Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
gherbert at crl.com
Sun Sep 24 05:17:18 UTC 1995
Firstly, let me state that I am not strongly attached to any charging
mechanism in particular... as long as whoever it is that ends up running
the thing doesn't lose money on the deal, it's fine by me. However that
is priced out is basically irrelevant to the basic goal here.
It is basically correct that giving someone a /18 isn't going to be much
more work than giving them a /19 or a /20. It takes a bit longer to
forward all the PTR records correctly, but that will probably be a
very small part of the total effort. The primary work involved in
any allocation is going to be working with the provider long enough
that the allocation is "correct" in terms of meeting the enough space
over the specified time requirement without wasting space. That will
scale somewhat with size of block, and a whole lot with how new the
provider is... established ISPs with years of growth they can document
are easy to allocate, you just do the math. Some new provider which hasn't
got that length of experience you need to look at more carefully, lest you
give them a block they won't use in years (or ever, if they fold).
But I don't want to keep them from getting a right sized block...
I just am pointing out that they will have to do porportionally
more legwork than someone with more established basis for their
I don't know for sure what the "best" way of allocating the costs
among the users would be. It is my suspicion that doing so based
on the size of the allocation is the most fair way to balance things
short of charging on a per-hour basis during the allocation setups.
As most people like pre-established fee structures, I think it's
better off to set something in stone. I am willing to listen to
alternatives to the proposed mechanism though. I think this should
be understood to be a distinct issue not directly related to the
rest of the proposal... if it's a good idea, we can talk some about
the charging mechanism (probably somewhere else rather than these
lists). If it is technically a bad idea, the charging mechanism
More information about the NANOG