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

Duke Smith duke at firstworld.net
Fri Aug 25 09:29:33 MDT 2000

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

More information about the LUG mailing list