What triggered ARIN ?

[Jim Fleming]

On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 2:10 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote:
@ At 8:56 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote:
@ >On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 8:51 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote:
@ 
@ >The suggestion has been that these regional registries
@ >take over the "management" of the allocations, not the routing.
@ >In some cases, the registry would not have any addresses
@ >to allocate because their address space is full. They would
@ >just collect lease revenues and work on reclamation.
@ >This situation would have zero impact on the routing tables.
@ 
@ Wild.   I now understand what you're proposing.
@ 
@ What possible benefit could there be to having a for-profit
@ company charging existing allocations management fees??  Doesn't
@ this create dozens of windfall situations where new registries
@ get the right to extort payments for existing allocations
@ without any limitation or competition? (or cost :-)
@ 
@ >If you feel that provider-based allocations are better
@ 
@ I don't think they're better, but we've had trouble
@ coming up with any alternatives that scale.
@ 

If you think that is "wild"....here is another approach...

Since some people can not seem to "grok" the idea
of having a "registry" to simply manage a /8 space
leaving allocations out of the picture....another idea
comes to the surface...

If the IPv4 address space is sold off in 256 units
(i.e. /24s) then the owners of those units can
collect annual "lease fees" from the people/companies
those units have been assigned to.

Those owners could be separate from the registries.
In some cases, ISPs might just buy up their /24s
to avoid the annual fees. In others they may decide
to pay rent to the owner.

Decoupling the owner from the company handling
the allocation helps solve many problems. As an
example, we have a few stray /24s that are part
of the MCI aggregate. If someone other than us or
MCI took "ownership" of one of those /24s then
we (or MCI) could pay rent to that owner. In an
aggregate, there could be many owners and it
would not affect routing one bit.

Let me know if this makes sense. For some
reason I could not make it clear how a registry
could manage a space separate from the routing.
The more I thought about it, it might be best to
have "owners" be separate from the registries
which are sort of in place because IP allocations
are mostly tied to upstream providers.

Wild...?...:-)



--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation

e-mail:
JimFleming at unety.net
JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)