[ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 6, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:

> John, I'm a little confused by your math.
>
> 2000 customers * cost of changing IP addresses equals... $200 per
> customer if they have to pay an outside consultant to do it for them,
> usually less than $20 for inside help... Not a big number.
> $40,000 <=> $400,000
>
> Cost of upgrading a single big iron box to have more routing table
> slots > $100,000
> Multiply by the number of big iron boxes who can't use a default
> route, say at least 400?
>
For $100,000, you get a lot more than 2000 additional customers
worth of routing table entries.  Further, let's look at the cost of  
doing
that uniquely after we subtract out the cost of upgrades that would
be required anyway due to other factors (forwarding plane capacity
requirements, routing table growth from other causes such as TE,
etc.).
>
> You do the math, and tell me again why I should be paying out of my
> pocket for your customer.  You very well could have explicit
> instructions sent to the customers for IP address changes.  You could
> very well purchase multiple IP ranges from different providers, and
> thus make the importance of any IP address change negliable.  Or you
> could pay $49/month to get a second uplink and then qualify for PI
> space based on multi-homing.
>
Yeah, but, once he has done the latter, you're still stuck with the  
costs
of carrying his route, so, I'm not sure why you think that's a gain.
The effort, btw, that started this discussion was trying to extend the
multihoming policy down to /24 instead of /22.  I don't think anyone
is advocating (in the v4 world) that we open up additional bits for
non-multihomed end users.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070606/4ef8a8c0/attachment.p7s>