> On Sep 19, 2021, at 12:54 , David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:05 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On Sep 18, 2021, at 03:04 , John Curran <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > You can assert that ARIN's costs are predominantly the result of “LIRs” but > > that doesn’t reflect reality – many of our services and functions are > > equivalent for an entire address block and only a small set of them are > > related to subdelegation functions. > > IRR > RPKI > SWIP/RDAP/WHOIS > RDNS > Frequency of updates > Frequency of additional requests/transfers/etc. > > are all impacted more by LIRs than by end users. > > Yes, there is a difference in the impact on these services by LIR vs > end-user, however I believe total size of allocations or assignments are a > much better predictor of the impact on usage levels of those services.
As I have previously stated… If end-users that aren’t using these various services could get an appropriate multiplier (e.g. 0.6*table), I am not opposed to tiered pricing for end users. I am opposed to end users paying the same as LIRs because that is an unfair subsidy to LIRs on the backs of end users. > So, currently end-users don't have access to SWIP, so how do you know they > don't have good uses for it? Probably not good enough to pay more, but if it > didn't cost more would they find uses for it? It is pretty easy to imagine it > could be useful for multijurisdictional end-users to SWIP their offices in > different states and countries, and I'm fairly sure there are other uses as > well. If those uses are desirable, then there are alternatives already available that don’t involve ARIN… RWHOIS, RDAP, etc. > Also, take my WISP or small ISP example, from earlier in the thread, if there > is a pricing differential on whether or not they SWIP or not, then you create > a financial disincentive for them to SWIP the one or two customers they might > have that justify SWIPing. So then, they either skirt or break the rules, or > even worse, they don't serve those customers because that would upset their > delicate financial model. Again, in such a case, they should be allowed to make the choice between running their own server or paying for SWIP. > On the other hand, there’s also the fact that the LIRs are (generally) using > their addresses directly for profit (i.e. their business _IS_ (at least in > part) providing IP addresses to their customers). Essentially, they are > reselling RIR services. > End users, OTOH, tend to be using addresses to run their organization, many > of which are not for profit and some of which are even individuals or > families. They aren’t reselling registration services for profit. > > You're making a moral argument here, not a technical one. I'd be fine with > nonprofit/not-for-profit discounts, however, nonprofits can be fairly large > concerns, take ARIN itself as an example. However, personal use get's pretty > fuzzy and is too easily abused, at least in my opinion. Furthermore, there > are plenty of for profit uses that can make a much larger profit per IP > address than selling connectivity or addressing services. Why should those > uses get preferential pricing? They are still using IP addresses to make > money, even brick and mortar companies are making much more of a profit from > Internet sales. Fairness of fees is a moral issue, not a technical one. Owen
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
