Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality

[Mark Borchers]

> -- [ From: David Hakala * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
>
> ?? > > The pricing for this service MUST be brought down to a level that the
> average 'mom & pop' ISP can deal with.
>
> MB > The notion that the infrastructure should be tailored to the typical
> underequipped shoestring "ISP" such as those that have sprung up over the
> past couple years is debatable, IMHO.

> Asphalt highways cost billions to build and maintain, but the cost of entry
> to the highway system is the price of a running car (let's ignore public
> transportation, bicycles and shoes, OK?). Would you restrict public highways
> to those who can afford a new Mercedes? If so, the diesel fuel tax will have
> to increase a thousandfold to pay for the maintenance of the roads those
> cars drive.

I certainly agree that keeping the cost of Internet access affordable
is a worthwhile goal.  But I think this metaphor causes some
confusion between the cost of DOING business and the cost to the
business's CUSTOMER.

> The initial ARIN proposal contained a minimum fee of $2500/yr. for a /24
> block of 256 IP addresses. That's astoundingly wasteful - like saying I have
> to buy a 256-seat bus in order to start a limo service!

To keep it in perspective, that $2500 is the cost to be eligible to
get a PI /24-/19 block from ARIN.

If you get your address space from a your upstream provider, it's
likely that you won't be faced with costs on that scale.  If you're a
home user (the guy driving the Chevy), the costs of operating ARIN
will be amortized way, way down by the time you see any of them.


> I thought the purpose of charging fees for IP addresses is to discourage
> such waste? If not, just what IS the purpose of this proposal? I don't find
> a clear statement of purpose in ARIN's initial proposal, just the vague
> platitude that "The stability of the Internet relies on the careful
> management of the IP addresses." Peddling them in lots of 256 or more
> doesn't even meet that goal.

As has been noted on the list, the fee scale refers to membership in
the registry at various levels.  It is not a cost per /24 (or /19 or
whatever).

> Since public IP addresses are a finite resource, each additional address you
> want should cost *more* than the last one. That's how the real estate market
> works. As land becomes scarce, the price of a lot goes up. Why not license
> IP addresses one at a time for $10 each, 10 for $110, 50 for $1000, etc.?

Well, maybe you have a point.  But your point is antithetical to your
highway driving/low-cost-of-entry model.

To better state my original point, the ARIN proposal is just a way to
deal with a cost of doing business that has previously been funded by
the federal government.  It spreads that cost around among address
space holders who deal directly ARIN.  Yes, the cost will probably
trickle downstream to smaller ISP's.  It's a legitimate cost of doing
business and those who aren't able to meet it will simply, IMO, fall
into the category of insufficiently capitalized operators.

Mark Borchers
InfiNet Network Engineering
NOC: (757) 624-2295 ext. 3007