From JSmith at GlobaliveWireless.com Tue Jul 21 09:28:51 2009 From: JSmith at GlobaliveWireless.com (James S. Smith) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:28:51 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] (no subject) Message-ID: <5875054E32586144B361CB0C98913E0D44B82109@SVR-EXC-01.tor.globalivewireless.local> James S Smith IT Network and Security Architect Globalive Wireless Management Corp. 207 Queen's Quay West Suite 710, PO Box 114 Toronto ON M5J 1A7 T: (416) 640-9792 jsmith at globalivewireless.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shon at unwiredbb.com Tue Jul 21 15:16:16 2009 From: shon at unwiredbb.com (Shon Elliott) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:16:16 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Message-ID: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> Hi everyone, With all this talk about IPv4 space becoming scarce and that we're running out, I have to question why there are some netblock holders not being accountable for their space. Everyone has been telling small netblock holders like us to do due diligence and make sure that you are staying within current ARIN utilization guidelines. My question is: Why does the Department of Defense need so many /8's? Before criticizing why I ask, understand why I ask. Do they REALLY need that much space? Are they REALLY using that much space? Sure, it's the U.S. Government, but even the U.S. Government needs accountability (which seems to be missing a lot from them these days). Why are companies like Level3 holding on to /8's and not filling them up? Take for example, 4.0.0.0/8. I know IP migration takes time, but come on. Small providers like us are told by ARIN 18 months for migration. Why aren't all of these other people being held accountable for their usage knowing the current scenario. If ARIN could reclaim all the /8's out there that really aren't being used and slice that up, it would probably help make the move to IPv6 smoother. Turning around and saying there is a year left of unassigned IPv4 space is really not true if you look at how much IPv4 space is not being used by either companies that are holding the space and not using it or IANA reserved space that's not suited for any major purpose like RFC 1918. You can reply here on the list to spark the discussion, or reply privately to me. If you think I'm wrong or off-base, I'd like to know. Maybe I'm not seeing it from the right perspective. Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc. From nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net Tue Jul 21 17:27:49 2009 From: nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net (Nathaniel B. Lyon) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:27:49 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> Message-ID: <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> Shon, I couldn't have said this any better myself. We are a small/medium WISP based out of Northfield Minnesota and we have been trying to get an IPv4 block ourselves for some time now and actually found that it might be easier robbing a bank than getting an IPv4 block assigned to us. We recently threw up our hands and went after an IPv6 block, easiest thing in the world to obtain. We were handed a /32 of IPv6 addresses literally in a 1 day. Don't get me wrong, that is great, but we are most likely not going to see IPv6 fully utilized across the board for 5 years. So in the meantime, what are we to do? Long story a little shorter, my organization feels like the big guys have pretty much wrecked it for everyone mid-sized and below. For us to even get our foot in the door with our own IPv4 pool is a pipe dream. To make matters worse, we are sitting here with this nice pool of IPv6 addresses and we can't even start testing these IP's because our upstream isn't capable yet of allowing these to transport across their network. I don't know if we are the only organization that is feeling the strain of the "lack" of IPv4 addresses, but something needs to give between now and when IPv6 is the standard. IPv6 is not going to be the standard over night, so handing every ISP a /32 in IPv6 world is NOT the fix either. Smaller organizations need to be looked at and given a fair chance at the IPv4 world. Not having a shot in the dark at an IPv4 pool is greatly straining some ISP's. It's nice to hear others are feeling like their IPv4 needs are not ever going to be met, which is sad to say the least. I urge others to come out and share their opinions. Unwired Broadband and NorthfieldWiFi can't be the only two ISP's getting the short end of the stick in the IPv4 world. Nathaniel B. Lyon Owner, NorthfieldWiFi (612) 991-4260 www.northfieldwifi.com nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net The information in this e-mail is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use of, or reliance on, the contents of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying back to the sending e-mail address, and delete this e-mail message from your computer. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Shon Elliott Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:16 PM To: ARIN Discussion List Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Hi everyone, With all this talk about IPv4 space becoming scarce and that we're running out, I have to question why there are some netblock holders not being accountable for their space. Everyone has been telling small netblock holders like us to do due diligence and make sure that you are staying within current ARIN utilization guidelines. My question is: Why does the Department of Defense need so many /8's? Before criticizing why I ask, understand why I ask. Do they REALLY need that much space? Are they REALLY using that much space? Sure, it's the U.S. Government, but even the U.S. Government needs accountability (which seems to be missing a lot from them these days). Why are companies like Level3 holding on to /8's and not filling them up? Take for example, 4.0.0.0/8. I know IP migration takes time, but come on. Small providers like us are told by ARIN 18 months for migration. Why aren't all of these other people being held accountable for their usage knowing the current scenario. If ARIN could reclaim all the /8's out there that really aren't being used and slice that up, it would probably help make the move to IPv6 smoother. Turning around and saying there is a year left of unassigned IPv4 space is really not true if you look at how much IPv4 space is not being used by either companies that are holding the space and not using it or IANA reserved space that's not suited for any major purpose like RFC 1918. You can reply here on the list to spark the discussion, or reply privately to me. If you think I'm wrong or off-base, I'd like to know. Maybe I'm not seeing it from the right perspective. Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drechsau at iphouse.net Tue Jul 21 17:47:52 2009 From: drechsau at iphouse.net (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:47:52 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <20090721214752.GB76933@iphouse.net> Hi. This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for way too long. I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you will find commentary in regular spats. This isn't going to change, unfortunately. The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the girlz if that wasn't obvious) BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' stock offering. Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has been. I don't think it ever will be. I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune From nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net Tue Jul 21 17:57:05 2009 From: nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net (Nathaniel B. Lyon) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:57:05 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <20090721214752.GB76933@iphouse.net> References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> <20090721214752.GB76933@iphouse.net> Message-ID: <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E4@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> I fear the boys who are getting in on the IPv6 stuff, 20 years down the road will be no different than the boys in the IPv4 world. How resources are handed out needs to change. The sky is the limit on the IPv6 world, but what happens when the sky starts to fall? This mentality was the same when the IPv4 stuff just started out. I fear no lessons have been learned from the scarcity of IPv4 to the vastness of IPv6. Unfortunately it seems right now the mentality is "just hand out the IPv6 pool, then ask the questions". Nothing over the years have been learned. :( Let's not look at how legitimate an IPv4 request is, let's just deny it because we are running low and they don't meet our impossible prerequisites. Nathaniel B. Lyon Owner, NorthfieldWiFi (612) 991-4260 www.northfieldwifi.com nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net ? The information in this e-mail is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.? If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use of, or reliance on, the contents of this e-mail is prohibited.? If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying back to the sending e-mail address, and delete this e-mail message from your computer. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Horwath [mailto:drechsau at iphouse.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:48 PM To: Nathaniel B. Lyon Cc: Shon Elliott; ARIN Discussion List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Hi. This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for way too long. I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you will find commentary in regular spats. This isn't going to change, unfortunately. The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the girlz if that wasn't obvious) BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' stock offering. Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has been. I don't think it ever will be. I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune From sweeny at indiana.edu Tue Jul 21 18:04:49 2009 From: sweeny at indiana.edu (Brent Sweeny) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:04:49 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E4@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> <20090721214752.GB76933@iphouse.net> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E4@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <4A663B81.70900@indiana.edu> I'm sorry if it doesn't jibe with your conspiracy theories, but I had to justify my v4 space 20 years ago in the same way you did 5 years ago. ARIN and its predecessors did actually have standards then too. For you (or I) to lust after the v4 allocations the carriers and others already have is fruitless. Rather than whine over what others have legitimately obtained, we must constructively be doing all we can to build out our v6 networks and applications. On 7/21/2009 5:57 PM, Nathaniel B. Lyon wrote: > I fear the boys who are getting in on the IPv6 stuff, 20 years down the road will be no different than the boys in the IPv4 world. How resources are handed out needs to change. The sky is the limit on the IPv6 world, but what happens when the sky starts to fall? This mentality was the same when the IPv4 stuff just started out. > > I fear no lessons have been learned from the scarcity of IPv4 to the vastness of IPv6. Unfortunately it seems right now the mentality is "just hand out the IPv6 pool, then ask the questions". Nothing over the years have been learned. :( > > Let's not look at how legitimate an IPv4 request is, let's just deny it because we are running low and they don't meet our impossible prerequisites. > > Nathaniel B. Lyon > Owner, NorthfieldWiFi > (612) 991-4260 > www.northfieldwifi.com > nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net > > The information in this e-mail is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use of, or reliance on, the contents of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying back to the sending e-mail address, and delete this e-mail message from your computer. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Horwath [mailto:drechsau at iphouse.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:48 PM > To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > Cc: Shon Elliott; ARIN Discussion List > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > Hi. > > This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of space, I hear > rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for way too long. > > I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I needed to be > stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same mantra, same boys > with their toys who don't want to share the pool. > > The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s when it was > posed that companies/institutions/government be held to the same > standards as joe schmoe consumer of netblocks. Search the mailing > list archives, I am sure you will find commentary in regular spats. > > This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > > The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have benefits > for themselves. They even have a sign on their clubhouse that states > 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the girlz if that wasn't obvious) > > BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 years, > get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' stock offering. > > Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT > > If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field should be > level when it comes to this resource. It never has been. I don't > think it ever will be. > > I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Jul 21 19:18:04 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:18:04 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <20090721214752.GB76933@iphouse.net> Message-ID: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A5@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing the actual usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any more. The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is higher than the cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot light on those providers. :| I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of space should return the space they aren't using. Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? Does HP really need a /8 ?? Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I don't know. He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing good work under the guidelines they have. If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation request, I'm sure it can be resolved. So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work with him on his allocation request and see if it passes muster and what may need to be done to help it float. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > Hi. > > This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for > way too long. > > I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same > mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. > > The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s > when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be > held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you > will find commentary in regular spats. > > This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > > The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have > benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the > girlz if that wasn't obvious) > > BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 > years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > stock offering. > > Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT > > If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field > should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has > been. I don't think it ever will be. > > I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > > -- > Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net > The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is > that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Jul 21 19:42:40 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:42:40 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A8@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as part of the "contract". > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT > firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, > i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of > entities for the address space they use, may result in them > returning this address space to the allocation pool. This > would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses > a NAT type firewall > > > Regards, > Steve Wagner > Vice President of Operations > Syringa Networks, LLC > 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > Boise, ID 83705 > Office: 208.229.6104 > Main: 208.229.6100 > Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > Fax: 208.229.6110 > Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > Web: www.syringanetworks.net > > > > > > > "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > > Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > The information in this message is intended for the named > recipients only. It may contain information that is > privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, > or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of > this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or > its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > thereafter. Thank you. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing > the actual > usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or > assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any > more. > > The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is > higher than the > cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could > give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot > light on those providers. :| > > I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of > space should > return the space they aren't using. > > Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > Does HP really need a /8 ?? > > Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? > > For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I > don't know. > He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. > > I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing > good work > under the guidelines they have. > > If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > request, I'm sure > it can be resolved. > > So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work > with him on his allocation request and see if it passes > muster and what > may need to be done to help it float. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath > > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > > To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > > Hi. > > > > This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > > space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for > > way too long. > > > > I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > > needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same > > mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. > > > > The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s > > when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be > > held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > > netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you > > will find commentary in regular spats. > > > > This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > > > > The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have > > benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > > clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the > > girlz if that wasn't obvious) > > > > BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 > > years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > > stock offering. > > > > Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT > > > > If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field > > should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has > > been. I don't think it ever will be. > > > > I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > > > > -- > > Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net > > The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is > > that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From stwagner at syringanetworks.net Tue Jul 21 19:37:47 2009 From: stwagner at syringanetworks.net (Steve Wagner) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:37:47 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A5@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> References: <20090721214752.GB76933@iphouse.net> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A5@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> Message-ID: If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of entities for the address space they use, may result in them returning this address space to the allocation pool. This would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses a NAT type firewall Regards, Steve Wagner Vice President of Operations Syringa Networks, LLC 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 Boise, ID 83705 Office: 208.229.6104 Main: 208.229.6100 Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 Fax: 208.229.6110 Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net Web: www.syringanetworks.net "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" Privilege and Confidentiality Notice The information in this message is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon Cc: ARIN Discussion List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing the actual usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any more. The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is higher than the cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot light on those providers. :| I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of space should return the space they aren't using. Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? Does HP really need a /8 ?? Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I don't know. He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing good work under the guidelines they have. If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation request, I'm sure it can be resolved. So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work with him on his allocation request and see if it passes muster and what may need to be done to help it float. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > Hi. > > This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for > way too long. > > I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same > mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. > > The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s > when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be > held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you > will find commentary in regular spats. > > This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > > The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have > benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the > girlz if that wasn't obvious) > > BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 > years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > stock offering. > > Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT > > If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field > should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has > been. I don't think it ever will be. > > I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > > -- > Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net > The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is > that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Jul 21 19:58:01 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A8@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> References: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A8@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> Message-ID: <4A665609.1060501@ipinc.net> If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have some), then a transfer market will exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. Either way, it works the same. Ted John Brown wrote: > So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a > fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > > When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as > part of the "contract". > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> >> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >> a NAT type firewall >> >> >> Regards, >> Steve Wagner >> Vice President of Operations >> Syringa Networks, LLC >> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >> Boise, ID 83705 >> Office: 208.229.6104 >> Main: 208.229.6100 >> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >> Fax: 208.229.6110 >> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >> >> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >> The information in this message is intended for the named >> recipients only. It may contain information that is >> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >> thereafter. Thank you. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> >> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >> the actual >> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >> more. >> >> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >> higher than the >> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could >> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >> light on those providers. :| >> >> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >> space should >> return the space they aren't using. >> >> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >> >> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >> >> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >> don't know. >> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >> >> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >> good work >> under the guidelines they have. >> >> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >> request, I'm sure >> it can be resolved. >> >> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >> muster and what >> may need to be done to help it float. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>> >>> Hi. >>> >>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>> way too long. >>> >>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>> >>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>> >>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>> >>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>> >>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>> stock offering. >>> >>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT >>> >>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>> >>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>> >>> -- >>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net >>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From kwilliams at altuscgi.com Tue Jul 21 22:04:06 2009 From: kwilliams at altuscgi.com (Kelvin Williams) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:04:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A665609.1060501@ipinc.net> References: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A8@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra><4A665609.1060501@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <736808020-1248228224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1932433480-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were running IPv6. I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address because they can go for that. I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) Kw Kelvin Williams Altus Communications Group, Inc. Office Direct: 678.369.5968 Office Main: 678.369.5970 Fax: 866.895.8557 Mobile: 678.852.4173 Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed -----Original Message----- From: Ted Mittelstaedt Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 To: John Brown Cc: ARIN Discussion List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have some), then a transfer market will exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. Either way, it works the same. Ted John Brown wrote: > So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a > fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > > When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as > part of the "contract". > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> >> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >> a NAT type firewall >> >> >> Regards, >> Steve Wagner >> Vice President of Operations >> Syringa Networks, LLC >> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >> Boise, ID 83705 >> Office: 208.229.6104 >> Main: 208.229.6100 >> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >> Fax: 208.229.6110 >> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >> >> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >> The information in this message is intended for the named >> recipients only. It may contain information that is >> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >> thereafter. Thank you. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> >> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >> the actual >> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >> more. >> >> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >> higher than the >> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could >> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >> light on those providers. :| >> >> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >> space should >> return the space they aren't using. >> >> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >> >> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >> >> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >> don't know. >> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >> >> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >> good work >> under the guidelines they have. >> >> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >> request, I'm sure >> it can be resolved. >> >> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >> muster and what >> may need to be done to help it float. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>> >>> Hi. >>> >>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>> way too long. >>> >>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>> >>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>> >>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>> >>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>> >>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>> stock offering. >>> >>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT >>> >>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>> >>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>> >>> -- >>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net >>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From chris at uplogon.com Tue Jul 21 22:14:08 2009 From: chris at uplogon.com (Chris Gotstein) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:14:08 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <736808020-1248228224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1932433480-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A8@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra><4A665609.1060501@ipinc.net> <736808020-1248228224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1932433480-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP that comes along asking for address space. We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure IPv6 for a long time to come. ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 chris at uplogon.com Kelvin Williams wrote: > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were running IPv6. > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address because they can go for that. > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) > > > Kw > > > Kelvin Williams > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > Fax: 866.895.8557 > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > To: John Brown > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have > some), then a transfer market will > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > Either way, it works the same. > > Ted > > John Brown wrote: >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >> part of the "contract". >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>> >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>> a NAT type firewall >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steve Wagner >>> Vice President of Operations >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>> the actual >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >>> more. >>> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>> higher than the >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >>> light on those providers. :| >>> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>> space should >>> return the space they aren't using. >>> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>> don't know. >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>> good work >>> under the guidelines they have. >>> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>> request, I'm sure >>> it can be resolved. >>> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>> muster and what >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>> way too long. >>>> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>>> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>> stock offering. >>>> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT >>>> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Jul 21 22:26:02 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:02 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> Message-ID: I?ll ask the age old question again. What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. Its contracts law. On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP > that comes along asking for address space. > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Kelvin Williams wrote: >> > Whoa, whoa, whoa. >> > >> > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. >> > >> > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux or >> current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web >> destinations were running IPv6. >> > >> > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause problems >> for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >> > >> > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what blocks >> we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be at the >> mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks >> they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >> > >> > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address because >> they can go for that. >> > >> > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering >> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to >> implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. >> In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks >> aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the ISPs >> of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >> > >> > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the responsible >> little guy with the aforementioned issues without the establishment of a >> transfer market, and work to create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 >> gateways. >> > >> > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >> > >> > >> > Kw >> > >> > >> > Kelvin Williams >> > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >> > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >> > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >> > Fax: 866.895.8557 >> > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >> > >> > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt >> > >> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >> > To: John Brown >> > Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >> > some), then a transfer market will >> > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >> > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit >> > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them >> > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, >> > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. >> > >> > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >> > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will >> > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >> > >> > Either way, it works the same. >> > >> > Ted >> > >> > John Brown wrote: >>> >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >>> >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>> >> >>> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >>> >> part of the "contract". >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>> >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>> >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>> >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>> >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>> >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>> >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>> >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>> >>> a NAT type firewall >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Regards, >>>> >>> Steve Wagner >>>> >>> Vice President of Operations >>>> >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>> >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>> >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>> >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>> >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>> >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>> >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>> >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>> >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>> >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>> >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>> >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>> >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>> >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>> >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>> >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>> >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>> >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>> >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>> >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>> >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>> >>> the actual >>>> >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>>> >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >>>> >>> more. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>> >>> higher than the >>>> >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could >>>> >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >>>> >>> light on those providers. :| >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>> >>> space should >>>> >>> return the space they aren't using. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>> >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>> >>> don't know. >>>> >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>> >>> good work >>>> >>> under the guidelines they have. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>> >>> request, I'm sure >>>> >>> it can be resolved. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >>>> >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>> >>> muster and what >>>> >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>> >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>> >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>> >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Hi. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>> >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>> >>>> way too long. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>> >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>>> >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>> >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>> >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>> >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>> >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>> >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>>> >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>>> >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>> >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>> >>>> stock offering. