About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Community Mail Archives
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
About RIPE Maillists
Maillists Archive
Global Lists
Non Active Lists
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section

Re: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space

  • To: Pekka Savola <
    >
  • From: Gert Doering <
    >
  • Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:53:28 +0100
  • Cc: Gert Doering <
    >,
  • Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=VhuRms8SDuDnhsPCLmJ3jTauQWI01+qGSKtwQ3vpxPXzciheiZxIBETf7tOGJqAi ;

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@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299




 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | Copyright Statement
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community