[arin-ppml] large vs small?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Brian Johnson wrote:
> 
> - Brian
> 
> <snip>
>> 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.
> 
> So you are assuming that ARIN has to do "work" on the larger
> allocations? Please explain what work needs to be done on an allocation,
> post it being allocated. Also explain what the difference in allocation
> size has to do with doing such work.

Your confusing ISSUE costs with MAINTAINENCE costs.

ARIN fees do not currently discriminate when it's also clearly obvious
that most of ARIN's work goes into making ISSUES of numbering.  Very 
little of their work goes into MAINTAINING issues that have already
been made.

If a large OR a small org doesn't bother ARIN for additional numbering
then costs to maintain that issue are very small.

Essentially what is going on right now is that the orgs, both large
or small, that are MAINTAINING their allocations, and NOT requesting
new, additional, ones, these orgs are SUBSIDIZING the expenses
of making IP issues to the orgs who ARE doing a lot of IP requests.

And, MOST of the expenses are associated with IPv4 - NOT IPv6 - because
of the rule that says that if you have an existing IPv4 allocation
that you qualify for an IPv6 allocation.  Most IPv6 allocations are
to orgs that already have IPv4 so they are basically just rubber stamped.

The mandated POC cleanup will change this a bit - but, mainly it will 
make it so that orgs that maintain correct POC's will be subsidizing
the naughty orgs who don't maintain their POCs

> 
>> Cost per IP is much less for large allocations than small allocations.
> 
> I don't understand this argument. YOU DO NOT PAY FOR IP ADDRESSES. THE
> FEE IS A MEMBERSHIP FEE.
> 

This is like Costco claiming that their price
on tires is lower than anyone else and they have a better warranty
than the tire place down the street which tacks on an extra $175 for
the extended 5 year warranty that's comparable to Costco's

When, in order to retain the 5 year warranty on your Costco tires, you 
must continue to pay your yearly $35 membership fee.

Your membership argument is nothing more than marketing nonsense.  The
yearly membership fee is required to be paid to maintain allocations,
thus it is a fee for the IP numbers in those 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.
> 
> The annual fee to a large ISP is more than it is to a small ISP. If you
> are trying to make it an even playing field, let's make the fee the same
> for every member...

No, let's make the fee the same for every IP address regardless of who
owns what netblock it's in.

  oops that doesn't help your argument does it. :) The
> "cost per IP" is a non-starter in my mind because YOU DO NOT PAY FOR IP
> ADDRESSES TO BEGIN WITH.
> 

Your very confused here.

The ONLY large orgs that really and truly cost ARIN -LESS- money on
a cost-per-IP basis are the large orgs who are requesting large 
allocations, repeatedly.

Meaning, large orgs that are growing in leaps and bounds.

Large orgs who's current large allocations were obtained from a
series of small allocation requests, which were then aggregated
together, cost ARIN the same amount as a bunch of small
orgs who got their numbers then haven't bothered ARIN since.

You also are (conveniently) ignoring NAT in the equation.
Growth in ARIN's region for additional IP addressing comes from
3 sources:

a) people unconnected to the Internet, connecting

b) people connected to the Internet adding devices to be connected

c) poorly run ISP's going bankrupt and releasing their connected
customers to the wild, which are then picked up by competitors

Right now, variable a is a factor of population growth and market 
penetration - and both have slowed.  variable c has also decreased
as the maturing market has weeded out many ISPs.  variable b has
also dropped due to the increase in NAT devices.

If nat does not take hold with IPv6 then variable b may become
higher.  If it does, then variable b will not.

In short, the likelihood is once market penetration is completed
to the extent that, for example, the telephone network has, we
will see an overall drop in demand for new IP allocations and will
enter a period of time that most ISP's will be living with what they
already have and not asking for more.

In which case, ARIN's costs SHOULD drop unless ARIN is tasked with
additional mandates.

But, much more importantly, ARIN expense difference between large and 
small orgs will shrink to little or nothing.

Frankly, I think that the majority of orgs in the US have
already entered or are soon going to enter the maintainence
mode of their business

Which basically means most US ISP's will be subsidizing the
rest of the ARIN region ISP's where growth is happening.


> <snip>
>> 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. ;-)
> 
> <sarcasm>I love hyperbole and "class-warfare".</sarcasm>
> 

Well, it's a common debate tactic to use emotional labels to try to
obscure the real issues.  Which you are doing here.

The fact is that the fee discussion is purely an accounting argument.
ARIN has chosen one way to interpret it's expenses, when there are
several other equally and I think more valid, ways of interpreting
them.

Your basically arguing everyone should pay the same amount.  I invite
you to try that argument out on your insurance agent for car insurance
the next time you talk to him.  I doubt you will get very far.

Ted