[ppml] Re: 2005-1:Multi-national Business Enablement
Howard, W. Lee
L.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Wed May 4 13:03:31 EDT 2005
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen at unfix.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 4:39 AM
> To: Howard, W. Lee
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: 2005-1:Multi-national Business Enablement
> On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 18:06 -0400, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> > > Behalf Of Jeroen Massar
> > > The real problem you seem to be having is that you do not
> > > want to give address space to endusers. Because then you
> > > can't have a 'business case' and letting them pay for
> more addresses.
> > Why do you assume this motive?
> Because that is the current business case of many ISP's ?
> And they earn money with this? There are only few customers
> ISP's who actually give out multiple IP's to end users.
> 1 IP address for 'home users', multiple for 'business
> accounts', for the latter you pay a lot more. Thus if you
> want to have multiple PC's online with IPv4 addresses you end
> up doing either NAT, going to a friendly ISP or getting
> yourself a very expensive business type account.
Ah. Some residential providers do charge for additional IPs.
Others force you into business service. But they do this not
because IPs are scarce, but because users with multiple machines
use more bandwidth, which changes their capacity model.
However, this is not the only reason one might think certain
sizes of assignments are too large for home users. For instance,
I thik /48 for each residential user is too much, but I don't
work for an ISP. When I did work for an ISP, we did not charge
for addresses. I believe that we should be very careful how
quickly we hand out addresses, because if we're wrong, it's
harder to make policies more restrictive than more liberal.
> > > RIRs exist in those regions to be able to help out their
> > > local members better. Never realized that it is easier for
> > > Japanese/Korean/Chinese organizations to be able to talk in
> > > their own tongue to their RIR, or do you want everything to
> > > be 'owned & regulated by the US', if you want that, please
> > > sign up with the ITU, they want that too.
> > I think Dr. Zhao would disagree with you.
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-> wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.do
> > c
> > I believe the NIRs in Japan, Korea and China operate in the local
> > languages.
> That is exactly what I meant with the above. I should have
> added a colon/newline behind the "to their RIR" part to
> separate the sentence apparently. As for the ITU part, read
> between the lines of the following
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-> T/worksem/ngn/200505/program.html
> = open free end-2-end
> connectivity, ITU = regulate+charge for every single
> application, and it seems they want to bring this weird idea
> to the internet unfortunately...
I don't understand you. How does "ITU = regulate+charge" equate
to "'owned & regulated by the US'"? Also, how would you describe
the ITU's position on multilingualism versus the RIRs' and ICANN's?
More information about the ARIN-PPML