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>>> >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>>> >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>>> >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>> >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>>> >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> ARIN-Discuss >>> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kwilliams at altuscgi.com Tue Jul 21 22:30:25 2009 From: kwilliams at altuscgi.com (Kelvin Williams) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:30:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> Message-ID: <553073100-1248229804-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-232319848-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> ARIN may not have the legal right to do anything. But, if they (Apple, et al) don't want to play fair with the rest of us, they don't have a legal right when we add ACLs blocking their traffic from traversing our networks. ;) Kw Kelvin Williams Altus Communications Group, Inc. Office Direct: 678.369.5968 Office Main: 678.369.5970 Fax: 866.895.8557 Mobile: 678.852.4173 Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed -----Original Message----- From: John Brown Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:02 To: Chris Gotstein; Cc: Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. I?ll ask the age old question again. What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. Its contracts law. On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP > that comes along asking for address space. > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Kelvin Williams wrote: >> > Whoa, whoa, whoa. >> > >> > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. >> > >> > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux or >> current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web >> destinations were running IPv6. >> > >> > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause problems >> for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >> > >> > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what blocks >> we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be at the >> mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks >> they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >> > >> > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address because >> they can go for that. >> > >> > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering >> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to >> implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. >> In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks >> aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the ISPs >> of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >> > >> > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the responsible >> little guy with the aforementioned issues without the establishment of a >> transfer market, and work to create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 >> gateways. >> > >> > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >> > >> > >> > Kw >> > >> > >> > Kelvin Williams >> > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >> > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >> > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >> > Fax: 866.895.8557 >> > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >> > >> > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt >> > >> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >> > To: John Brown >> > Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >> > some), then a transfer market will >> > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >> > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit >> > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them >> > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, >> > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. >> > >> > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >> > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will >> > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >> > >> > Either way, it works the same. >> > >> > Ted >> > >> > John Brown wrote: >>> >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >>> >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>> >> >>> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >>> >> part of the "contract". >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>> >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>> >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>> >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>> >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>> >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>> >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>> >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>> >>> a NAT type firewall >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Regards, >>>> >>> Steve Wagner >>>> >>> Vice President of Operations >>>> >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>> >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>> >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>> >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>> >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>> >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>> >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>> >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>> >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>> >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>> >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>> >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>> >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>> >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>> >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>> >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>> >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>> >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>> >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>> >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>> >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>> >>> the actual >>>> >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>>> >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >>>> >>> more. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>> >>> higher than the >>>> >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could >>>> >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >>>> >>> light on those providers. :| >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>> >>> space should >>>> >>> return the space they aren't using. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>> >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>> >>> don't know. >>>> >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>> >>> good work >>>> >>> under the guidelines they have. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>> >>> request, I'm sure >>>> >>> it can be resolved. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >>>> >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>> >>> muster and what >>>> >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>> >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>> >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>> >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Hi. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>> >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>> >>>> way too long. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>> >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>>> >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>> >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>> >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>> >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>> >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>> >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>>> >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>>> >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>> >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>> >>>> stock offering. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>>> >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>>> >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>>> >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>> >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>>> >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>> >>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>> >> ARIN-Discuss >>> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >_______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >_______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rs at seastrom.com Tue Jul 21 22:33:14 2009 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:33:14 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> (Chris Gotstein's message of "Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:14:08 -0500") References: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A8@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <4A665609.1060501@ipinc.net> <736808020-1248228224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1932433480-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> Message-ID: <86eis9cuqd.fsf@seastrom.com> Chris Gotstein writes: > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the > big guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a > fee. We've been there before, where address space was ridiculously difficult or costly to get: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Network_Identification_Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAP_address Funny thing happened... those areas did not take off, and the Internet was built on competing technology. Ever thought that in a post-exhaustion world, the path of least resistance might be to just go ahead and get your IPv6 on? -r From chris at uplogon.com Tue Jul 21 22:34:22 2009 From: chris at uplogon.com (Chris Gotstein) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:34:22 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A667AAE.8090301@uplogon.com> Has anyone thought about just meeting with these companies and discussing the need that ARIN has to get back unused space and see if the companies might be willing to do so without additional fees, pay-offs, etc? -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 chris at uplogon.com John Brown wrote: > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple > got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives > ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. > > Its contracts law. > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP > that comes along asking for address space. > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. > Our Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL > subscribers. > > > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running > Linux or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the > majority of web destinations were running IPv6. > > > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause > problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. > > > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting > what blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, > will now be at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a > tiny portion of the blocks they are assigned when the "transfer > market" comes into play. > > > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address > because they can go for that. > > > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a > steering group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, > HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If > they can't, they need to pay. In my opinion, especially when looking > at the DoD most of their networks aren't accessed by the general > public, so they can transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing > with users still running Windows 98. > > > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the > responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the > establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of > large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local > brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) > > > > > > Kw > > > > > > Kelvin Williams > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > > To: John Brown > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > > > > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have > > some), then a transfer market will > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue > to sit > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. > > > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody > will > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > > > Either way, it works the same. > > > > Ted > > > > John Brown wrote: > > > So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to > assess a > > > fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > > > > > > When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no > fee as > > > part of the "contract". > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > > >> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > >> > > >> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT > > >> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, > > >> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of > > >> entities for the address space they use, may result in them > > >> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This > > >> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses > > >> a NAT type firewall > > >> > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Steve Wagner > > >> Vice President of Operations > > >> Syringa Networks, LLC > > >> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > > >> Boise, ID 83705 > > >> Office: 208.229.6104 > > >> Main: 208.229.6100 > > >> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > > >> Fax: 208.229.6110 > > >> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > > >> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > > >> > > >> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > > >> The information in this message is intended for the named > > >> recipients only. It may contain information that is > > >> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > > >> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > > >> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, > > >> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of > > >> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > > >> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or > > >> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > > >> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > > >> thereafter. Thank you. > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown > > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > > >> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > >> > > >> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing > > >> the actual > > >> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or > > >> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any > > >> more. > > >> > > >> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is > > >> higher than the > > >> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could > > >> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public > spot > > >> light on those providers. :| > > >> > > >> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of > > >> space should > > >> return the space they aren't using. > > >> > > >> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > > >> Does HP really need a /8 ?? > > >> > > >> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? > > >> > > >> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I > > >> don't know. > > >> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. > > >> > > >> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing > > >> good work > > >> under the guidelines they have. > > >> > > >> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > > >> request, I'm sure > > >> it can be resolved. > > >> > > >> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work > > >> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes > > >> muster and what > > >> may need to be done to help it float. > > >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > > >>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > >>> > > >>> Hi. > > >>> > > >>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > > >>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for > > >>> way too long. > > >>> > > >>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > > >>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same > > >>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. > > >>> > > >>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s > > >>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be > > >>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > > >>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you > > >>> will find commentary in regular spats. > > >>> > > >>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > > >>> > > >>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have > > >>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > > >>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the > > >>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) > > >>> > > >>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 > > >>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > > >>> stock offering. > > >>> > > >>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: > PROFIT > > >>> > > >>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field > > >>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has > > >>> been. I don't think it ever will be. > > >>> > > >>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! > drechsau at iphouse.net > > >>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is > > >>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> ARIN-Discuss > > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > >>> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> ARIN-Discuss > > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ARIN-Discuss > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > From chris at uplogon.com Tue Jul 21 22:35:39 2009 From: chris at uplogon.com (Chris Gotstein) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:35:39 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <86eis9cuqd.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A8@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <4A665609.1060501@ipinc.net> <736808020-1248228224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1932433480-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> <86eis9cuqd.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <4A667AFB.4090107@uplogon.com> I would love to get my IPv6 on, but it doesn't go very far.... :) -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 chris at uplogon.com Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > Chris Gotstein writes: > >> I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the >> big guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a >> fee. > > We've been there before, where address space was ridiculously > difficult or costly to get: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Network_Identification_Code > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAP_address > > Funny thing happened... those areas did not take off, and the > Internet was built on competing technology. > > Ever thought that in a post-exhaustion world, the path of least > resistance might be to just go ahead and get your IPv6 on? > > -r > > From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Jul 21 22:37:56 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:37:56 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Message-ID: I recently acquired a defunct ISP and their net-blocks. Some of those net-blocks I don't need today. I may need them in the future if my business keeps growing. Hopefully I can get some space then. Lots of smart people in this industry have told me to HOLD ON TO THE SPACE, don't give it back. I've had people offer me HARD CASH for the space. We are talking 6 digits. It would be easy to SWIP the space to them and call it a pre-pay on future connectivity, hand them a LOA and count the Benjamin's all the way to the bank. I've had spammers offer me hard cash to let them route the space. I thought, hmm, I could take the cash and then tell SpamHaus/SORBS here is a block that's about to get trashed. Please block it NOW. In thinking about this, I've decided that the RIGHT ANSWER ? is to return the space to the free pool. Maybe others will do the right thing. I don't know. But at least I'll sleep to night knowing that I wasn't a PIG. NET 205.201.128.0/20 is hereby returned. PS I couldn't find a form to fill out that says RETURN TO FREE POOL. And, no I don't need ARIN to pay me to return this space. Having ARIN pay people to DO THE RIGHT THING ? seems like the wrong thing, IMHO Respectfully, John Brown, President and CTO CityLink Fiber Holdings, Inc. Albuquerque, Denver, Los Angles New Mexico's first independent 10Gig ISP Open Access Dark Fiber NOW Available Past ARIN AC Member From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Jul 21 22:39:24 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:39:24 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <553073100-1248229804-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-232319848-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Hang on, I need to scream NET-NEUTRALITY. Ah, but market forces will keep you from adding those ACL?s. Your customers will find another provider that is ACL free and then you will be revenue free. :) On 7/21/09 8:30 PM, "Kelvin Williams" wrote: > ARIN may not have the legal right to do anything. But, if they (Apple, et al) > don't want to play fair with the rest of us, they don't have a legal right > when we add ACLs blocking their traffic from traversing our networks. ;)Kw > > Kelvin WilliamsAltus Communications Group, Inc.Office Direct: > 678.369.5968Office Main: 678.369.5970Fax: 866.895.8557Mobile: 678.852.4173Sent > from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > From: John Brown > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:02 -0600 > To: Chris Gotstein; > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple got > the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the > ability to enforce rules today. > > Its contracts law. > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > >> I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big >> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. >> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP >> that comes along asking for address space. >> >> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also >> requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts >> because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block >> and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the >> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure >> IPv6 for a long time to come. >> >> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused >> blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or >> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these >> companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address >> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >> blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their >> block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should >> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >> >> >> -- >> Chris Gotstein >> Sr Network Engineer >> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >> 500 N Stephenson Ave >> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >> Phone: 906-774-4847 >> Fax: 906-774-0335 >> chris at uplogon.com >> >> Kelvin Williams wrote: >>> > Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>> > >>> > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >>> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. >>> > >>> > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux >>> or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web >>> destinations were running IPv6. >>> > >>> > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause >>> problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >>> > >>> > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what >>> blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be >>> at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the >>> blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >>> > >>> > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address >>> because they can go for that. >>> > >>> > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering >>> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to >>> implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. >>> In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks >>> aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the >>> ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >>> > >>> > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >>> responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >>> establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large >>> bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >>> > >>> > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >>> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >>> > >>> > >>> > Kw >>> > >>> > >>> > Kelvin Williams >>> > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>> > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>> > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>> > Fax: 866.895.8557 >>> > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>> > >>> > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>> > >>> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>> > To: John Brown >>> > Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >>> > some), then a transfer market will >>> > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >>> > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit >>> > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them >>> > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, >>> > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. >>> > >>> > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >>> > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will >>> > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>> > >>> > Either way, it works the same. >>> > >>> > Ted >>> > >>> > John Brown wrote: >>>> >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >>>> >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>> >> >>>> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >>>> >> part of the "contract". >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>> >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>> >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>>> >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>> >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>> >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>> >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>>> >>> a NAT type firewall >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Regards, >>>>> >>> Steve Wagner >>>>> >>> Vice President of Operations >>>>> >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>> >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>> >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>> >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>> >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>> >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>> >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>> >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>>> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>> >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>> >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>> >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>> >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>> >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>> >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>> >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>> >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>> >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>> >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>> >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>> >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>> >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>>> >>> the actual >>>>> >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>>>> >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >>>>> >>> more. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>> >>> higher than the >>>>> >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could >>>>> >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >>>>> >>> light on those providers. :| >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>> >>> space should >>>>> >>> return the space they aren't using. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>> >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>>> >>> don't know. >>>>> >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>>> >>> good work >>>>> >>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>> >>> request, I'm sure >>>>> >>> it can be resolved. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >>>>> >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>> >>> muster and what >>>>> >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>> >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>> >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>> >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Hi. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>> >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>> >>>> way too long. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>> >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>>>> >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>> >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>>> >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>> >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>>> >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>>> >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>>>> >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>>>> >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>>> >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>> >>>> stock offering. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: >>>>>> PROFIT >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>>>> >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>>>> >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> -- >>>>>> >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! >>>>>> drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>> >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>>>> >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>>> >>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> >>> >>>> >>_______________________________________________ >>>> >> ARIN-Discuss >>>> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> > >>> >_______________________________________________ >>> > ARIN-Discuss >>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >_______________________________________________ >>> > ARIN-Discuss >>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tony.valenti at powerdnn.com Tue Jul 21 22:42:39 2009 From: tony.valenti at powerdnn.com (Tony Valenti) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:42:39 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> Message-ID: I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned.I think a big mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly assumes that we have something to do with making IPV6 a reality and managing IPV4 address space. Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and asked them when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After being escalated all the way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that they have no plans to implement IPV6 which means that if I put any content on an IPV6 address, I can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US won't have access to it. So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't care, and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address space because the internet is officially out, what will you do? As a webhosting company, we have no choice but to pay whatever the black market price for IPs is or go out of business/quit accepting customers. If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually emphasizes the problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything to fix the problem - they just make the current process harder. ARIN is a doomsday prophet powerless to change the fate that we all will endure. On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown wrote: > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple got > the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the > ability to enforce rules today. > > Its contracts law. > > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP > that comes along asking for address space. > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our > Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux > or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web > destinations were running IPv6. > > > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause > problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. > > > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what > blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be > at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the > blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. > > > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address > because they can go for that. > > > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering > group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to > implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. > In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks > aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the > ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. > > > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the > responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the > establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large > bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew > pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) > > > > > > Kw > > > > > > Kelvin Williams > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > > To: John Brown > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > > > > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have > > some), then a transfer market will > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. > > > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > > > Either way, it works the same. > > > > Ted > > > > John Brown wrote: > >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a > >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > >> > >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as > >> part of the "contract". > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > >>> > >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT > >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, > >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of > >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them > >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This > >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses > >>> a NAT type firewall > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Steve Wagner > >>> Vice President of Operations > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > >>> Boise, ID 83705 > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 > >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > >>> > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named > >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is > >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, > >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of > >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or > >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > >>> thereafter. Thank you. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of John Brown > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > >>> > >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing > >>> the actual > >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or > >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any > >>> more. > >>> > >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is > >>> higher than the > >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could > >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot > >>> light on those providers. :| > >>> > >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of > >>> space should > >>> return the space they aren't using. > >>> > >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? > >>> > >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? > >>> > >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I > >>> don't know. > >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. > >>> > >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing > >>> good work > >>> under the guidelines they have. > >>> > >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > >>> request, I'm sure > >>> it can be resolved. > >>> > >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work > >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes > >>> muster and what > >>> may need to be done to help it float. > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mike Horwath > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Hi. > >>>> > >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for > >>>> way too long. > >>>> > >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same > >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. > >>>> > >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s > >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be > >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you > >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. > >>>> > >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > >>>> > >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have > >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the > >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) > >>>> > >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 > >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > >>>> stock offering. > >>>> > >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT > >>>> > >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field > >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has > >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. > >>>> > >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net > >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is > >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Discuss > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Jul 21 22:42:49 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:42:49 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A667AFB.4090107@uplogon.com> Message-ID: There is at least one provider (who runs a damm good network) that is selling IPv4 transit REALLY CHEAP, you just have to also connect via IPv6. We are talking $2 to $3 per Mb/s Of course you can only get this at POP sites they are at..... So there are some that are applying market forces to encourage a more rapid use and deployment of IPv6 On 7/21/09 8:35 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > I would love to get my IPv6 on, but it doesn't go very far.... :) > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >> > Chris Gotstein writes: >> > >>> >> I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the >>> >> big guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a >>> >> fee. >> > >> > We've been there before, where address space was ridiculously >> > difficult or costly to get: >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Network_Identification_Code >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAP_address >> > >> > Funny thing happened... those areas did not take off, and the >> > Internet was built on competing technology. >> > >> > Ever thought that in a post-exhaustion world, the path of least >> > resistance might be to just go ahead and get your IPv6 on? >> > >> > -r >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kwilliams at altuscgi.com Tue Jul 21 22:43:50 2009 From: kwilliams at altuscgi.com (Kelvin Williams) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:43:50 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <553073100-1248229804-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-232319848-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <314812439-1248230608-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1750539672-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Net-Neutrality is something I fully support. The previous example was just saying, if ARIN can't help us little guys, we can band together and help ourselves. Kelvin Williams Altus Communications Group, Inc. Office Direct: 678.369.5968 Office Main: 678.369.5970 Fax: 866.895.8557 Mobile: 678.852.4173 Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed -----Original Message----- From: John Brown Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:39:24 To: ; Chris Gotstein Cc: Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Hang on, I need to scream NET-NEUTRALITY. Ah, but market forces will keep you from adding those ACL?s. Your customers will find another provider that is ACL free and then you will be revenue free. :) On 7/21/09 8:30 PM, "Kelvin Williams" wrote: > ARIN may not have the legal right to do anything. But, if they (Apple, et al) > don't want to play fair with the rest of us, they don't have a legal right > when we add ACLs blocking their traffic from traversing our networks. ;)Kw > > Kelvin WilliamsAltus Communications Group, Inc.Office Direct: > 678.369.5968Office Main: 678.369.5970Fax: 866.895.8557Mobile: 678.852.4173Sent > from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > From: John Brown > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:02 -0600 > To: Chris Gotstein; > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple got > the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the > ability to enforce rules today. > > Its contracts law. > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > >> I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big >> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. >> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP >> that comes along asking for address space. >> >> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also >> requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts >> because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block >> and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the >> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure >> IPv6 for a long time to come. >> >> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused >> blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or >> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these >> companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address >> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >> blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their >> block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should >> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >> >> >> -- >> Chris Gotstein >> Sr Network Engineer >> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >> 500 N Stephenson Ave >> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >> Phone: 906-774-4847 >> Fax: 906-774-0335 >> chris at uplogon.com >> >> Kelvin Williams wrote: >>> > Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>> > >>> > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >>> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. >>> > >>> > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux >>> or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web >>> destinations were running IPv6. >>> > >>> > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause >>> problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >>> > >>> > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what >>> blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be >>> at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the >>> blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >>> > >>> > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address >>> because they can go for that. >>> > >>> > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering >>> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to >>> implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. >>> In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks >>> aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the >>> ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >>> > >>> > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >>> responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >>> establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large >>> bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >>> > >>> > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >>> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >>> > >>> > >>> > Kw >>> > >>> > >>> > Kelvin Williams >>> > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>> > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>> > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>> > Fax: 866.895.8557 >>> > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>> > >>> > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>> > >>> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>> > To: John Brown >>> > Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >>> > some), then a transfer market will >>> > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >>> > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit >>> > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them >>> > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, >>> > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. >>> > >>> > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >>> > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will >>> > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>> > >>> > Either way, it works the same. >>> > >>> > Ted >>> > >>> > John Brown wrote: >>>> >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >>>> >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>> >> >>>> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >>>> >> part of the "contract". >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>> >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>> >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>>> >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>> >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>> >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>> >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>>> >>> a NAT type firewall >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Regards, >>>>> >>> Steve Wagner >>>>> >>> Vice President of Operations >>>>> >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>> >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>> >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>> >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>> >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>> >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>> >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>> >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>>> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>> >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>> >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>> >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>> >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>> >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>> >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>> >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>> >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>> >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>> >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>> >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>> >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>> >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>>> >>> the actual >>>>> >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>>>> >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >>>>> >>> more. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>> >>> higher than the >>>>> >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could >>>>> >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >>>>> >>> light on those providers. :| >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>> >>> space should >>>>> >>> return the space they aren't using. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>> >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>>> >>> don't know. >>>>> >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>>> >>> good work >>>>> >>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>> >>> request, I'm sure >>>>> >>> it can be resolved. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >>>>> >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>> >>> muster and what >>>>> >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>> >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>> >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>> >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Hi. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>> >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>> >>>> way too long. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>> >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>>>> >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>> >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>>> >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>> >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>>> >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>>> >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>>>> >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>>>> >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>>> >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>> >>>> stock offering. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: >>>>>> PROFIT >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>>>> >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>>>> >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> -- >>>>>> >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! >>>>>> drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>> >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>>>> >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>>> >>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> >>> >>>> >>_______________________________________________ >>>> >> ARIN-Discuss >>>> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> > >>> >_______________________________________________ >>> > ARIN-Discuss >>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >_______________________________________________ >>> > ARIN-Discuss >>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >>_______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Jul 21 22:43:46 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:43:46 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Who is that ?upstream???? Change providers ?? On 7/21/09 8:42 PM, "Tony Valenti" wrote: > I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned. > I think a big mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly assumes > that we have something to do with making IPV6 a reality and managing IPV4 > address space. > > Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and asked them > when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. ?After being escalated all the > way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that they have no plans to > implement IPV6 which means that if I put any content on an IPV6 address, I can > expect at a minimum, 25% of the US won't have access to it. > > So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't care, and > in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address space because the > internet is officially out, what will you do? ?As a webhosting company, we > have no choice but to pay whatever the black market price for IPs is or go out > of business/quit accepting customers. > > If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ?ARIN continually emphasizes the > problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything to fix the > problem - they just make the current process harder. ?ARIN is a doomsday > prophet powerless to change the fate that we all will endure. > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown wrote: >> I?ll ask the age old question again. >> >> What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? ?If Apple got >> the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the >> ability to ?enforce rules today. >> >> Its contracts law. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: >> >>> I would agree. ?Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big >>> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. >>> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP >>> that comes along asking for address space. >>> >>> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also >>> requesting additional IP space. ?We were successful on both attempts >>> because we could prove we needed the space. ?We also have an IPv6 block >>> and already have it implemented on our routers. ?But at this time, the >>> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure >>> IPv6 for a long time to come. >>> >>> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused >>> blocks of IP address space. ?A working group would be a good start, or >>> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these >>> companies. ?ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address >>> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >>> blocks? ?If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their >>> block, then they can keep it and we move on. ?If not, then they should >>> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Chris Gotstein >>> Sr Network Engineer >>> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >>> 500 N Stephenson Ave >>> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >>> Phone: 906-774-4847 >>> Fax: 906-774-0335 >>> chris at uplogon.com >>> >>> Kelvin Williams wrote: >>>> > Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>>> > >>>> > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >>>> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. >>>> > >>>> > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux >>>> or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web >>>> destinations were running IPv6. >>>> > >>>> > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause >>>> problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >>>> > >>>> > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what >>>> blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be >>>> at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the >>>> blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >>>> > >>>> > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address >>>> because they can go for that. >>>> > >>>> > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering >>>> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD >>>> to implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to >>>> pay. In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their >>>> networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition >>>> versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >>>> > >>>> > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >>>> responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >>>> establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large >>>> bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >>>> > >>>> > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >>>> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Kw >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Kelvin Williams >>>> > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>>> > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>>> > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>>> > Fax: 866.895.8557 >>>> > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>>> > >>>> > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>> > >>>> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>>> > To: John Brown >>>> > Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >>>> > some), then a transfer market will >>>> > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >>>> > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit >>>> > on them, they lose that money. ?It's no different than charging them >>>> > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. ?Either way, >>>> > they lose money. ?The only difference is who gets the money they lose. >>>> > >>>> > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >>>> > and that block of numbers never gains value. ?In which case nobody will >>>> > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>>> > >>>> > Either way, it works the same. >>>> > >>>> > Ted >>>> > >>>> > John Brown wrote: >>>>> >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >>>>> >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >>>>> >> part of the "contract". >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>>> >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> If either Apple or HP ?corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>>> >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>>>> >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>>> >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>>> >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>>> >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>>>> >>> a NAT type firewall >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Regards, >>>>>> >>> Steve Wagner >>>>>> >>> Vice President of Operations >>>>>> >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>>> >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>>> >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>>> >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>>> >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>>> >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>>> >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>>> >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>>>> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>>> >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>>> >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>>> >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>>> >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>>> >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>>> >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>>> >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>>> >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>>> >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>>> >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>>> >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>> >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>>> >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>>>> >>> the actual >>>>>> >>> usage ratios. ?Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>>>>> >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >>>>>> >>> more. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>>> >>> higher than the >>>>>> >>> cost of them just getting new space. ?So it doesn't happen. ?I could >>>>>> >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >>>>>> >>> light on those providers. :| >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>>> >>> space should >>>>>> >>> return the space they aren't using. ? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>>> >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>>>> >>> don't know. >>>>>> >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>>>> >>> good work >>>>>> >>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>>> >>> request, I'm sure >>>>>> >>> it can be resolved. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >>>>>> >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>>> >>> muster and what >>>>>> >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>> >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>>>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>>> >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>> >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Hi. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>>> >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>>> >>>> way too long. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>>> >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. ?16 years later, same >>>>>>> >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>>> >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>>>> >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>>> >>>> netblocks. ?Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>>>> >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>>>> >>>> benefits for themselves. ?They even have a sign on their >>>>>>> >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. ?(the rest of us are the >>>>>>> >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>>>> >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>>> >>>> stock offering. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: >>>>>>> ?PROFIT >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. ?The playing field >>>>>>> >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. ?It never has >>>>>>> >>>> been. ?I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>> Mike Horwath ?????ipHouse - Welcome home! >>>>>>> ??????drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>>> >>>> ????????The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>>>>> >>>> ????????that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>> >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>> >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>> >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>> >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > ARIN-Discuss >>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > ARIN-Discuss >>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tony.valenti at powerdnn.com Tue Jul 21 22:44:26 2009 From: tony.valenti at powerdnn.com (Tony Valenti) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:44:26 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Cox Communications. I don't have much of a choice in upstream providers. On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:43 PM, John Brown wrote: > Who is that ?upstream???? > > Change providers ?? > > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:42 PM, "Tony Valenti" wrote: > > I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned. > I think a big mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly assumes > that we have something to do with making IPV6 a reality and managing IPV4 > address space. > > Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and asked them > when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After being escalated all the > way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that they have no plans to > implement IPV6 which means that if I put any content on an IPV6 address, I > can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US won't have access to it. > > So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't care, > and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address space because > the internet is officially out, what will you do? As a webhosting company, > we have no choice but to pay whatever the black market price for IPs is or > go out of business/quit accepting customers. > > If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually emphasizes the > problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything to fix the > problem - they just make the current process harder. ARIN is a doomsday > prophet powerless to change the fate that we all will endure. > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown > wrote: > > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple got > the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the > ability to enforce rules today. > > Its contracts law. > > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP > that comes along asking for address space. > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our > Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux > or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web > destinations were running IPv6. > > > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause > problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. > > > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what > blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be > at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the > blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. > > > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address > because they can go for that. > > > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering > group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to > implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. > In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks > aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the > ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. > > > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the > responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the > establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large > bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew > pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) > > > > > > Kw > > > > > > Kelvin Williams > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > > To: John Brown > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > > > > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have > > some), then a transfer market will > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. > > > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > > > Either way, it works the same. > > > > Ted > > > > John Brown wrote: > >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a > >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > >> > >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as > >> part of the "contract". > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > >>> > >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT > >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, > >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of > >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them > >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This > >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses > >>> a NAT type firewall > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Steve Wagner > >>> Vice President of Operations > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > >>> Boise, ID 83705 > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 > >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > >>> > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named > >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is > >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, > >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of > >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or > >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > >>> thereafter. Thank you. