Why are we adding more rules for IPv4 space?
a) It is almost impossible to get space in a reasonable timescale without paying (more than just the ARIN fees) for it b) If you have to pay for the space anyway you are not going to buy something that you can't use (unless you are speculating), and I think a /16 goes for over half a million.. c) If you are giving public IP address to 64K new PC's then rationally asking why you are not putting them being a NAT appliance and giving you a /24 is a good question A NAT appliance can be had for well less than half a million... (if you are deploying 64K new servers the same applies, except we're talking about a load balancer there) Let's simply get rid of the 25% in 30 days and worry about IPv6 transition. I feel that every time we make the rules more complex we increase the costs for managing requests and those are /not/ borne by the requestor (until they acquire space) This is unfair on the small organizations with LRSA who already have their space and make almost no call on ARIN's services. I.e. the $100/record/year fee when there are no actual changes and there cannot possibly be a $100 worth of power used in preserving each record Thank you Richard Letts
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
