[arin-ppml] large vs small?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Lee Howard wrote:
> Jo Rhett said (in a differently-names thread):
>> Can you name a large service provider in the ARIN region who doesn't have miles 
>> and miles (on any yardstick of your choice) of extra lenient space they are 
>> paying nothing for?    
> 
> I can't "name" them, because I'd be disclosing information that is non-public and
> potentially material.
> I know of two largish providers who have legacy Class A's.  I know of one large
> provider who hasn't requested space in a while because they've been able to 
> reclaim internally.  I know of several large providers who have used RFC1918
> several times over internally, to keep from using public space.
> 
> I don't know of anyone with whom ARIN is "extra lenient."
> 
> I don't understand why people at small ISPs think people at large ISPs are
> trying to set anticompetitive policies.   I can think of cases where large ISP
> folks have said, "Such-and-such kind of practice would break my network,"
> but I can't think of any case where large ISPs have unduly influenced the
> process.
> 

I don't think the large ISP's are trying to set anticompetitive 
practices.  I just think that they are getting a break on the pricing.

I've heard the arguments that supposedly it takes less work for ARIN to
manage large allocations than small allocations.  Then I look at the 
work that ARIN has done for us over the years on our small allocation 
(ie: nothing since originally issuing it) and I cannot understand why 
anyone would say this.  How can ARIN do negative work?  Less work than 
nothing is negative.

Cost per IP is much less for large allocations than small allocations.

I might feel differently if I had heard that ARIN was spending months
fighting with small IPv4 holders over the phone for them to release
resources.  But then I'd wonder how exactly doing this would free up
significant IPv4

When a large ISP gets an IPv4 address for less money than a small ISP
that is anticompetitive.  The only reason the community hasn't revolted 
is the expenditures work out to pennies per year per IP and people think 
that a bunch of very tiny expenditures are somehow less interesting than 
one very large expenditure.

>> That the people who have gotten the most for free are 
>> afraid that they might lose some of that advantage isn't surprising.
> 
> I don't see any advantage.  ARIN will be unable to fill requests for /13s
> before they're unable to fill requests for /20s.   I think every large ISP has
> a plan for IPv6, but of course they wouldn't disclose those plans.
> 
> 
>> And let's be honest, they might at most lose some miniscule amount of their 
>> advantage.  They certainly won't lose even 1/100th of their advantage, and 
>> certainly never even come close to a level playing field.  What do they really 
>> have to lose?   And why do you express this as a bad thing?
> 
> In the past, I've posted analyses of who posts to PPML, by company size.
> In the past 24 hours there have been many posts--but very very few from 
> large ISP employees.  We've talked about who participates at meetings, and 
> representation on the Board and AC.  I've looked and looked for evidence 
> that the process is prejudiced toward large ISPs, and I can't find it.  Please 
> support your assertion that large ISPs have an advantage.
> 

I'd assume large ISP's don't participate because any of their technical
people who understand the issues are under orders to say nothing 
publically without vetting it with a company lawyer.  That's one reason 
I don't work for a large company, frankly.

I do think it's a mistake to assume the large ISP's aren't paying 
attention to what goes on here.  I'm sure if we did something that hurt 
them you would suddenly find out how much they would participate.

That's probably why fees are not under the control of this list. ;-)

Ted