Been quiet in here...

[Joe DeCosta]

now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to some
NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP usage
spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.  its
a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network....... It
costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free market,
then why must we also then justify them?


----- Original Message -----
From: <Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>
To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>; "'Alec H. Peterson'"
<ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
> pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
>
> That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just that
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary to
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets are
> very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
>
> That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
> argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
> Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
>
> However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in that
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web sites
> in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
> original technology.
>
> Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>
> > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
people
> > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
to
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons
for
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
"list",
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
assigned
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
to
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
and
> > make
> > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
> > manditory
> > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
> > >
> > > Clay
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
H.
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Alec
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com
> > > Staff Scientist
> > > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
> > > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
>  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
>  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax
>