[arin-ppml] IP Address Fee Structure Policy and the Right of Education
tvest at eyeconomics.com
tvest at eyeconomics.com
Sun Nov 29 12:49:49 EST 2009
Thanks for your very interesting questions.
If GQHS provides a real (as opposed to a "quasi") ISP service within
the ARIN region, then ARIN's normal IPv4 allocation process should be
able to accommodate you just fine without any modification. Of course,
GQHS's real ISP would still need to satisfy the same eligibility
criteria for securing IPv4 addresses that all other current IPv4
seekers have to satisfy when they seek an allocation from ARIN.
There are many reasons why ARIN doesn't give out IP number resources
to anyone/everyone who simply asserts a problem, and asserts that only
a free, no-strings-attached IPv4 distribution would solve that
problem. Those reasons include, but are not limited to:
-- the conservation of finite IP number resource pools, to extend
their "useful lifetimes" (note that that's a two-dimensional
challenge), because integrating a new addressing pool can be, um, both
tricky and expensive;
-- the preservation of private incentives to be conservative in
imposing unilateral demands on finite and shared routing system
carrying capacity, for the same reasons;
-- the maintenance over time of a comprehensive database of
identifying information about individual IP number resources, the
contents of which both grows and changes over time. This is necessary
to preserve the uniqueness of resources, which once again is a
predicate for the usefulness of IP number resources over time.
There are also many reasons why your assertion that ARIN could
"allocate GQHS a bunch of /20 addresses for the purpose of a quasi-ISP
service to assign /24 addresses to verified educational institutions,"
and that that wouldn't impose "any costs at all on ARIN" is quite
-- If GQHS does not provide a real ISP service, then GQHS has no
*demonstrable* private incentive to redistribute IP addresses in a way
that efficiently leverages the unique technical functionality which
makes IP addresses useful. Given that, every IP address that ARIN (or
any other xIR) provides to GQHS would ultimately deprive some real ISP
of an IP address which, given the *demonstrated* investment in the
inputs for delivering Internet services that a real ISP makes, would
be more likely to be used to contribute to the real expansion of the
-- If GQHS does not provide a real ISP service, then it is a near
certainty that whatever quantity of IP addresses that GQHS receives
will ultimately impose the maximum possible burden on the Internet's
shared routing infrastructure -- i.e., it will be de-aggregated to the
maximum degree permitted by real routing services providers. Contrast
this with the case of a real ISP, which practically speaking also has
broad discretion to de-aggregate -- perhaps even to the max. possible
level -- but which (unlike GQHS) demonstrably has some capex at risk
if the routing system becomes unsustainable, and whose obligatory
participation in the database of identifying information makes them
subject to peer pressure (or perhaps to more muscular private/
bilateral responses, e.g., price hikes, depeering) if the demands that
they impose on the shared routing infrastructure grow to excessive
-- If GQHS cannot assure the same level of participation in the
comprehensive database of identifying information, then the allocation
of any quantity of IP addresses to GQHS by ARIN or any other xIR would
impose an equally large cost on all of the other users of the
Internet, in perpetuity, in the form of diminished confidence that
future accidental and/or intentional problems originating from or
exacerbated by GQHS's address ranges could be resolved without
recourse to lawsuits or worse (assuming that such remedies are even
possible). To answer an earlier question of yours, the inetnum
registration databases are very different from the .com/DNS registry
-- in fact, it's fair to say that the current flexibility of DNS
registrations is possible *only* because of the relative inflexibility
(and hence, higher levels of accuracy/consistency) of the xIR
Over the years, many different address distribution ideas like yours,
i.e., based on non-operational institutional hierarchies or other
affinity relations, have been suggested. So far, none has offered a
better mix of features for balancing the goals of industry openness,
innovation, and growth with the goal to avoiding the premature
obsolescence of current Internet technologies and investments. Perhaps
you will be the one to do it -- and I hope that you will keep trying
-- but you're not there yet.
On Nov 29, 2009, at 9:42 AM, Christopher Mettin wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> Please ensure that you either cover all the things ARIN does or find
> parties to take on those roles.
> 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
>> operation costs and that will save our environment a lot.
>> I will propose this idea to IANA soon. Maybe "Virginian non-profit"
>> means they just don't have any stocks but I bet they make a million
>> 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
>> Sincerely yours,
>> -----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
>> On 11/29/2009 02:16 AM, Christopher Mettin wrote:
>>> The fact that one can't access the Internet without an IP address
>>> ARIN sells them.
>> RIR's don't sell IP-addresses. Addresses are assigned for a
>> purpose. The RIRs are not-for-profit organisations. The fee is not
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> entire ISP subnet?
>>> Our Internet connection is paid by the state. And under the current
>>> we actually even not allowed to publish a simple website from our
>>> So why should they give us a static IP to make it easier for us to
>> You can not blame the internet-community for your organisation's
>> 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
>> in the first place.
>>> So the reason why ARIN should change its policies is that we want
>>> 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.
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML