ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah.

Matthew Pearson mpearson at
Sat Mar 29 18:39:25 UTC 1997

At 11:37 AM 3/29/97 -0600, Aleph One wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, David R. Conrad wrote:
>> Size    Fee             Amt of space    Per address per year fee
>> Small   $2500/year      /24 - /19       $9.77 - $0.31
>> Medium  $5000/year      >/19 - /16      $0.61 - $0.08
>> Large   $10K/year       >/16 - /14      $0.15 - $0.04
>> X-Large $20K/year       >/14            $0.08 -> $0.00
>   I'am I the only one that finds that the fact that the prices actually
>*decrease* the larger the address blocks is disturbing? Not only does it
>make entrace into the ISP market more difficult, but it allows the
>creation of a highly profitable market for the resale of IP addresses if
>you buy then in bulk to beging with (yeah, yeah I know about allocation
>policies, but I seen people get large blocks easily).

I feel that it is disturbing as well. Since IP addresses are supposed to
come from a non-profit organization all prices should be equal. Why should
US Sprint get a deal (not to single them out.. take any HUGE network
provider) on addresses and then have ARIN stick it to smaller NSPs such as
our own.

It makes no sense...

Not to mention you will then create 2nd level IP allocation companies. I
could pay the bucks, misfile the paperwork and get a /14 or two and then
resell smaller blocks for less than ARIN's prices to NSPs starving for
address space.

Gimme a break.

Just my $.02, no flames made nor requested

More information about the NANOG mailing list