Hi, Let's assume an organization would qualify for e.g., /25 address allocation. When obtaining Internet connectivity, the ISP gives two offers, for example: - 100 EUR/mo for a /27 - 200 EUR/mo for a /25 (otherwise the terms are same, and the technical implementation is the same.) I recall this is not allowed. Are there any recourses in this kind situations? Threaten the ISP with LIR audit? ;-) The last RIPE document which seems to say that IP address must not be sold is RIPE-185 (AFAIR), which has been obsoleted -- the newer address policy documents seem to be quiet about this. RIPE-185 said: [under Publishing Local IR Policy] 2) Charging Policies A Local IR must publish its charging policy. The policy is defined in ripe-152 [Norris96a]: "Address space is a finite resource with no intrinsic value and direct costs cannot be ascribed to it. While they may not charge for address space as such, registries may charge for their administrative and technical ser- vices. Registries must publish their operating procedures and details of the services they offer and the conditions and terms that apply, including scales of tariffs if applicable." -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Hi Pekka,
Let's assume an organization would qualify for e.g., /25 address allocation. When obtaining Internet connectivity, the ISP gives two offers, for example: - 100 EUR/mo for a /27 - 200 EUR/mo for a /25 (otherwise the terms are same, and the technical implementation is the same.)
Well, why not? I for one cannot tell whether maintaining the /25 is more hassle to the ISP than the /27, maybe they have to file an application with RIPE since their AW is too small or whatever. If the organization qualifies for a /25, an audit will only result in "everything's been done properly, the applications are in order", provided the ISP documents their assignments correctly.
2) Charging Policies A Local IR must publish its charging policy. The policy is defined in ripe-152 [Norris96a]: "Address space is a finite resource with no intrinsic value and direct costs cannot be ascribed to it. While they may not charge for address space as such, registries may charge for their administrative and technical ser- vices. Registries must publish their operating procedures and details of the services they offer and the conditions and terms that apply, including scales of tariffs if applicable."
There you are: The ISP is not charging for the adress space, but for its setup, maintenance, reverse delegation, monthly usage checking, whatever... Even if it's undesirable, it's not against the "law". IMHO. Yours, Elmar. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2@ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
----- Original Message ----- From: "Elmar K. Bins" <elmi@4ever.de>
Let's assume an organization would qualify for e.g., /25 address allocation. When obtaining Internet connectivity, the ISP gives two offers, for example: - 100 EUR/mo for a /27 - 200 EUR/mo for a /25 (otherwise the terms are same, and the technical implementation is the same.)
If the organization qualifies for a /25, an audit will only result in "everything's been done properly, the applications are in order", provided the ISP documents their assignments correctly.
2) Charging Policies A Local IR must publish its charging policy. The policy is defined in ripe-152 [Norris96a]: "Address space is a finite resource with no intrinsic value and direct costs cannot be ascribed to it. While they may not charge for address space as such, registries may charge for their administrative and technical ser- vices. Registries must publish their operating procedures and details of the services they offer and the conditions and terms that apply, including scales of tariffs if applicable."
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/charging2004.html As clearly stated in the above URL, RIPEs charging scheme is almost solely based on how many ip addresses you require and it should be fairly easy to calculate the direct cost of a /25 allocation vs a /27. It might not cost that much in RIPE fees for a /25 or /27, but I don't see why an ISP shouldn't be able to charge their customers using the same scheme if they wanted to (and of course also add administrative fees etc). Joergen Hovland
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/charging2004.html As clearly stated in the above URL, RIPEs charging scheme is almost solely based on how many ip addresses you require and it should be fairly easy to calculate the direct cost of a /25 allocation vs a /27. It might not cost that much in RIPE fees for a /25 or /27, but I don't see why an ISP shouldn't be able to charge their customers using the same scheme if they wanted to (and of course also add administrative fees etc).
Having such a cost distribution system would cost more for the ISP than what the gain is. Really. If you can this way optimizae that you're Medium instead of Large, you win 1500 EUR. Such ISPs would have at least 100 customers, I'd guess. So that's likely at maximum 1 EUR/customer/mo. Hardly something what's worth even thinking about in the billing department. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
* Pekka Savola:
I recall this is not allowed. Are there any recourses in this kind situations? Threaten the ISP with LIR audit? ;-)
At this point, it would be more likely that any policy forbidding the sale of address space is abolished, I think. 8-) Extra fees for static vs. dynamic IP addresses (without proper RIPE documentation) are quite common.
I recall this is not allowed. Are there any recourses in this kind situations? Threaten the ISP with LIR audit? ;-)
At this point, it would be more likely that any policy forbidding the sale of address space is abolished, I think. 8-)
On the contrary. However, I can beleive people are sloppy in their language with respect to this rule; when they say that they charge for the address space, they really are charging for the services associated with and the maintenance related to the address space. One important point to remember is that the address space does not become the customer's property "because he paid for it".
Extra fees for static vs. dynamic IP addresses (without proper RIPE documentation) are quite common.
