[arin-ppml] IP Address Fee Structure Policy and the Right of Education

[Christopher Mettin]

ARIN Community,

Why doesn't ARIN allocate GQHS a bunch of /20 addresses for the purpose of a
quasi-ISP service and we assign /24 addresses to verified educational
institutions for a much smaller fee?

That would be a possible solution. It doesn't cause ARIN any costs and all
fees would be directly and entirely submitted to ARIN. Also, In the end ARIN
could maybe receive more from fees of several smaller sub allocations than
from one larger allocation.

Another preference is that there would be no address space fragmentation on
the RIR level, GQHS would figure as a LIR except for the fact that ARIN fees
would be sub delegated to charged by GQHS.

I am looking forward to receive comments on this idea.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
Christopher Mettin
Gymnaium Querfurt High School

-----Original Message-----
From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com [mailto:bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 2:10 PM
To: Christopher Mettin
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; 'Per Heldal'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Fee Structure Policy and the Right of
Education


ARIN manages the IP space for its region based on the consent of its 
members and the governments in that region.

ARINs finances are a matter of public record - you can find them on the
ARIN web site.

As for your proposal to replace ARIN with GQHS, I for one, would like to 
see the dialog between you/GQHS and the IANA as a matter of public record.

If you would like to change the ARIN proceedures for address allocation and
stewardship - the process is open and available to all.  You just have to
convince others to agree with you on your well thought out, viable
alternative.

Please ensure that you either cover all the things ARIN does or find other
parties to take on those roles.


Luck


--bill



On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:53:26PM +0100, Christopher Mettin wrote:
> ARIN Community,
> 
> Why does ARIN manage the IP addresses allocated to North America? Did they
> win a competition in cost-effeteness and reliability?
> 
> And does ARIN show a proof that the fees cover at least 90% of their
> operating costs?
> 
> If IANA would replace ARIN with GQHS today, I could offer everyone a /20
> block for just $10 annually and no cent more. GQHS will also have less
> operation costs and that will save our environment a lot.
> 
> I will propose this idea to IANA soon. Maybe "Virginian non-profit"
actually
> means they just don't have any stocks but I bet they make a million
revenue
> each year. At all, they are not the right organization to manage IP
> addresses it seems.
> 
> Has anyone a problem with IP addresses given away for as cheap as a .com
> domain?
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> Christopher
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Per Heldal [mailto:heldal at eml.cc] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 6:05 AM
> To: Christopher Mettin
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Fee Structure Policy and the Right of
> Education
> 
> On 11/29/2009 02:16 AM, Christopher Mettin wrote:
> > The fact that one can't access the Internet without an IP address and
that
> > ARIN sells them.
> 
> RIR's don't sell IP-addresses. Addresses are assigned for a documented 
> purpose. The RIRs are not-for-profit organisations. The fee is not for 
> the IP-addresses themselves, but rather to cover the administrative 
> costs of running the RIR-operations organization.
> 
> >> My suggestion would be that you hit up your respective ISPs to give you
> >> static addresses at no extra charge for the good will and possible tax
> >> benefits.  Even if they're only willing to give you /29s, you can
> >> harmonize your RFC1918 address space use and use VPNs that properly
> >> reflect your security policies.
> >
> > Yep, VPS, you cannot set them up so easily if you don't have a commonly
> > known (static) IP address of the end-point. Where should we send the VPS
> > connection request if our IP always changes? Maybe try out every host on
> the
> > entire ISP subnet?
> >
> > Our Internet connection is paid by the state. And under the current
> contract
> > we actually even not allowed to publish a simple website from our
network.
> > So why should they give us a static IP to make it easier for us to do
so?
> >
> 
> You can not blame the internet-community for your organisation's failure 
> to negotiate a contract that meets your needs. I doubt you'll find a 
> serious SP anywhere that doesn't offer contracts that include static 
> addressing. So far there's been no mention of a need for multi-homing 
> which normally is the key requirement to justify direct assignments. 
> What difference does the fee make if you don't qualify for an allocation 
> in the first place.
> 
> 
> > So the reason why ARIN should change its policies is that we want ARIN
to
> > allocate us some IP addresses which are the only way for us to solve our
> > little problem.
> 
> You should resolve this with the people who are responsible for a 
> service-contract that doesn't meet your functional requirements.
> 
> 
> //per
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.