ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah.
JimFleming at unety.net
Sat Mar 29 21:26:50 UTC 1997
On Saturday, March 29, 1997 5:49 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote:
@ On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Aleph One wrote:
@ > I for one like the idea of ARIN. It's the pricing structure that is
@ > compleatly wrong. The structure will create a market for companies to
@ > "lease" large quantities for address space from ARIN, and then "sublease"
@ > them cheaper than ARIN it self. You may claim you can not sell address
@ > space but we have all seen it happen.
@ I'm not claiming that ARIN is perfect and that it will instantly solve all
@ problems. But I do believe that it will be far more responsive to the
@ industry than the Internic could be. And if enough ISP's join ARIN and
@ come up with a better funding/pricing scheme then I believe it *CAN*
@ be implemented. The fundamental feature of ARIN is that it will be
@ responsive to the needs of those organizations who use IP address space.
@ It's just a first step in the right direction, not the ultimate goal.
@ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
@ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049
@ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com
If more companies had been allowed to develop
more Registry Industy Infrastructure during the
past 18 months, rather than debate how many
IAHCs or ARINs can dance on the head of a pin,
then we would all be much further, at least here in
As companies come up to speed in the Registry
Industry they will be natural candidates to help
take over some of the InterNIC duties. IP allocations
are only one aspect of those duties. Some companies
may not choose to get into that activity, other
companies might start there.
Again, why don't the people chomping at the
bit to form ARIN, just do it ? Once they do they
can stand in line with the other ISPs to obtain
an IP allocation which they can then use to
provide "services" to fund themselves.
More information about the NANOG