That doesn't contradict the rule, I think. Regards, - Håvard
Hi, On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:28:55AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
Let's assume an organization would qualify for e.g., /25 address allocation. When obtaining Internet connectivity, the ISP gives two offers, for example: - 100 EUR/mo for a /27 - 200 EUR/mo for a /25 (otherwise the terms are same, and the technical implementation is the same.)
I recall this is not allowed. Are there any recourses in this kind situations? Threaten the ISP with LIR audit? ;-)
Actually we decided on one of the last RIPE meetings to obsolete the "charging by local IRs" document, because the majority seemed to believe that "the market will rule this" - if one ISP charges too much, people will go and find an alternative. Personally, I can see a reason why (getting) a /25 might be more expensive than a /27. Usually customers are pretty sloppy in documenting their need - and figuring out why they need 16...32 IPs is usually less time- consuming than figuring out why they need 64...128 IPs ("do they have subnets? virtual hosting with SSL? is it because the 'need to have it immediately! *stomp foot*'?) - so it's sort of "charging by effort", not "charging by amount of address space". Of course it's hard to see the underlying rationale in a specific ISP's offer from the outside. (OTOH, the whole industry is so NAT-damaged that more and more ISPs have serious issues understanding the concept of "assigning a subnet of reasonable size" to end-users. *sigh*. Time for IPv6. Really.) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Hello,
Personally, I can see a reason why (getting) a /25 might be more expensive than a /27. Usually customers are pretty sloppy in documenting their need - and figuring out why they
I think a more serious issue is customers claiming "I can get a /24 from ISP x, either you also give me one or I don't sign". Next thing happening is sales coming to you requiring you fake a document explaining to RIPE why this customer does need a /24. Or - I have seen LIRs like this - give the customer the /24 without even doing any documentation ("who cares if RIPE notices in some years - I will be gone until then, let someone else clean up"). I don't mind ISPs charging for doing the documentation of assigning IPs, but I do mind if getting more IP addresses (without a real need of the customer) becomes an argument in selling. best regards, Wolfgang
Hi, On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:33:09AM +0100, Wolfgang Tremmel wrote:
I don't mind ISPs charging for doing the documentation of assigning IPs, but I do mind if getting more IP addresses (without a real need of the customer) becomes an argument in selling.
ACK. (It's interesting to see where this argument is coming from - you're around even longer than I am :-) - I see this specific issue "give me a /24 or I go to UUnet!" as a lesser problem these days than maybe 4 years ago, because most customers only ask for a /32 or /29 these days, having a NAT router or NAT firewall already in place, and being used to "everybody does NAT". So having proper address space is not really an argument anymore, as opposed to "our controller says it must be cheap") Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Hi, On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:46:54AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
(It's interesting to see where this argument is coming from - you're around even longer than I am :-) - I see this specific issue "give me a /24 or I go to UUnet!" as a lesser problem these days than maybe 4 years ago,
I apologize for specifically naming UUnet here. This was just my fingers typing "a big ISP that everybody knows (and the competition fears)". I have NO evidence that UUnet is doing network assignment in any way that is not conforming to the RIPE policies. Sorry again. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Gert Doering wrote:
Actually we decided on one of the last RIPE meetings to obsolete the "charging by local IRs" document, because the majority seemed to believe that "the market will rule this" - if one ISP charges too much, people will go and find an alternative.
Sigh. And I thought IP addresses were a global resource, with a bit nobler motivations and goals to recommend or mandate that the ISPs don't screw their customers on something they get for free. Live and learn.. It seems this matter needs to be taken up in the local telecom legislation.. If the end users had realistic possibilities to obtain routable PI, there would not be such a concern, because the ISPs could not create a lock-in situation (or force to renumber or use NAT).. But now this seems like a problem. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Hi, On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 12:45:50PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Gert Doering wrote:
Actually we decided on one of the last RIPE meetings to obsolete the "charging by local IRs" document, because the majority seemed to believe that "the market will rule this" - if one ISP charges too much, people will go and find an alternative.
Sigh. And I thought IP addresses were a global resource, with a bit nobler motivations and goals to recommend or mandate that the ISPs don't screw their customers on something they get for free. Live and learn..
I don't see this as negative as you seem to do. There's the optimistic view: there are *so many* ISPs on the market that an ISP that screws its customers will just see them wander away to other ISPs - and there are enough that don't charge by-address (Charging for the initial setup has never been prohibited anyway). The pragmatic/pessimistic view is "what shall RIPE do about it anyway?" - there are enough ISPs out there that don't bother with any sort of RIPE documentation, and can get away with it because they have a /14 and don't expect ever to need more address space - there is hardly any pressure RIPE can apply here, and there isn't enough peer pressure out there to have effect. [..]
If the end users had realistic possibilities to obtain routable PI, there would not be such a concern, because the ISPs could not create a lock-in situation (or force to renumber or use NAT).. But now this seems like a problem.
Well - let's be somewhat realistic here. If you get a leased line to your ISP, it will usually cost a hefty setup fee as well, because there's effort involved in digging up the street. Will you also call that a "vendor lock-in"? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
participants (7)
-
Elmar K. Bins -
Florian Weimer -
Gert Doering -
Havard Eidnes -
Jørgen Hovland -
Pekka Savola -
Wolfgang Tremmel