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

Stephen Sprunk spsprunk at
Sat Mar 29 19:48:42 UTC 1997

It will take the exact same level of effort for a NIC to assign you a /24
as it does to assign you a /14, provided numbers are available.  When you
consider this, the LARGER providers should be screaming about how much THEY
are getting ripped off.

There are patently obvious reasons to charge this way:

1. A large block uses less space in routing tables than hundreds of small
blocks.  Slow-start will undoubtedly be changed in favor of a policy that
encourages providers to get a single appropriate-sized network instead of
having to register dozens of non-contiguous blocks over time.

2. Most SMALLER providers will be getting addresses from a larger provider,
and will only have to pay that provider's price for their addresses (plus
profit, of course).  Not only is this a good deal for all parties involved,
it also encourages route aggregation.

Remember, ARIN policies and prices will change based on member input.  If
you don't believe ARIN will work, then you need to get into the debates and
get what you don't like changed.

Stephen Sprunk

At 13:39 29 03 97 -0500, you wrote:
>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