May 1994 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: Address space for individuals
by Hank Nussbacher 24 May '94

24 May '94

On Sun, 22 May 1994 23:07:50 +0200 (MET DST) you said: > >Hank, I feel you are really mixing up two issues: > > - DNS registration > > - IP registry of last resort > >It is really difficult to see where the large cost factor is >in the first case (if I counted correctly co.il contains 91 >domains, really peanuts from a resource usage point of view). > >In the second case, real personel costs -do- exist, since a lot >of applicants will expect free consulting and will argue end- >lessly about how much address space they need using up personel >time (and nerves). > >Simon In my case it is the opposite. The large personnel costs are for DNS rather than for IP. Those that connect have no idea what DNS is, none whatsoever about bind, nameservice, primary and secondary nameservers, how to structure their own internal domain space, etc. I have had lots of Novell networks wanting connectivity and then you need to explain to them about LAN Workplace for DOS, LAN Workgroup or Netwire IP and how each fits into the DNS way of things. The personnel time is roughly 5:1 for DNS vs IP allocation in my country. Hank

4 4

Re: Address space for individuals
by bob＠informatics.rutherford.ac.uk 23 May '94

23 May '94

> while I don't want to join in flaming, I see some good reasons for > people running a registry *now* for frowning at the financial > procedures proposed or even applied unilaterally be some (only a very > few?) Last Resort Registries. I tend to agree with Wilfried. JANET originally offered to run the UK Last Resort registry because, as the national adademic & reserach network, we believed that it was in the interest of UK (and European) networking that someone undertook the job. We still feel this way, but it has to be said that its a lot of work, that it's not possible to justify to our funders that much effort is expended on this activity, and consequently that sometimes we find it difficult to provide the service level that we would like in terms of turnaround of requests, provision of advice etc. As things will get worse in this respect (as IP becomes more widespread), something will have to be done. Charging isn't necessarily bad -- it allows the service to be put on a proper, stable basis and most companies have no difficulty in understanding the concept of paying a small admin. fee for registration. However, I'd feel unhappy with unilateral action by individual registries -- there should be general agreement on the necessity. We'd probably give up running the UK Last Resort registry, rather than charge unilaterally, if it came to the point that we could no longer cope with current effort levels. So (although I didn't make the last RIPE IR group meeting, unfortunately) I'd support some serious discussion of this topic, to reach a consensus. One point I'd suggest though -- I don't believe it would be realistic to expect a uniform charge across Europe. As with everything else in life, costs will vary from country to country. One discussion point will be whether one wants the idea of free competition across Europe, with customers "shopping around" (the Maastricht ideal, I suppose), or a situation where customers aren't "allowed" to apply in other than their own country (ie regulation, or a cartel, depending on your view.) If the latter then there's an interesting consequence of what to do if a one country's Last Resort Registry starts charging unreasonably high prices ... this is a problem that hasn't been solved yet in the well known area of line provision! Could be an interesting discussion.... Bob Day

2 1

Re: Address space for individuals
by bob＠informatics.rutherford.ac.uk 23 May '94

23 May '94

> I can't see this. Don't take it as buying but paying sort of tax for it. Nope. As Simon says, governments raise taxes, not private organisations. If charging is to be run on a cost-recovery basis (and I can't myself see any desire to do otherwise -- we all need to ensure the things's funded but presumably don't see this as profit-making), the main costs are staff related -- processing requests, giving advice etc. I can see this as justifying a one-off fee for allocation, but there doesn't seem to be a reason for a maintenance charge. (And what do you do if a customer doesn't pay this? Reassign the number(s), with the knowledge that they're probably still being used?) Setting a "recommended" price is fine -- it's a sort of price regulation. But this would have to be high enough to cover the staff costs of those countries where salaries etc are relatively high -- generally north-west Europe. I still think there will be deviations, as some registries will find alternative funding, some will just do their own thing. As long as we don't have some silly idea of trying to enforce a uniform charge, I don't think it matters -- things will shake down, as the majority of companies will be more interested in applying to their local registry (easier to do, same language, etc) than saving a few ECUs. The main cause of people going to a non-local registry would surely be if the local one wasn't giving a good service, rather than because of price? Bob Day

1 0

Re: Address space for individuals
by Hank Nussbacher 22 May '94

22 May '94

On Fri, 20 May 1994 17:10:43 +0100 you said: > while I don't want to join in flaming, I see some good reasons for > people running a registry *now* for frowning at the financial > procedures proposed or even applied unilaterally be some (only a very > few?) Last Resort Registries. > > I'm definitely feeling worried when a Last-Resort-Registry, run by a > Service Provider *upon it's own voluntary decision* starts charging for > allocating addresses. I wonder whether there isn't some incentive (at > least conceavably :-) to be quite generous... We told the IL commerical service providers that we may charge in the future. Each said that they could do it for free. We said great. Let us know when you are ready and we will *gladly* transfer over all co.il responsibility. Two weeks later we heard from them that when they sat down and figured in the machine cycles and the manpower that they couldn't do the service for free as they had thought initially but would have to charge for it. We still provide the service free of charge. We would like to conform (or in ISOish - harmonize) to whatever the overall majority feels should be done. If everyone in Europe says "do it free since that is the way it should be", we will do it for free. But in all fairness, if that is the decision to be made then I would like to see a table of all RIPE countries that provide free registry services with who provides the funding: a) government funded registry b) university funded registry c) country Internet consortium funded registry d) other Do people feel that such a table would be worthwhile to determine who is currently funding registry services in Europe today? Hank

