[lir-wg] Re: "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again."
Tue Nov 26 15:38:23 CET 2002
Please note that on principle I disagree with pretty much everything Jim Fleming waffles about. Jim, please do not use my opinions to expound your own. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming at ameritech.net> To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy at knowtion.net>; "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> Cc: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <lars at marowsky-bree.de>; "Local IR Working Group" <lir-wg at ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 1:31 PM Subject: "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again." > From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy at knowtion.net> > "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again." > ==== > > When money is mentioned, people seem to **assume** that the people who mention money are > against spending it. What really may be happening is that people are against **hiding** the costs, > or denying the costs, or claiming someone is in this "for the good of the community", when it is very > clear that year after year, they are in it for the money and the good times and the travel and whatever > perks they can get from doing almost nothing but saying to a large group of other people, "here, you > take 10, you take 20, 30 goes there, and 40 goes over there." It is hard for people to imagine that the > process of **selling uniqueness** (or leasing it), has value. > > As people can see, it now takes about 30 people to do what one person can do. > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > That multiplies the costs by a factor of 30. Someone has to pay for that. There is no free lunch. > > This is a classic Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) structure. The 30 people are not really required, it is > really a few people surrounded by others, working to get into the game, to find their place in the pyramid. > Labor unions also have the same pattern or structure. Workers may ask, "What does my $5 per month do ?", > answer, "It pays to have someone collect the $5". Some may have a hard time seeing the **value** if it > is reduced to a simple circular situation. If enough people and money are added to the structure, then it > all becomes much harder to sort out, and reduce to the simple reality that those at the top of the structures > have a large vested interest in making sure the structure remains in place and that all of the people in the > lower levels of the structure keep it in place. It costs time and money to keep it in place. People at the top > of the structure have to make sure that not too much money flows to the top because then it would become > too obvious what is going on. Instead, they have to smooth over the lower levels and short-circuit the cash-flow > and customers to keep the MLM structure expanding, while maintaining the top with a percentage going to > the house. If one wants to "play" with a similar structure, they can learn to operate a .CASINO. > http://casinoempire.sierra.com/casino.htm > > > http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot04082002.html > > ARIN Board of Trustees Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada > > April 8, 2002 > > > > called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. MDT > > ...adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. MDT > > All you have to do is get some /8s and you can lease them...RIPE is only one small Registry... > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy at knowtion.net> > To: "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> > Cc: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <lars at marowsky-bree.de>; "Local IR Working Group" <lir-wg at ripe.net> > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:49 AM > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > > > > > Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are > > > properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some > > > money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is > > > a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs > > > than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss. > > > > I wholeheartedly agree with training being a core activity. It reduces the > > workload in the long term by not requiring quite so much handholding later. > > I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again. > > > > > I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure that > > > they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a > > catastrophe - > > > or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - which > > > is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for. > > > > OK. I have *not* had time since recieving the invoice yesterday to go and > > read every budget report and annual report issued in 2002. I will. I cannot > > comment on this directly, but I will go and look at how the costs break down > > and formulate more informed opinions shortly. In the meanwhile I have asked > > (too late for bureaucrats probably, but I must try) to be invoiced > > quarterly, as this outrageous increase screws my cashflow for the next year. > > I am *not* in this for business or profit - like I have said I am supporting > > a leftover, legacy network and not-quite breaking even. > > > > > (Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel > > > they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range > > > that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a non-commercial > > > network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is it > > > necessary to be a LIR?") > > > > For the last question, and for my circumstances, yes. There is not other way > > to get independent access to AS number(s) and address space. I have been > > royally screwed in the past (in different jobs, mind) by ISPs using the PA > > renumbering 'costs' to force retention of otherwise un-economic business. In > > terms of resilience - if that is your chosen route - BGP is essential, even > > if at the moment my specific circumstances dictate that I only have one > > puclic upstream (my private peering is my own affair). Relying on a > > 'foreign' LIR to issue and maintain an as-num or other RIPE objects is too > > risky. > > > > So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. > > Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and > > acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become > > an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect). > > > > Peter > > > >
[ lir-wg Archive ]