Re: Non-profit IP Registry

[Marc Slemko <marcs () znep com>]

If you need to get a /24 from the registry, you need to pay the price.

If you just want a /24, get one from your upstream.  If they have a /17,
the cost per /24 drops down _quite_ a bit; $7500/128 = ~$60 for a one-time
fee.  Generally speaking, right now you can not get a /24 from the
InterNIC and have everyone listen to your advertisment so this really
doesn't change that much for the small guy.  I think it will, however,
cause a good number of people with legacy class Cs allocated a long time
ago to renumber into provider assigned space to reduce their costs. 

I have some big concerns about some of the details; with some things I
don't like what I see (there seems to be more behind the ideas than what
is being stated; that "hidden agenda" of sorts isn't a bad one, but I
think it is hidden and that is bad), others there simply needs to be more
details on, however I don't think that the overall plan is as bad as you
make it out to be. 

I think further discussion should really go to the naipr list that Kim
mentioned; some of the issues aren't clear, the details aren't finalized
yet and there is a potential for a lot of useless bickering.


On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, David Stoddard wrote:

>       While I admit it is not completely clear reading the proposal
>       outlined on the web page at http://rs.internic.net/arin, charging
>       $2,500 for a /24 will *kill* the small business market, and the
>       ISPs that exist to service that market.  Most of the associations
>       and small businesses we deal with choke when thay have to pay $750
>       for a router to handle their dedicated Internet connection.  Added
>       to the fact that the LECs want to charge per minute charges for 
>       POTS lines used for dedicated dial-up, a $2,500 IP address charge
>       will guarantee that the small business portion of the market will
>       disappear.  We all depend on the net for a living folks -- I don't
>       think we should consider any proposal that would have a negative
>       effect on our own industry.
>
>       Dave Stoddard
>       US Net Incorporated
>       301-572-5926
>       dgs () us net

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -