On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:22:29PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere
> <bab...@baby-dragons.com> wrote:
> >> And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment
> >> maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation
> >> maintenance fee table, would that really be "significant" in the grand
> >> scheme of things?
> >> S
> >
> > Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic
> > region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't make enough to cover that
>
> Jim,
>
> Not much sympathy for folks crying the blues about the cost of an
> address assignment that they're going to turn around and announce into
> the DFZ...
assuming facts not in evidence there ... but ok.
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:17 PM, <bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
> > What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the
> > existant IPv4 pool?
>
> Bill,
>
> ARIN has implemented a structure to facilitate IPv4 address transfers
> should an open market come to exist. Between an address market and the
> ever more creative use of NAT, it should be possible for IPv4
> addressing to continue after free pool depletion as a zero-sum game.
> Exactly how long is a matter of debate with speculation ranging from
> months to decades.
cool. I've used the transfer policy with limited success.
I guess the interesting thing in your statement (and I suspect
a trip to the ARIN NRPM is in order) is "should an open market
come into existence" ... how do you see that happening?
but more to my point. If I'm using a single /24 out of my /20
(using an antiquated example) - would there be:
) interest in the other 15 /24s
) how would that interest be expressed (so I would know about it)
) complaints from the folks running w/o default about
the new prefixes on offer? **
** remembering that as far as the routing system is concerned, a /32 is a /32
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
> > What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA?
>
> Owen,
>
> ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the
> event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled
> throughout.
>
>
> > Would it be equally onerous if ARIN simply stopped providing RDNS for you?
>
> Probably not. SMTP is the only major service any more that cares. But
> that's immaterial; ending RDNS for legacy registrants has been an
> empty threat from the day the notion was first hatched.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>
