Just Bizness

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

At 11:28 PM -0500 1/22/97, jamie dyer wrote:
> As a small ISP, IP addresses are a resource we try to use
>economically, i.e. use to make money, or at least not lose it.
>I have some problems with the ARIN proposal as it's stated now
>on the website, but overall it's not a huge deal.
> If we (comet.net) were to theoretically "rent" a /24 as individual static
>IPs, we'd be charging more in a month than ARIN does in a year. $10 a
>pop is our rate, maybe more or less in other areas. If a network
>has the wherewithall to maintain a PI block of /x, they
>can scrape up the cash to pay for the /x. IOW, if you're going to lose
>money on it, you didn't need it anyway.

Are you saying here that the /24 will be split into static addresses for
dialup users?  Current allocation policies would not accept that usage as a
justification for address space.  This is not part of the ARIN proposal,
but in the worldwide consensus document among registries.  Yes, I know RFC
2050 is coauthored by some of the people writing ARIN.  It has been,
however, designated Best Current Practice by the IESG/IETF.

These policies would expect you to use IPCP or other relevant dynamic
addressing.  From http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2050.txt. "Internet
Registry IP Allocation Guidelines," Section 2.1:

>  7.  Due to constraints on the available free pool of IPv4 address
>       space, the use of static IP address assignments (e.g., one
>       address per customer) for dial-up users is strongly discouraged.
>       While it is understood that the use of static addressing may
>       ease some aspects of administration, the current rate of
>       consumption of the remaining unassigned IPv4 address space does
>       not permit the assignment of addresses for administrative ease.
>       Organizations considering the use of static IP address assignment
>       are expected to investigate and implement dynamic assignment
>       technologies whenever possible.