Reject the NAIPR

[Jeremiah Kristal]

Once more, and maybe this should be explained on the ARIN homepage.

The costs are very reasonable for the small provider who properly uses his
assigned address space.  Since it is almost impossible to get a new
allocation smaller than a /19 routed across the internet, since certain
large providers will not accept the announcments, small providers will get
their IP address blocks from their upstream provider.
Assuming that the upstream provider has a /16, which pay $5000 for, the
cost per /24 comes out to under $19.55.  Even if the upstream provider
only has a /19, which is the smallest globally routable block, the per /24
cost is only $78.13.  These costs are not excessive!  Any ISP that can't
afford $80 yearly is running on a very, very thin margin.

Please people, do the math, learn about CIDR, and set aside the 2 cents a
day that a /24 will cost from a provider with a /16.

Jeremiah
who has only answered this same question about 10 times today.


On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Linda Emmele wrote:

> I am interested in this only as a small business owner who cannot afford to stay on the Internet if costs increase.  I cannot understand how an upstream provider would not pass through these charges, who would then pass them on to me.
> Linda Emmele
>
> ----------
> From:   Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com]
> Sent:   Saturday, January 18, 1997 8:10 AM
> To:     Mark Richmond
> Cc:     'naipr at lists.internic.net'; aop at cris.com
> Subject:        Re: Reject the NAIPR
>
> Folks,
>
> It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of
> Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization
> representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's) have been encouraged to
> deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of
> the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal.
>
> In fact, I would suggest that in a majority of the cases, the smaller,
> lower-echelon ISP's will obtain their IP addresses from their upstream
> service provider and will be completed unaffected by the ARIN proposal.
>
> This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely
> annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion
> on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if
> folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the
> proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages.
>
> - paul
>
>
>
> At 07:59 AM 1/17/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote:
>
> >To Whom:
> >
> >I urge you to reject the ARIN proposal.  The proposal reflects a
> >fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of Internet access in a
> >global market.  The ramifications would be severe.
> >
> >While there are benefits to organization, there would be benefits here
> >only to the founders of ARIN.  As there is no explanation given for the
> >proposed fees, I can only assume that they would serve two purposes: To
> >enrich the licensing agency, and to force smaller operators out of the
> >ISP business.   Neither of these seems worthwhile.
> >
> >I seriously question  the motives of anyone in favor of this proposal as it
> >has been explained.
> >
> >
> >Mark Richmond
> >CNE, AOP, CPIM
> >District Technology Coordinator
> >Tulare City Schools, CA
>

      ________
      \______/                  Jeremiah Kristal
       \____/                   Senior Network Integrator
        \__/                    IDT Internet Services
         \/                     jeremiah at hq.idt.net
                                201-928-4454