ARIN Proposal

[The Innkeeper]

> >
> > Michael D. Bathrick (prez at berkshire.net) wrote:
> > > The pricing for this service MUST be brought down to a level that the
> > > average 'mom & pop' ISP can deal with.  Else expect a major problem
with
> > > getting the folks you are regulating to co-operate.
> >
> > Perhaps it be useful to define some terms.  What, for example, is the
> > average 'mom & pop' ISP?   Is it dual or multihomed?  Do they get their
> > IP allocation directly from the 'Nic now?
> >
> > I'd offhand guess "No" to both questions;  if that's the case, they
most
> > likly are getting their blocks from an upstream provider instead of the
> > NIC (or ARIN);  therefore, the fees do not apply to them;  there's
nothing
> > to deal with.
> >
> > But, perhaps you're concerned that the larger providers will pass along
> > the costs;  they indeed may;  however, this is where the pricing models
> > work to your favour;  a few class 'C' blocks - which is what I'd assume
> > a 'Mom & Pop' might have work out to be fairly inexpensive when part of
> > a much larger allocation.
> >
> > It would be useful if you explained, in detail, how the proposed fees
will
> > impact your business.  For example, share what a "typical" mom & pop
would
> > look like, if they are multihomed, where their current address blocks
came
> > from, and what they'll consume, address wise, in the next year or two.
> >
> > --
> > Charles T. Smith, Jr.
> > VecNet, Inc.     cts at vec.net
> > Vice President, ISP/C
>
> This is a non-starter.
>
> ANY ISP which obtains non-portable blocks and then resells anything which
> can't be instantly renumbered has a huge problem.
>
> Let's look at the possible places you get "screwed":
>
> 1)      Static IP individual customers (I know that registries HATE this
>         practice, but it really *IS* quite address-conservative if you
>         do it right -- and for ISDN LAN-style connections it is the ONLY
>         way you get interoperability with all hardware across the board!)
>
> 2)      Web servers.  Folks, try forcing all the DNS caches on the net to
>         flush instantly.  Can't be done.  You WILL screw customers if you
>         renumber their servers.  The depth of the "screwing" is not under
>         your control, and will CERTAINLY by more than a full business
day.
>         You WILL lose customers over that event.
>
> 3)      Dedicated connections.  Go ahead.  Call your customers and tell
>         them THEY have to renumber their LANs.  Try it once.  See how
many
>         customers you have left and how likely it is YOU get sued based
>         on either a tort or equity claim.
>
> You WILL lose a BOATLOAD of YOUR customers if you get boxed like this.
The
> only option you have left as an ISP is to sue the people who are putting
> you in the box.
>
> The only way you can PREVENT having this happen with provider-based space
is
> to "marry" the company that has the block.  Now, do you really want to do
> that?  Do you want to EVER be put in the position where you have a
supplier
> that you just CANNOT get rid of?  No matter what you do?
>
> No businessperson in their right mind would accept this as a business
> premise.
>
> Therefore, every ISP must be an ARIN "associate" if they have an ounce of
> sense, and they must be able to get those magic /19s (or larger if they
can
> justify them).
>
> To fail to provide that on a *level* playing field is going to invite
> lawsuits -- I'm talking SERIOUS lawsuits here -- not based on some
trivial
> matter, or to annoy, but multi-million lawsuits which are based on *HARD*
> damages to companies and their customer base!
>
> You'll see these suits by the hundreds, and the problem is that the
eventual
> effect of this will be the destruction of CIDR and provider-based
addressing.
>
> This is why we worked VERY hard to get Provider-Independant space when we
> needed original space, maintain that stance through whatever process is
> necessary today, and urge OTHERS to do so as well.  It is also why ARIN
must
> be *CAREFULLY* constructed to insure that it meets the essential need of
NOT
> interfering with normal business operations and vendor/supplier
> relationships.  If it serves to tie INDIRECT customers to a given vendor,
> not only will the vendors get sued but so will ARIN and its board -- and
> THAT eventuality is a very un-good thing.


I hear many things here....Has it been considered that there are already
NPOs who can do this job???