> > How much cost could realistically be driven out, and still have a secure, > reliable database and an open policy development process? > > I am aware of a couple of companies that would like to compete with the > RIRs. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. So far they have been unable to > convince me that they have the communities' best interests at heart.
There is a 100% chance that a for profit entity would increase every fee that the non-profit RIRs charge today, and invent as many new fees and charges as they could possibly get away with. On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:41 PM Howard, Lee via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > Hi David, > > I envy you and Bill your threaded mail readers. > > Clearly other models exist for establishing uniqueness than treaty > organizations, since that is the status quo. > > Your assertion is that competitive RIRs would therefore be able to provide > less bureaucracy and lower cost than current RIRs. > In the allocation of numbers, IPv6 blocks and ASNs are pretty easy to get, > everywhere. They're also pretty cheap: > RIPE NCC APNIC AFRINIC LACNIC > ARIN > IPv6 /32 2600 EUR 1000 AUD 5000 USD 2750 USD > 1000 USD > ASN 2600 EUR 0 AUD 450 USD 500 USD 250 USD > (That's initial fee plus annual renewal, but there are nuances I've > simplified. I'm not authoritative and could be corrected for reading their > pages wrong). > > When it comes to IPv4 transfers, the bureaucratic hurdle varies by region. > But the potential for fraud is high, and the disruption to the Internet if > fraud were to succeed at scale would be significant. (Aha! We found > something operational!) > > How much cost could realistically be driven out, and still have a secure, > reliable database and an open policy development process? > > I am aware of a couple of companies that would like to compete with the > RIRs. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. So far they have been unable to > convince me that they have the communities' best interests at heart. > > Lee > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 6:52 PM > To: Howard, Lee <leehow...@hilcostreambank.com> > Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to > December 2024 > > Hi Lee, > > On Nov 18, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Howard, Lee via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: > > In the same way that phone numbers or radio frequencies are allocated by > geographical monopolies, yes. > > Except that the RIRs are *much* more open to participation. > > And except that telephone numbers and radio frequencies are > allocated/managed by nation-states under UN-based international treaty > regimes. I’m not sure this is a particularly good model to follow. > > > What problem are you trying to solve? > > As I suspect you’re aware, pragmatically, the geographical monopoly > restrictions imposed by the RFCs/ICP-2 are increasingly bypassed, resulting > in those restrictions arguably merely adding unnecessary bureaucracy/cost. > The question is, when considering revising the policies under which the RIR > operate, whether or not perpetuating those restrictions is beneficial in > the long run. > > Regards, > -drc > >