2 1

Re: Address space for individuals
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 21 May '94

21 May '94

>My main problem with supporting "sub-class C" allocations is that >the local-IR's don't operate in a vaccum. There's a whole system >of: > > - computer manufactureres > > - networking equipment companies > > - consultants > > - literature From my experience the biggest challenges should be expected from categigory 3 and (to some extent, but considerably less) from category 4. Wilfried.

2 1

Re: Address space for individuals
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 20 May '94

20 May '94

Hi Daniel, = > Erik-Jan Bos <erik-jan.bos(a)SURFnet.nl> writes: = > > This sums up my personal opinion. = > = > Great, quite along my personal opinion, but we need a consistent = > approach among all Local IRs. = =We will write something up next week. If someone else does before =us we can use that! = =My proposal would read like: = = - very small enterprises (VSEs) are those <32 hosts now Just to make sure that we think along the same lines: I'd strongly favour an approach where there is NO difference being made between private ("for personal use") and corporate/commercial applications... = - last resort registries will not assign address space to VSEs = = - VSEs can use private address space (RFC1697) = - VSEs are easy to renumber once they connect = - VSEs are likely to connect with one host only = = - service provider registries will assign VSEs smaller amounts = of address space than 8 bits where possible = = - service provider registries will register these smaller amounts = in the RIPE database when possible = =Rationale: = = Very many VSEs with 8 bits of address space each will use up = too much address space. = = = =Is this acceptable to all? = Good for me. =Implementation: If this was accepted the NCC could accept classles =inetnums very soon even before the indexing is fully classless. = =Question: Should we publish such things as RIPE documents or just =circulate them among registries as "current practise recommendations". =I personally think we should publish them, but have heared reservations. From the point of "open-ness" and information dissemination I'd agree to publish this, however, we have to aware of that these documents tend to float around for a long time, even after some cicles of update. BUT, if we start to publish the address assignment rules, any such document proposed IMHO has to cover many more aspects, for instance any financial implications we might come up with.... Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Wilfried.Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Address space for individuals
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 20 May '94

20 May '94

Hank, >pay it. But when I recently posted in regards to our plans to charge >customers for IP address registration I got all sorts of flames. When while I don't want to join in flaming, I see some good reasons for people running a registry *now* for frowning at the financial procedures proposed or even applied unilaterally be some (only a very few?) Last Resort Registries. I'm definitely feeling worried when a Last-Resort-Registry, run by a Service Provider *upon it's own voluntary decision* starts charging for allocating addresses. I wonder whether there isn't some incentive (at least conceavably :-) to be quite generous... At the same time, running a Service-Provider Registry for an academic community, we are not able to suggest to our clientele that we are providing them withg a service that has a financial value after all... So, I'd really like to see this sorted out soon! And anything that is agreed on should equally fit the commercial ISP registries as well as the "not for profit" ones. Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Wilfried.Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Address space for individuals
by Bjorn Eriksen 20 May '94

20 May '94

>My proposal would read like: >.... >Is this acceptable to all? yes, and publish. --Bjorn

1 0

Re: Address space for individuals
by Dave Morton 20 May '94

20 May '94

> > Erik-Jan Bos <erik-jan.bos(a)SURFnet.nl> writes: > > > This sums up my personal opinion. > > > > Great, quite along my personal opinion, but we need a consistent > > approach among all Local IRs. > >We will write something up next week. If someone else does before >us we can use that! > >My proposal would read like: > > - very small enterprises (VSEs) are those <32 hosts now > > - last resort registries will not assign address space to VSEs > > - VSEs can use private address space (RFC1697) > - VSEs are easy to renumber once they connect > - VSEs are likely to connect with one host only > > - service provider registries will assign VSEs smaller amounts > of address space than 8 bits where possible > > - service provider registries will register these smaller amounts > in the RIPE database when possible > >Rationale: > > Very many VSEs with 8 bits of address space each will use up > too much address space. > > > >Is this acceptable to all? YEP. > >Implementation: If this was accepted the NCC could accept classles >inetnums very soon even before the indexing is fully classless. > >Question: Should we publish such things as RIPE documents or just >circulate them among registries as "current practise recommendations". >I personally think we should publish them, but have heared reservations. Publish. >Daniel Dave

1 0

Re: Address space for individuals
by Dave Morton 20 May '94

20 May '94

Fully agree with Hank here - we are seeing the same problems in Germany as someone somewhere has to finance all this. Either the service providers do one stop shopping at the local IR and/or TLD-NIC and/or we charge or rent ip numbers and domain name space etc. to induviduals. No other way to go in the long term. Same applies to RIPE but me and Daniel have had our arguments about this in the past offline. Thats another story. Dave

1 0