[ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks
JOHN at egh.com
Thu Jun 7 06:09:17 EDT 2007
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, 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
Maybe $400,000 is noise to your company. My company has to think
long and hard before spending $40,000. Your perspective is seriously
> 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?
Are you talking about the cost of upgrading all the backbone routers
in the world to handle /25's vs. /22's? (I forget the size Leroy
was originally looking for, but it was about 1/8 the minimum
assignment under the current rules.)
Aren't all these big boxes going to need to be upgraded anyway to
> The only difference is who is paying for it, and who is gaining value
> for it. You want us to pay, so that your business can gain value.
Who is "us"?
> 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.
Don't you need to be able to justify a /22 to get the PI multihoming
space? That was the basis of this whole discussion.
> Every one of those options is trivially cheap and easy to implement.
> This is why I reject your desire to make our businesses pay hard cash
> so that your business can avoid building even the most trivial
> resiliance into your process.
Why does it cost your business any more if Leroy has a /25 that he
is using most of versus if he has a /22 that he doesn't really need?
Are you on about routing table size again, or something else?
> On May 31, 2007, at 4:39 PM, John Santos wrote:
> > It is the 2000 customers who would have to pay the cost. It may be
> > small for each, but its cumulative, and will certainly generating lots
> > of support calls back to Leroy's company.
> > My company is in a similar situation to Leroy's customers. We have an
> > external mail filtering service. Our published MX records point to
> > the service, and they then forward the (filtered for spam, viruses,
> > RBL, etc.) mail to us, so we have had to open up our firewall to SMTP
> > from their specific IP addresses. We are certainly *not* going to let
> > them manage our firewalls for us, nor are we going to willy-nilly
> > change
> > our firewall rules on their request without minimally verifying the
> > origin of the request (a support call to them.) Multiply by several
> > thousand customers.
> > If they were to start changing IP addresses frequently, we would start
> > looking for a new service provider.
> > This is an *extremely* unlevel playing field, since ACME GIANT ASP,
> > INC. (which is many times the size of Leroy's company), could easily
> > justify an allocation, and thus could promise their customers that
> > their IP addresses and firewall rule would never change.
> Jo Rhett
> senior geek
> Silicon Valley Colocation
> Support Phone: 408-400-0550
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
More information about the ARIN-PPML