Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

[John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>]

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