Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

[David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 8:19 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.

Well, yes, in the sense that pretty much anything an RIR does would  
impact their revenue one way or another.

> 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

The term "legacy" here is relevant.  Under what agreement would an RIR  
evaluate an allocation that occurred prior to the existence of the  
RIR? And when the folks who received legacy space and don't like this  
upstart RIR nosing around in their business, the legal fees that the  
RIR incur will cost non-trivial amounts of, well, money.

>  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

So, you'd propose the RIRs become (more) involved in the IETF?  But  
that would cost, you know, money.

>  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

"Artificial"?  Heh.

> Bottom line: it's about the money.

Well yes, it is _always_ about the money.

Regards,
-drc