ARIN Proposal

[Karl Denninger]

> Karl,
>
> >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
>
> Currently within APNIC and RIPE-NCC, if an organization pays the
> membersip fees, we allocate (or reserve for) them a /19 block.  While
> at APNIC (and I assume RIPE) we do try to discourage everyone (not
> just end users) from getting provider independent blocks from the
> registry (we have a form letter that says "routers are falling over,
> blah blah blah"), we will do so if they insist (and they pay the
> membership fee).
>
> In both our cases (not wanting to speak for RIPE-NCC, but I believe this
> to be the case -- I'm sure they'll blast me if I'm off base), the fees have
> (apparently) had the effect of discouraging smaller ISPs from obtaining
> blocks from the registries directly.
>
> Do you consider this a level playing field?
>
> Regards,
> -drc

For ISPS that sell no dedicated or fixed-address services (ie: Web hosting,
private line, ISDN with fixed address, basically anything tied to a given
DNS entry) this is fine.  The impact of them being *forced* to renumber is
minimal.  Not only are there no "downstream" issues of significant import,
but in addition their entire inside plant is likely only a few machines and
devices -- a couple of hours work and they're done.

For any ISP that sells any of those "tied" services, any move which makes it
un-feasible (and by that I mean any event which causes SIGNIFICANT barriers
to entry to be raised) is IMHO a per-se anti-trust problem, at least in the
United States.

The bar, in this case, isn't your inside plant (even though that might
involve tens or even hundreds of man hours).  Its the *MILLIONS* of dollars
in cost and damage you end up imposing on your *customers* when the event
happens.  If you think people will stay out of the courts during these
events I have to frankly question your sanity.

I personally do not feel that a $5,000 annual fee is a significant entry
barrier if someone is selling T1s!  The $2500 thing is a red herring; /24s
aren't routeable anyway.  The number to focus on is the number for a /19,
which *IS* globally routeable.

My problem with ARIN is that NOWHERE do the current documents address very
real control and succession issues.  Kim has said these problems are being
fixed.  If they truly *ARE* fixed, and enough "defense" is put in the charter
to prevent the barrier from suddenly turning into $50,000 a year, or a few
corporations ending up with effective "control" of ARIN without recourse,
then I have no singificant gripe.

Again, Kim has said the document is under revision.  I want to see those
revisions and read them carefully before I pass judgement myself.

I also want to make it crystal clear that this organization, and others like
it, absolutely will not tolerate malicious (or "unintentional" but
unwarranted) interferance with our operations and customers.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
                             | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax:   [+1 312 248-9865]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal