On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
If the effort that will go into administering this went instead
into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being
used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit.
But they can't do that without impacting revenue. In order to
continue
charging fees that are wholly out of proportion to their cost ARIN
must:
A) ignore all the unneeded legacy /16 allocations, even those owned
by
organizations with fewer than 300 employees (like net.com) who could
easily get by with a /24
B) do nothing while IPv6 languishes due to the absence of a
standard for
one-to-many NAT and NAPT for v6 and v4/v6
C) periodically raise fees and implement minimal measures like
requiring
someone to sign a statement of need, so they can at least appear to
have
been proactive when the impacts of this artificial shortage really
begin
to impact communications
Bottom line: it's about the money. Money and short-term self-
interest,
same as is causing havoc in other sectors of the economy. Nothing new
here.
Roger -
A few nits:
A) ARIN's not ignoring unneeded legacy allocations, but can't take
action without the Internet community first making some policy
on what action should be taken... Please get together with
folks
of similar mind either via PPML or via Public Policy meeting at
the the Open Policy Bof, and then propose a policy accordingly.
B) Technical standards for NAT & NAPT are the IETF's job, not
ARIN's.
C) We've routinely lowered fees since inception, not raised them.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
Acting CEO
ARIN