
people or homes.  Its where $20 a month is actual real

Lets see...

The largest ISP on the eastern part of New Mexico is tied
to Sprint for a /22 worth of IP.  If he leaves Sprint, he
has to renumber *Again*.

Estimated at costing over $10,000 in labor, loss of 
business, extended support issues, and business disruption.

The largest ISP in the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico is also
using /22 worth of IP space.   Again tied to their upstreams
for that space.  If they change or want to leave, they must
burden the cost of renumbering.  

Both can't get ARIN space.

Why, because ARIN does not have a policy to support them....

I can list 60+ more thru out the western US.

If you depend on Qwest to get phone lines, they can take
up to 1.5 years to install.  Almost as long as it takes to
get a land line in Rio, .BR

Yup, it can take over a year to get a phone line in the
good ol'e United States of America.....

And here we thought we had competition, free market and
super technology leadership.  

Ya know a First World Nation....

On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 10:22:34PM -0400, Bill Van Emburg wrote:
> J Bacher wrote:
> > At 05:00 PM 10/7/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> > 
> >> >The ARIN sub-region known as "Rural America", those
> >> >localities with a population of less than 1 million
> >> >persons here by proposes the following Policy Proposal.
> >>
> >> This is an example of a poorly thought out
> >> policy proposal. It doesn't conform to the
> > 
> > This is an example of determining how many people will accept a 
> > double-standard when there ought not be.
> > 
> > John's analogy is excellent.
> Absolutely not!  As someone else on this list mentioned, we're talking 
> about a different policy for a different CONTINENT, and one which is 
> made up of mostly "3rd-world" countries.  Rural America is much more 
> similar to the rest of the U.S., and does not, in any case, represent a 
> easily separable geography.
> ...and don't try to say that 2003-15 doesn't represent a continent.  It 
> represents the portion of that different continent that ARIN currently 
> has control over.  (...and only has that control for historical reasons, 
> a problem that AfriNIC is trying to fix!)
Great, when AfriNIC actually stands up and becomes real like LacNic
then they can go set policy for their membership.  Until then they 
are under ARIN and ARIN should not create special interest policy.

The same technical reasons that have been spewed before on why ARIN
shouldn't dip below a /20 apply (imho) to Africa. 

Land rush for IP space will use up route table memory

Land rush for ASN's will exhaust AS resources 

Providers will filter and thus its not in the interest of the 
community to reduce the allocation.

> 2003-15 and this "Rural America" proposal are very different things, and 
> there is no reason to consider them the same.
There should be uniformed policy from ARIN for the ARIN region.

> -- 
> 				     -- Bill Van Emburg

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list