This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Jan 11 11:53:28 CET 2005
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 at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]