[[lug] DSL, static IPs and the hunt for red october.]

[Duke Smith]

Well, thank you for identifying yourself as a prime mover of Network
Solutions, not only admitting your clear bias in responding to my
criticism of their poor service, but also demonstrating your responsibility
for the fact that it took them several months to get the message that
I needed to change my reference email address, used for identification
and authentication for online domain information changes, and therefore
could not do this via their circuitous and insulting online interface. Also,
the organizational incompetence that accepted my credit-card transaction
to renew my domain-name registration for ten years, sent me email
and paper confirmation, and then forgot all this and began harrassing
me with dunning notices for 1/10 of the payment of which they had
already confirmed receipt. It is true that the charge never went through,
as my credit-card provider cancelled the transaction when NS failed
to bill (electronically) within 5 days of approval.

Jim Romary wrote:

> My last word on this:
>
> I have been involved directly with IP acquisition from the IP
> registries since 1994. I was the sole contact for the (at the
> time) Network Solution's IP allocation department. Kim worked for
> NetSol before heading up ARIN. I was also responsible for setting
> up my company for the Premier Partner program, which enabled my
> company to recieve a dedicated contact at NetSol for a variety of
> services. I was solely responsible for SWIPping the entire contents
> of two /14, three /15, and a smattering of /16s. I was responsible
> for the address acquisitions for a couple of counties, cities, school
> districts and other governmental entities. With a few execptions, all
> realize the transient nature of IP addresses as it relates to their
> Network connectivity. None assume that the IP addresses are "legally"
> attached to their venera.isi.edu .us domain registrations.
>
> Please, if you have a contract that gives you "legal" possession of the
> domain and IP addresses, you have a contract with an entity other than
> a domain registrar or IP registry. No, I repeat no, registrar or registry
> links address space and domains. They never have. If you "bought" this
> domain and netblock you must have bought it in a private transaction
> on the open or closed market. You will not have a contract with NetSol,
> ARIN, or (defunct)IANA, or RIPE, etc. You may have a sympathetic
> provider that will announce a specific /24, and that provider may
> have a provider that will allow that specific, but that is it.
>
> I really do not care how much people spend on addresses, domains
> service, or IP services generally. I was responding to posts that
> were linking "addresses", as in domain regsitration fees, with
> "addresses", as in IP assignment or allocations. They are different.
>
> |When I first acquired the domain name webiq.com & the 256 address
> |class-C block logically and legally connected to it, there was never
> |any enlightened discussion such as below claiming "[d]omains have
> |nothing to do with IP address acquisition". The terminology used in
> |the legal contractual text defining this transaction was that the domain
> |name webiq.com is the name legally and logically assigned to the domain
> |www.xxx.yyy.[0-255], much as, I would guess, the personal name
> |"Jim Romary" is legally and possibly even logically assigned to a certain
> |living, breathing physical entity. Your circuitous and obfuscatory discussion
> |wouldn't even get past depositions if a related issue ever wound up
> |in the legal system.
> |
> |I have never denied that "Providers must pay" for IP@'s, nor have I claimed
> |there is anything "untoward in charging for" them. I merely shared some
> |very simple arithmetic based on prices people on this list quoted, as
> |compared with what I pay for my domain name and its associated address
> |block (and have paid for over 5 years through 3 different registrars who
> |provide no ISP services, except for the current one, who provides DNS
> |services). This arithmetic shows, objectively, that to charge $15 a month
> |for 8 addresses (with, apparently associated, computer-genrated, meaningless
> |"domain names") amounts to paying 5,760 times as much as I pay per
> |unit of time per IP@, which eqauls 576,000%, or a 575,900% mark-UP
> |above and beyond the retail price I pay, which is certainly more than what
> |any IP@ registrar (who may or may not be an ISP) pays for them.
> |
> |Your ability to confuse the issue with irrelevant, non-responsive, and
> |incorrect commentary is truly amazing.
> |
> |Jim Romary wrote:
