ARIN Comments

[Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU]

On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:29:07 PST, you said:

> I believe in creating  a registry for  each state. However, I  don't
> agree with the process mentioned  below of letting the Senator's and
> Governor's decide who will

Unfortunately, the funding  model breaks down  here.  Just because you
can run ONE registry on $3M a year does *NOT* mean that you can run 50
registries on  $60,000 a year  each.  Also, given the  fact that we do
*NOT* have geographically-based IP address allocations now (nor are we
likely  to, given the   current   interconnect structure  between  the
long-haul   providers),  mandating 50  of    them may  be  worse  than
counter-productive,  causing non-aggregation  of  addresses that would
otherwise have been aggregable.

As a (probably  not unreasonable case)  what happens to a company that
has  its main  corporate offices in  Boston,  but maintains  a POP  in
Detroit and  NYC, but does most  of its packet interchange at MAE-East
in  Maryland?  Which state(s)  do they  ask  for allocations, and what
happens  if  they ask in Maryland,   and  need more  allocation due to
growth  in their   Detroit  operation?   The  Maryland  registry  will
probably be upset at having  "their" allocation hijacked, much as RIPE
propably would be unhappy at giving out address space for a US company
to use in the US....

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Engineer
				Virginia Tech


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/naipr/attachments/19970226/954ae192/attachment.sig>