Re: Cost Recovery and ARIN...

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Patrick and all,

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jul 1998, Michael Dillon wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Jul 1998, mueller wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to see this point addressed. Why is everyone so concerned
> > > with "lock-in"  in the domain name market but apparently unconcerned
> > > about it in IP addresses?
> >
> > Because IP addresses are an almost invisible part of the infrastructure
> > and they are relatively easy to change. One of the reasons for the
> > creation of the DNS was so that people could use unchanging domain names
> > and therefore it would be much easier for them to change IP addresses.
>
> And where pray tell, could someone go to if they wished to get IP space
> from a competing IP registry?

  At the present time, there is not alternative.  This certainly needs to be
addressed
once the newCo is in place.  This would seem, however to be counter to
what the nIANA has in mind.

>
>
> > Also, there are currently no annual fees for using IP addresses except for
> > the few companies (mostly ISPs) who use large blocks of IP address space.
>
> Michael, this statment exhibits a fairly significant ignorance of what is
> happening in the marketplace. It is becoming exceedingly common for costs
> to be passed on to the consumer. Really, one can not blame the provider;
> they are incurring costs, and they are passing them on.

  Exactly.

>
>
> > There is no lock-in with IP addresses because sunk costs are very low and
> > easily controlled by use of dynamic addressing techniques such as DHCP and
> > DNS.
>
> Please then, tell us all why ARIN exists, and is charging for large blocks
> of addresses.

  I take it that this is a question.  If so it is a good one.  Anyone that was
present during this past January's formation of ARIN knows what happened
during that process.  NO stakeholder input was allowed that did not follow
the "IANA's line".  In fact, the existence of ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC, should
be reviewed very closely, and their procedures should be reviewed very closely
once the NewCO is up and running.

>
>
> There is absolute lock-in with ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC currently. One can
> not "shop around" for IP address allocation if they wish to have portable
> address space.

  Very true.  And this is the crux or the concern.  This FACT seems to fly in the
face of the Intent of the White Paper approach of "Bottom up".

>
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Patrick Greenwell                                        (800) 299-1288 v
>                            Systems Administrator         (925) 377-1414 f
>                                  NameSecure
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com