> |
> |> I think there is some confusion between address space and name space.
> |> Registering domains has nothing to do with the acquisition of address
> |> space. No individual may go to a regional IP registry (ARIN in our
> |> case, used to be NetSol) to obtain addresses. A long time ago this
> |> was possible, and indeed, encouraged. One result of the allocation
> |> of /24 addresses to individuals was the fracturing of network
> |> address space that became impossible to aggregate for CIDR purposes.
> |> These legacy addresses are part of "The Swamp". Providers must pay
> |> regional registries fees to obtain addresses for their customers, and
> |> need to SWIP assigned and allocated addresses in order to obtain new
> |> blocks. There is nothing untoward in in charging for addresses.
> |>
> |> Domains have nothing to do with IP address acquisition. They never
> |> have. One may populate a domain with legacy or new Resource Records
> |> that use IP addresses, and one may announce routes for IP address
> |> space space to go to the machines referenced by the RR, but there
> |> is not the slightest logical or physical correspondance between IP
> |> addresses and domains. A domain may contain RR that point to IP
> |> addresses all over the world.
> |>
> |> There is no "usual charge" of $35/yr for addresses. Domains, perhaps,
> |> but this only if one uses NetSol as the registrar. Other registrars
> |> charge less than $35/yr for _domain_ registration. None of the domain
> |> registries assign or allocate address space.
> |>
> |> |I was referring to earlier discussion in which people were telling of
> |> |paying
> |> |$15 / yr. (or maybe mo.) for 5 IP@'s, above & beyond any "usual" ISP
> |> |provided services. This amounts to $768 per 256 (a class-C block),
> |> |the usual charge for which is $35 / yr. Hence, ((768 / 35) * 100) ->
> |> |2194.2857%,
> |> |minus 100% -> ~2,094% markup above & beyond the usual & customary
> |> |retail service charge of $35. The rates you mention below, $15/mo for 8,
> |> |amount to  $760 / yr. , which, by the same calculation relative to the
> |> |U&C fannual fee of ($35 / 256) / yr. , amounts to 576,000% of the U&C
> |> |annual
> |> |rental fee above & beyond any other ISP services.Multi-thousand percent
> |> |markups, in the same sense as one with $2,000,000 is called a
> |> |multimillionaire
> |> |(generally, not us, but ISP stockholders). Hence, your comments are, as you
> |> |
> |> | intimate below, (inimitably) superfluous.
> |> |
> |> |Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> |> |
> |> |> On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 04:21:51PM -0600, Duke Smith wrote:
> |> |> >I respectfully disagree: the ISP's do have a choice, they could act
> |> |> >in good conscience. They do have a choice not to gouge people
> |> |> >with multi-thousand percent markups. A smack dealer in New York
> |> |>
> |> |> Multi-thousand percent markups?!?  You obviously have a very different
> |> |> view of ISPs than I do.  The ISP market is a commodity market, I can't
> |> |> think of anything an ISP does that has even a single 10x markup.  ISPs
> |> |> don't get IPs for free, and when you add the management of the IP
> |> |> network on top of that I would be suprised if there were even a 2x
> |> |> markup in IPs most providers offer.  With allocation, management,
> |> |> routing, reverse DNS, it's hardly free.
> |> |>
> |> |> $5/month for a static IP or $15/month for a block of 8 I don't see as
> |> |> being that unreasonable.  My problem with USWest was that they would
> |> |> only sell blocks of 8, which meant for 12 addresses I had to get 3
> |> |> blocks (5 usable per block).
> |> |>
> |> |> Sean
> |> |> --
> |> |>  The geek shall inherit the earth.
> |> |> Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <jafo at tummy.com>
> |> |> tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python
> |> |>
> |> |> _______________________________________________
> |> |> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> |> |> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |_______________________________________________
> |> |Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> |> |Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> |> |
> |>
> |> _______________________________________________
> |> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> |> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> |
> |
> |_______________________________________________
> |Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> |Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> |
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug