[173144] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jul 17 07:59:28 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <201407151509.JAA01451@mail.lariat.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:58:17 -0700
To: Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
When was the last time you did an ARIN request for resources for a large =
or x-large provider?
I have reasonably recent (<2 years ago) experience doing requests for =
XX-Small, X-Small,
Small, Large, and X-Large organizations, including 2 organizations that =
qualified for /24s
(the max size for a large organization, one as an additional and one as =
an initial). I can tell you
for certain that the scrutiny on ARIN's part has been very nearly =
identical in all cases. If
anything, I got more scrutiny on some of the bigger requests than any of =
the smaller ones.
Further, ARIN also has economies of scale, because you are paying for =
registration services,
not IP addresses. No matter how much you want to keep trying to ignore =
that, the reality is
that if anything, the bigger organizations are the ones potentially =
getting overcharged because
the records for a /16 cost roughly the same to maintain as the records =
for a /48.
There are some mitigating factors (numbers of SWIPs, frequency of =
additional requests,
quality of request submissions, etc.), but exact cost accounting and =
billing based on it
would be a bigger nightmare that might cost more to administer than is =
collected under
the current system.
While I will agree that some of the changes to the ARIN fee structure in =
the last round
were not for the good, I really don't think your argument about price =
per IP has any
merit whatsoever as it is completely divorced from the reality of what =
you are paying
ARIN for.
Owen
On Jul 15, 2014, at 07:58 , Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
> Matt:
>=20
> Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in
> shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply =
numbers!
> Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no=20=
> reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason=20=
> for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little
> guys, who get disproportionate scrutiny.
>=20
> --Brett Glass
>=20
> At 12:24 AM 7/15/2014, Matt Palmer wrote:
>=20
>> While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's =
cup-of-coffee
>> analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address
>> argument:
>>=20
>> Annual Fee Max CIDR $/IP
>> $500 /22 0.49
>> $1000 /20 0.24
>> $2000 /18 0.12
>> $4000 /16 0.06
>> $8000 /14 0.03
>> $16000 /12 0.02
>> $32000 > /12 Mastercard!
>>=20
>> Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume
>> purchases.
