Funny Money: 1+1=$50M??

[David R. Conrad]

Jim,

Really, why do you think:

    "'ckuehn at nsf.gov'" <ckuehn at nsf.gov>,
    "'gstrawn at nsf.gov'" <gstrawn at nsf.gov>,
    "'lsundro at nsf.gov'" <lsundro at nsf.gov>,

need to be cc'd on your mail?  Do you really have that high an opinion
of yourself?  I'll say it again, if they are interested in this issue,
they can subscribe to the mailing list.  Sending unsolicited mail is
generally viewed as rude.  Why must you be so annoying?

>When did you purchase 223.x.x.x/8 ?

I didn't.

>You are using black market figures in a climate where
>"some" companies get allocations for FREE.

Very true.

>The black market value of a /16 is mostly based on
>what companies estimate they will have to pay
>consultants to interface with the InterNIC to obtain
>an allocation. 

Is it?  This information is undoubtedly based on your in depth
interviews with the individuals who purchased the address space.

>$50,000 for a /16 seems to be common.

Does it?

>If (or rather when) all companies pay for their IP space,
>then your numbers could easily go up by a factor of 4.

Or, assuming a free market, they could approach the cost of allocating
addresses (which is no where near the numbers you are fantazing
about).

>The cost of dealing with the InterNIC is also considered.

Which, given an environment where address space is bought and sold
would not be a consideration, thus you can factor them out.

>So, you do not see ARIN as being responsible if
>the ARIN organization costs one company substantially
>more money than another. 

United Airlines pays a whole lot more for fuel than APNIC (not
so many black helicopters, dontcha know).

>Does ARIN intend to carefully document each request and the outcome ?

Of course, as all the registries do now.

>What about the large companies that have their own /8s ?

What about them?

>Why are they also using space from other parts of the IPv4 space ?
>Why does the InterNIC allocate /16s to companies that have /8s ?
>Why do some companies have more than one /8 ?

You know this.  Primarily historical reasons.  New allocations are
made for various reasons, including the fact that if a company's
various parts may or may not be tightly coupled.

>So ARIN will not improve the current situation
>despite the fact that ISPs are supposed to now
>pay for the same unfair treatment.

You know this.  ARIN provides a means by which the ISPs can influence
the implementation of global allocation policies.  It does not mean
American (and South African) ISPs can ignore global allocation
policies.

>	1. The 3,000 ISPs in the U.S. should be given /18s

Just the US?  Your parochialism is painful.  Wake up.  There is a
world with more than one country out there.

>		with the agreement that they advertise it
>		as a single aggregate and that they have

And if for business reasons they decide to advertise more specifics?
Would you have the registry revoke the allocation?

>		two providers that agree in advance to handle
>		the advertised route.

And if or or both of those providers change their minds?

>	3. I suggested a short-form application that ISPs can
>		use to apply for this space and in my
>		opinion they should take that application
>		directly to the National Science Foundation
>		and if necessary, their U.S. Senator. 

NSF or their Senator?  I'm sure both organizations would be enthralled
to be so deeply involved in Internet bookkeeping when other
organizations have been created to handle this detail.  Oh, have you
asked them?

>I will be happy to post a list of contacts if needed.

That won't be necessary -- should anyone be silly enough to care, I'm
sure the zillions of copies of the same information you sent over and
over again can be found in the archives of the myriad mailing lists
you have "contributed" to will suffice.

Regards,
-drc