Reject the NAIPR

[Paul Ferguson]

At 01:02 PM 1/18/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote:

>
>As it is, the ARIN proposal sets the price of a Class C allocation at
>$2500.  All price offering will start from there, not from the $20 you
>suggest.  For a precedent, look at "port costs" and see how they haven't
>changed much even with the drop in the cost of telecomm charges and
>upstream port costs.
>

Don't compare apples & elephants.

And also bear in mind that the fee structure suggested in the
current proposal is a draft & subject to modification.

The proposed fees are for intended for allocation & management
services with regards to IP address allocation, and are modeled
after the existing policies already in place at the RIPE-NCC
(Europe) and the APNIC (Asia Pacific), both of which have had
similar fee structures for quite a while.

While I'm personally in no position to speak for the ARIN folks,
I believe the rationale for charging for these services is to fund
the activities of the registry once formal funding relationship to
SAIC and the NSF has been decoupled.

Having said that, it should be noted that only those organization
which feel the need to go directly to ARIN to obtain IP addresses
will be charged these fees.

One might also suggest that readers of this forum familiarize
themselves with the registry guidelines as outlined in RFC2050:

[snip]

   In order for the Internet to scale using existing technologies, use
   of regional registry services should be limited to the assignment of
   IP addresses for organizations meeting one or more of the following
   conditions:

      a)  the organization has no intention of connecting to
          the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still
          requires a globally unique IP address.  The organization
          should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918.
          If it is determined this is not possible, they can be
          issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses.

      b)  the organization is multi-homed with no favored connection.

      c)  the organization's actual requirement for IP space is
          very large, for example, the network prefix required to
          cover the request is of length /18 or shorter.

   All other requestors should contact its ISP for address space or
   utilize the addresses reserved for non-connected networks described
   in RFC1918 until an Internet connection is established.  Note that
   addresses issued directly from the IRs,(non-provider based), are the
   least likely to be routable across the Internet.

[snip]

Anyone else, other than organization which fall into category (a), (b)
or (c) above, should go to their upstream service provider to obtain
IP addresses. RFC2050 is a Best Current Practice.

One Good Thing (tm) that falls out of this, is that this encourages
aggregation, since provider-based addressing can be aggregated in
the global routing system, whereas smaller allocations which are
made without regard to topological significance most probably cannot.

- paul