[138839] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SP's and v4 block assignments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Wheeler)
Sat Mar 19 12:47:45 2011
In-Reply-To: <8C26A4FDAE599041A13EB499117D3C286B3DCE3D@ex-mb-1.corp.atlasnetworks.us>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:46:57 -0400
From: Jeff Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Nathan Eisenberg
<nathan@atlasnetworks.us> wrote:
> As for charging for residential static assignments, I don't think it's al=
l that odd, or 'despicable'. =A0Allocating static assignments consumes engi=
neer time for configuration and documentation. =A0On a business class servi=
ce, you can eat that cost fairly easily. =A0On a low-yield residential circ=
uit, there has to be some long term ROI because that work probably takes th=
e margin out of the service for months.
"Engineer time" is not an issue. If it requires an "engineer" for
"configuration" and "documentation," the provisioning process is
already flawed. The reason to not want residential users to have
static IPs is that these users represent large chunks of traffic which
can be easily moved from one group of HFC channels to another when
additional capacity must be created by breaking up access network
segments. If many users had a static IP, this would be more
difficult. Since most users don't have a static IP, the overhead of
dealing with the few users who do is entirely manageable, especially
when these users are paying a higher fee.
--=20
Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
Sr Network Operator=A0 /=A0 Innovative Network Concepts