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of John Brown > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > >>> > >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing > >>> the actual > >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or > >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any > >>> more. > >>> > >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is > >>> higher than the > >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could > >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot > >>> light on those providers. :| > >>> > >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of > >>> space should > >>> return the space they aren't using. > >>> > >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? > >>> > >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? > >>> > >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I > >>> don't know. > >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. > >>> > >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing > >>> good work > >>> under the guidelines they have. > >>> > >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > >>> request, I'm sure > >>> it can be resolved. > >>> > >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work > >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes > >>> muster and what > >>> may need to be done to help it float. > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mike Horwath > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Hi. > >>>> > >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for > >>>> way too long. > >>>> > >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same > >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. > >>>> > >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s > >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be > >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you > >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. > >>>> > >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > >>>> > >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have > >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the > >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) > >>>> > >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 > >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > >>>> stock offering. > >>>> > >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT > >>>> > >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field > >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has > >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. > >>>> > >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net > >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is > >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Discuss > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Jul 21 22:45:26 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:45:26 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <314812439-1248230608-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1750539672-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: BTDT. Didn?t work well. ARIN is in a specific legal brier-patch. They can?t tell you what to do with your routing table, or anyone elses. That could trigger anti-trust issues. On 7/21/09 8:43 PM, "Kelvin Williams" wrote: > Net-Neutrality is something I fully support. The previous example was just > saying, if ARIN can't help us little guys, we can band together and help > ourselves. > > Kelvin WilliamsAltus Communications Group, Inc.Office Direct: > 678.369.5968Office Main: 678.369.5970Fax: 866.895.8557Mobile: 678.852.4173Sent > from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > From: John Brown > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:39:24 -0600 > To: ; Chris Gotstein > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > Hang on, I need to scream NET-NEUTRALITY. > > Ah, but market forces will keep you from adding those ACL?s. Your customers > will find another provider that is ACL free and then you will be revenue free. > :) > > > On 7/21/09 8:30 PM, "Kelvin Williams" wrote: > >> ARIN may not have the legal right to do anything. But, if they (Apple, et al) >> don't want to play fair with the rest of us, they don't have a legal right >> when we add ACLs blocking their traffic from traversing our networks. ;)Kw >> >> Kelvin WilliamsAltus Communications Group, Inc.Office Direct: >> 678.369.5968Office Main: 678.369.5970Fax: 866.895.8557Mobile: >> 678.852.4173Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >> >> >> From: John Brown >> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:02 -0600 >> To: Chris Gotstein; >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> I?ll ask the age old question again. >> >> What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple got >> the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the >> ability to enforce rules today. >> >> Its contracts law. >> >> >> >> >> On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: >> >>> I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big >>> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. >>> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP >>> that comes along asking for address space. >>> >>> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also >>> requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts >>> because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block >>> and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the >>> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure >>> IPv6 for a long time to come. >>> >>> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused >>> blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or >>> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these >>> companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address >>> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >>> blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their >>> block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should >>> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Chris Gotstein >>> Sr Network Engineer >>> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >>> 500 N Stephenson Ave >>> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >>> Phone: 906-774-4847 >>> Fax: 906-774-0335 >>> chris at uplogon.com >>> >>> Kelvin Williams wrote: >>>> > Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>>> > >>>> > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >>>> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. >>>> > >>>> > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running >>>> Linux or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of >>>> web destinations were running IPv6. >>>> > >>>> > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause >>>> problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >>>> > >>>> > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what >>>> blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be >>>> at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the >>>> blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >>>> > >>>> > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address >>>> because they can go for that. >>>> > >>>> > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a >>>> steering group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and >>>> the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they >>>> need to pay. In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of >>>> their networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can >>>> transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users still running >>>> Windows 98. >>>> > >>>> > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >>>> responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >>>> establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large >>>> bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >>>> > >>>> > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >>>> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Kw >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Kelvin Williams >>>> > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>>> > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>>> > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>>> > Fax: 866.895.8557 >>>> > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>>> > >>>> > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>> > >>>> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>>> > To: John Brown >>>> > Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >>>> > some), then a transfer market will >>>> > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >>>> > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit >>>> > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them >>>> > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, >>>> > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. >>>> > >>>> > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >>>> > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will >>>> > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>>> > >>>> > Either way, it works the same. >>>> > >>>> > Ted >>>> > >>>> > John Brown wrote: >>>>> >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >>>>> >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >>>>> >> part of the "contract". >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>>> >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>>> >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>>>> >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>>> >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>>> >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>>> >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>>>> >>> a NAT type firewall >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Regards, >>>>>> >>> Steve Wagner >>>>>> >>> Vice President of Operations >>>>>> >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>>> >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>>> >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>>> >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>>> >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>>> >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>>> >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>>> >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>>>> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>>> >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>>> >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>>> >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>>> >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>>> >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>>> >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>>> >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>>> >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>>> >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>>> >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>>> >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>> >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>>> >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>>>> >>> the actual >>>>>> >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>>>>> >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >>>>>> >>> more. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>>> >>> higher than the >>>>>> >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could >>>>>> >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >>>>>> >>> light on those providers. :| >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>>> >>> space should >>>>>> >>> return the space they aren't using. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>>> >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>>>> >>> don't know. >>>>>> >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>>>> >>> good work >>>>>> >>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>>> >>> request, I'm sure >>>>>> >>> it can be resolved. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >>>>>> >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>>> >>> muster and what >>>>>> >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>> >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>>>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>>> >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>> >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >>>>>>> accountability. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Hi. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>>> >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>>> >>>> way too long. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>>> >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>>>>> >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>>> >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>>>> >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>>> >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>>>> >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>>>> >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>>>>> >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>>>>> >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>>>> >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>>> >>>> stock offering. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>>>>> >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>>>>> >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! >>>>>>> drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>>> >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>>>>> >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>> >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>> >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>> >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>> >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>_______________________________________________ >>>>> >> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> > >>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>> > ARIN-Discuss >>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>> > ARIN-Discuss >>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kwilliams at altuscgi.com Tue Jul 21 22:45:44 2009 From: kwilliams at altuscgi.com (Kelvin Williams) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:45:44 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <851686854-1248230723-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-974457500-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> I have several uplinks to XO. And they have stated they have no IPv6 plans to us. Kelvin Williams Altus Communications Group, Inc. Office Direct: 678.369.5968 Office Main: 678.369.5970 Fax: 866.895.8557 Mobile: 678.852.4173 Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed -----Original Message----- From: John Brown Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:43:46 To: Tony Valenti Cc: Chris Gotstein; ; Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Who is that ?upstream???? Change providers ?? On 7/21/09 8:42 PM, "Tony Valenti" wrote: > I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned. > I think a big mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly assumes > that we have something to do with making IPV6 a reality and managing IPV4 > address space. > > Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and asked them > when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. ?After being escalated all the > way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that they have no plans to > implement IPV6 which means that if I put any content on an IPV6 address, I can > expect at a minimum, 25% of the US won't have access to it. > > So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't care, and > in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address space because the > internet is officially out, what will you do? ?As a webhosting company, we > have no choice but to pay whatever the black market price for IPs is or go out > of business/quit accepting customers. > > If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ?ARIN continually emphasizes the > problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything to fix the > problem - they just make the current process harder. ?ARIN is a doomsday > prophet powerless to change the fate that we all will endure. > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown wrote: >> I?ll ask the age old question again. >> >> What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? ?If Apple got >> the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the >> ability to ?enforce rules today. >> >> Its contracts law. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: >> >>> I would agree. ?Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big >>> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. >>> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP >>> that comes along asking for address space. >>> >>> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also >>> requesting additional IP space. ?We were successful on both attempts >>> because we could prove we needed the space. ?We also have an IPv6 block >>> and already have it implemented on our routers. ?But at this time, the >>> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure >>> IPv6 for a long time to come. >>> >>> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused >>> blocks of IP address space. ?A working group would be a good start, or >>> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these >>> companies. ?ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address >>> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >>> blocks? ?If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their >>> block, then they can keep it and we move on. ?If not, then they should >>> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Chris Gotstein >>> Sr Network Engineer >>> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >>> 500 N Stephenson Ave >>> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >>> Phone: 906-774-4847 >>> Fax: 906-774-0335 >>> chris at uplogon.com >>> >>> Kelvin Williams wrote: >>>> > Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>>> > >>>> > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >>>> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. >>>> > >>>> > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux >>>> or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web >>>> destinations were running IPv6. >>>> > >>>> > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause >>>> problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >>>> > >>>> > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what >>>> blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be >>>> at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the >>>> blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >>>> > >>>> > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address >>>> because they can go for that. >>>> > >>>> > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering >>>> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD >>>> to implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to >>>> pay. In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their >>>> networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition >>>> versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >>>> > >>>> > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >>>> responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >>>> establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large >>>> bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >>>> > >>>> > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >>>> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Kw >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Kelvin Williams >>>> > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>>> > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>>> > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>>> > Fax: 866.895.8557 >>>> > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>>> > >>>> > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>> > >>>> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>>> > To: John Brown >>>> > Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >>>> > some), then a transfer market will >>>> > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >>>> > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit >>>> > on them, they lose that money. ?It's no different than charging them >>>> > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. ?Either way, >>>> > they lose money. ?The only difference is who gets the money they lose. >>>> > >>>> > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >>>> > and that block of numbers never gains value. ?In which case nobody will >>>> > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>>> > >>>> > Either way, it works the same. >>>> > >>>> > Ted >>>> > >>>> > John Brown wrote: >>>>> >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >>>>> >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >>>>> >> part of the "contract". >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>>> >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> If either Apple or HP ?corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>>> >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>>>> >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>>> >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>>> >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>>> >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>>>> >>> a NAT type firewall >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Regards, >>>>>> >>> Steve Wagner >>>>>> >>> Vice President of Operations >>>>>> >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>>> >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>>> >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>>> >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>>> >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>>> >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>>> >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>>> >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>>>> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>>> >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>>> >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>>> >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>>> >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>>> >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>>> >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>>> >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>>> >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>>> >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>>> >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>>> >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>> >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>>> >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>>>> >>> the actual >>>>>> >>> usage ratios. ?Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>>>>> >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >>>>>> >>> more. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>>> >>> higher than the >>>>>> >>> cost of them just getting new space. ?So it doesn't happen. ?I could >>>>>> >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >>>>>> >>> light on those providers. :| >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>>> >>> space should >>>>>> >>> return the space they aren't using. ? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>>> >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>>>> >>> don't know. >>>>>> >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>>>> >>> good work >>>>>> >>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>>> >>> request, I'm sure >>>>>> >>> it can be resolved. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >>>>>> >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>>> >>> muster and what >>>>>> >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>> >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>>>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>>> >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>> >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Hi. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>>> >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>>> >>>> way too long. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>>> >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. ?16 years later, same >>>>>>> >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>>> >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>>>> >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>>> >>>> netblocks. ?Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>>>> >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>>>> >>>> benefits for themselves. ?They even have a sign on their >>>>>>> >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. ?(the rest of us are the >>>>>>> >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>>>> >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>>> >>>> stock offering. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: >>>>>>> ?PROFIT >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. ?The playing field >>>>>>> >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. ?It never has >>>>>>> >>>> been. ?I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>> Mike Horwath ?????ipHouse - Welcome home! >>>>>>> ??????drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>>> >>>> ????????The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>>>>> >>>> ????????that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>> >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>> >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>> >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>> >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>_______________________________________________ >>>>> >> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> > >>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>> > ARIN-Discuss >>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>> > ARIN-Discuss >>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From artur at eboundhost.com Tue Jul 21 22:47:19 2009 From: artur at eboundhost.com (Artur (eBoundHost)) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:47:19 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Message-ID: <686700437-1248230841-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1392791892-@bxe1268.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> - What legal right does ARIN have - to tell Apple to do anything? ?If Apple - got the space pre-ARIN and the rules - where different then, what gives ARIN - the ability to ?enforce rules today. Who says that they will put up a fight? Did anyone ask them to release the unused space? Best Regards, Artur eBoundHost http://www.eboundhost.com From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Jul 21 22:47:55 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:47:55 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <851686854-1248230723-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-974457500-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Then why does ARIN allocate them IPv6 space?? I suspect that one stick could be. If you don?t start providing IPv6 transit NOW-ish, we won?t let you have any more IPv4 space. On 7/21/09 8:45 PM, "Kelvin Williams" wrote: > I have several uplinks to XO. And they have stated they have no IPv6 plans to > us. > > Kelvin WilliamsAltus Communications Group, Inc.Office Direct: > 678.369.5968Office Main: 678.369.5970Fax: 866.895.8557Mobile: 678.852.4173Sent > from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > From: John Brown > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:43:46 -0600 > To: Tony Valenti > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > Who is that ?upstream???? > > Change providers ?? > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:42 PM, "Tony Valenti" wrote: > >> I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned. >> I think a big mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly assumes >> that we have something to do with making IPV6 a reality and managing IPV4 >> address space. >> >> Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and asked them >> when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. ?After being escalated all the >> way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that they have no plans to >> implement IPV6 which means that if I put any content on an IPV6 address, I >> can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US won't have access to it. >> >> So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't care, >> and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address space because the >> internet is officially out, what will you do? ?As a webhosting company, we >> have no choice but to pay whatever the black market price for IPs is or go >> out of business/quit accepting customers. >> >> If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ?ARIN continually emphasizes the >> problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything to fix the >> problem - they just make the current process harder. ?ARIN is a doomsday >> prophet powerless to change the fate that we all will endure. >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown wrote: >>> I?ll ask the age old question again. >>> >>> What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? ?If Apple got >>> the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the >>> ability to ?enforce rules today. >>> >>> Its contracts law. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: >>> >>>> I would agree. ?Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big >>>> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. >>>> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP >>>> that comes along asking for address space. >>>> >>>> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also >>>> requesting additional IP space. ?We were successful on both attempts >>>> because we could prove we needed the space. ?We also have an IPv6 block >>>> and already have it implemented on our routers. ?But at this time, the >>>> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure >>>> IPv6 for a long time to come. >>>> >>>> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused >>>> blocks of IP address space. ?A working group would be a good start, or >>>> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these >>>> companies. ?ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address >>>> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >>>> blocks? ?If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their >>>> block, then they can keep it and we move on. ?If not, then they should >>>> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Chris Gotstein >>>> Sr Network Engineer >>>> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >>>> 500 N Stephenson Ave >>>> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >>>> Phone: 906-774-4847 >>>> Fax: 906-774-0335 >>>> chris at uplogon.com >>>> >>>> Kelvin Williams wrote: >>>>> > Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>>>> > >>>>> > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >>>>> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL >>>>> subscribers. >>>>> > >>>>> > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running >>>>> Linux or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority >>>>> of web destinations were running IPv6. >>>>> > >>>>> > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause >>>>> problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >>>>> > >>>>> > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what >>>>> blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be >>>>> at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of >>>>> the blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >>>>> > >>>>> > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address >>>>> because they can go for that. >>>>> > >>>>> > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a >>>>> steering group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and >>>>> the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they >>>>> need to pay. In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of >>>>> their networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can >>>>> transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users still running >>>>> Windows 98. >>>>> > >>>>> > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >>>>> responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >>>>> establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large >>>>> bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >>>>> > >>>>> > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >>>>> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Kw >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Kelvin Williams >>>>> > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>>>> > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>>>> > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>>>> > Fax: 866.895.8557 >>>>> > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>>>> > >>>>> > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>>> > >>>>> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>>>> > To: John Brown >>>>> > Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >>>>> > some), then a transfer market will >>>>> > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >>>>> > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit >>>>> > on them, they lose that money. ?It's no different than charging them >>>>> > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. ?Either way, >>>>> > they lose money. ?The only difference is who gets the money they lose. >>>>> > >>>>> > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >>>>> > and that block of numbers never gains value. ?In which case nobody will >>>>> > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>>>> > >>>>> > Either way, it works the same. >>>>> > >>>>> > Ted >>>>> > >>>>> > John Brown wrote: >>>>>> >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >>>>>> >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >>>>>> >> part of the "contract". >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>>>> >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>> >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> If either Apple or HP ?corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>>>> >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>>>>> >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>>>> >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>>>> >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>>>> >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>>>>> >>> a NAT type firewall >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>> Steve Wagner >>>>>>> >>> Vice President of Operations >>>>>>> >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>>>> >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>>>> >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>>>> >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>>>> >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>>>> >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>>>> >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>>>> >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>>>>> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>>>> >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>>>> >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>>>> >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>>>> >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>>>> >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>>>> >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>>>> >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>>>> >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>>>> >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>>>> >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>>>> >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>> >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>>>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>>>> >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>>>>> >>> the actual >>>>>>> >>> usage ratios. ?Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>>>>>> >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >>>>>>> >>> more. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>>>> >>> higher than the >>>>>>> >>> cost of them just getting new space. ?So it doesn't happen. ?I >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >>>>>>> >>> light on those providers. :| >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>>>> >>> space should >>>>>>> >>> return the space they aren't using. ? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>>>> >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>>>>> >>> don't know. >>>>>>> >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>>>>> >>> good work >>>>>>> >>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>>>> >>> request, I'm sure >>>>>>> >>> it can be resolved. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >>>>>>> >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>>>> >>> muster and what >>>>>>> >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>>> >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>>>>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>>>> >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>>> >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >>>>>>>> accountability. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Hi. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>>>> >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>>>> >>>> way too long. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>>>> >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. ?16 years later, same >>>>>>>> >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>>>> >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>>>>> >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>>>> >>>> netblocks. ?Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>>>>> >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>>>>> >>>> benefits for themselves. ?They even have a sign on their >>>>>>>> >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. ?(the rest of us are the >>>>>>>> >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>>>>> >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>>>> >>>> stock offering. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: >>>>>>>> ?PROFIT >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. ?The playing field >>>>>>>> >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. ?It never has >>>>>>>> >>>> been. ?I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>> Mike Horwath ?????ipHouse - Welcome home! >>>>>>>> ??????drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>>>> >>>> ????????The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>>>>>> >>>> ????????that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>>> >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>>> >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>>> >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>>> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>>> >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>_______________________________________________ >>>>>> >> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> > >>>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>>> > ARIN-Discuss >>>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>>> > ARIN-Discuss >>>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris at uplogon.com Tue Jul 21 22:49:29 2009 From: chris at uplogon.com (Chris Gotstein) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:49:29 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A667E39.4010606@uplogon.com> That is an option, one which we are looking into. There are still some issues with IPv6 on the client side, ie, handing out addresses/subnets, client side routers/modems/cpe/etc supporting IPv6, etc. On top of that, there are almost no major websites running dual stack. Do a dig or nslookup and see how few AAA records actually come up. In fact, from a web hosting stance, cpanel (which is wen hosting control panel) doesn't support IPv6 yet! We host over 100 sites that could all be dual stack accessible if cpanel would support IPv6. -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 chris at uplogon.com John Brown wrote: > There is at least one provider (who runs a damm good network) that is > selling IPv4 transit REALLY CHEAP, you just have to also connect via IPv6. > > We are talking $2 to $3 per Mb/s > > Of course you can only get this at POP sites they are at..... > > So there are some that are applying market forces to encourage a more > rapid use and deployment of IPv6 > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:35 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > > I would love to get my IPv6 on, but it doesn't go very far.... :) > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Chris Gotstein writes: > > > > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the > > > big guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a > > > fee. > > > > We've been there before, where address space was ridiculously > > difficult or costly to get: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Network_Identification_Code > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAP_address > > > > Funny thing happened... those areas did not take off, and the > > Internet was built on competing technology. > > > > Ever thought that in a post-exhaustion world, the path of least > > resistance might be to just go ahead and get your IPv6 on? > > > > -r > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > From tony.valenti at powerdnn.com Tue Jul 21 22:49:53 2009 From: tony.valenti at powerdnn.com (Tony Valenti) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:49:53 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <314812439-1248230608-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1750539672-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <553073100-1248229804-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-232319848-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <314812439-1248230608-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1750539672-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: I'm in Omaha, Nebraska. The big thing to us is that as a content provider, we have to serve our content on a network that is compatible with our customers. If we went IPV6 on our gear, we'd go out of business because all our customers would find a content provider who would serve it on IPs that they could access. It is a lot easier to find a new webhost than it is to change ISPs. On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Kelvin Williams wrote: > Net-Neutrality is something I fully support. The previous example was just > saying, if ARIN can't help us little guys, we can band together and help > ourselves. > > Kelvin Williams > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > Fax: 866.895.8557 > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > ------------------------------ > *From*: John Brown > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:39:24 -0600 > *To*: ; Chris Gotstein > > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > Hang on, I need to scream NET-NEUTRALITY. > > Ah, but market forces will keep you from adding those ACL?s. Your > customers will find another provider that is ACL free and then you will be > revenue free. :) > > > On 7/21/09 8:30 PM, "Kelvin Williams" wrote: > > ARIN may not have the legal right to do anything. But, if they (Apple, et > al) don't want to play fair with the rest of us, they don't have a legal > right when we add ACLs blocking their traffic from traversing our networks. > ;)Kw > > Kelvin WilliamsAltus Communications Group, Inc.Office Direct: > 678.369.5968Office Main: 678.369.5970Fax: 866.895.8557Mobile: > 678.852.4173Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > ------------------------------ > *From*: John Brown > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:02 -0600 > *To*: Chris Gotstein; > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple > got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN > the ability to enforce rules today. > > Its contracts law. > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP > that comes along asking for address space. > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our > Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux > or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web > destinations were running IPv6. > > > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause > problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. > > > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what > blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be > at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the > blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. > > > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address > because they can go for that. > > > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a > steering group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and > the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they > need to pay. In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their > networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition > versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. > > > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the > responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the > establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large > bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew > pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) > > > > > > Kw > > > > > > Kelvin Williams > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > > To: John Brown > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > > > > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have > > some), then a transfer market will > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. > > > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > > > Either way, it works the same. > > > > Ted > > > > John Brown wrote: > >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a > >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > >> > >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as > >> part of the "contract". > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > >>> > >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT > >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, > >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of > >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them > >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This > >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses > >>> a NAT type firewall > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Steve Wagner > >>> Vice President of Operations > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > >>> Boise, ID 83705 > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 > >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > >>> > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named > >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is > >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, > >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of > >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or > >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > >>> thereafter. Thank you. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of John Brown > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > >>> > >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing > >>> the actual > >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or > >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any > >>> more. > >>> > >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is > >>> higher than the > >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could > >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot > >>> light on those providers. :| > >>> > >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of > >>> space should > >>> return the space they aren't using. > >>> > >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? > >>> > >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? > >>> > >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I > >>> don't know. > >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. > >>> > >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing > >>> good work > >>> under the guidelines they have. > >>> > >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > >>> request, I'm sure > >>> it can be resolved. > >>> > >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work > >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes > >>> muster and what > >>> may need to be done to help it float. > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mike Horwath > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Hi. > >>>> > >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for > >>>> way too long. > >>>> > >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same > >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. > >>>> > >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s > >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be > >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you > >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. > >>>> > >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > >>>> > >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have > >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the > >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) > >>>> > >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 > >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > >>>> stock offering. > >>>> > >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT > >>>> > >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field > >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has > >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. > >>>> > >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net > >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is > >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > >>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>> > >>_______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Discuss > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris at uplogon.com Tue Jul 21 22:51:37 2009 From: chris at uplogon.com (Chris Gotstein) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:51:37 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <851686854-1248230723-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-974457500-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <851686854-1248230723-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-974457500-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <4A667EB9.6090500@uplogon.com> I signed up to "beta test" IPv6 on Qwest's network about 3 months ago. I'm still waiting to connect to them. Thank god for HE's IPv6. -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 chris at uplogon.com Kelvin Williams wrote: > I have several uplinks to XO. And they have stated they have no IPv6 > plans to us. > > Kelvin Williams > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > Fax: 866.895.8557 > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: John Brown > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:43:46 -0600 > *To*: Tony Valenti > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > Who is that ?upstream???? > > Change providers ?? > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:42 PM, "Tony Valenti" wrote: > > I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned. > I think a big mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly > assumes that we have something to do with making IPV6 a reality and > managing IPV4 address space. > > Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and > asked them when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After being > escalated all the way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that > they have no plans to implement IPV6 which means that if I put any > content on an IPV6 address, I can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US > won't have access to it. > > So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't > care, and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address > space because the internet is officially out, what will you do? As > a webhosting company, we have no choice but to pay whatever the > black market price for IPs is or go out of business/quit accepting > customers. > > If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually emphasizes > the problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything > to fix the problem - they just make the current process harder. > ARIN is a doomsday prophet powerless to change the fate that we all > will endure. > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown > wrote: > > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? > If Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different > then, what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. > > Its contracts law. > > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point > where the big > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads > for a fee. > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with > every small ISP > that comes along asking for address space. > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP > space and also > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both > attempts > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an > IPv6 block > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this > time, the > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us > running pure > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, > mostly unused > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good > start, or > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from > each of these > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders > of address > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these > large > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more > of their > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then > they should > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion > of IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB > DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers > running Linux or current versions of Windows that support > IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were running IPv6. > > > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT > can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, > etc) in use today. > > > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are > protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and > paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of these /8 > holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks > they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. > > > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 > address because they can go for that. > > > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there > should be a steering group developed to address the real > issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW > freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In > my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their > networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can > transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users > still running Windows 98. > > > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks > to the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues > without the establishment of a transfer market, and work to > create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the > local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made > sense to us) > > > > > > Kw > > > > > > Kelvin Williams > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > > To: John Brown > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > > > > > > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely > liking to have > > some), then a transfer market will > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will > suddenly > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple > continue to sit > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than > charging them > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. > Either way, > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the > money they lose. > > > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market > never forms > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which > case nobody will > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > > > Either way, it works the same. > > > > Ted > > > > John Brown wrote: > > > So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they > have to assess a > > > fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > > > > > > When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there > was no fee as > > > part of the "contract". > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > > >> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > > >> > > >> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT > > >> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak > about, > > >> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of > > >> entities for the address space they use, may result in them > > >> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This > > >> would be true for any other end user entity as well that > uses > > >> a NAT type firewall > > >> > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Steve Wagner > > >> Vice President of Operations > > >> Syringa Networks, LLC > > >> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > > >> Boise, ID 83705 > > >> Office: 208.229.6104 > > >> Main: 208.229.6100 > > >> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > > >> Fax: 208.229.6110 > > >> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > > >> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > > >> > > >> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > > >> The information in this message is intended for the named > > >> recipients only. It may contain information that is > > >> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > > >> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > > >> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, > > >> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of > > >> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > > >> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or > > >> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > > >> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > > >> thereafter. Thank you. > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John > Brown > > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > > >> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > > >> > > >> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of > managing > > >> the actual > > >> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space > allocated or > > >> assigned to downstream customers and those customers > don't exist any > > >> more. > > >> > > >> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is > > >> higher than the > > >> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't > happen. I could > > >> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting > a public spot > > >> light on those providers. :| > > >> > > >> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of > > >> space should > > >> return the space they aren't using. > > >> > > >> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > > >> Does HP really need a /8 ?? > > >> > > >> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP > addresses ?? > > >> > > >> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I > > >> don't know. > > >> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a > broad brush. > > >> > > >> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people > doing > > >> good work > > >> under the guidelines they have. > > >> > > >> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > > >> request, I'm sure > > >> it can be resolved. > > >> > > >> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to > privately work > > >> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes > > >> muster and what > > >> may need to be done to help it float. > > >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Mike Horwath > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > > >>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > > >>> > > >>> Hi. > > >>> > > >>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > > >>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for > > >>> way too long. > > >>> > > >>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > > >>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years > later, same > > >>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to > share the pool. > > >>> > > >>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s > > >>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be > > >>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > > >>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you > > >>> will find commentary in regular spats. > > >>> > > >>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > > >>> > > >>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have > > >>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > > >>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the > > >>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) > > >>> > > >>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by > about 20 > > >>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > > >>> stock offering. > > >>> > > >>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding > companies: PROFIT > > >>> > > >>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field > > >>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It > never has > > >>> been. I don't think it ever will be. > > >>> > > >>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! > drechsau at iphouse.net > > >>> The universe is an island, surrounded by > whatever it is > > >>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > >>> ARIN-Discuss > > >>> You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > >>> > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >> ARIN-Discuss > > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > >> > > >_______________________________________________ > > > ARIN-Discuss > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > From chris at uplogon.com Tue Jul 21 22:53:11 2009 From: chris at uplogon.com (Chris Gotstein) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:53:11 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <553073100-1248229804-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-232319848-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <314812439-1248230608-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1750539672-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <4A667F17.1000809@uplogon.com> Pure IPv6 isn't going to happen overnight, but running dual stack can happen now. The more IPv6 we can get out there the better. -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 chris at uplogon.com Tony Valenti wrote: > I'm in Omaha, Nebraska. > > The big thing to us is that as a content provider, we have to serve our > content on a network that is compatible with our customers. If we went > IPV6 on our gear, we'd go out of business because all our customers > would find a content provider who would serve it on IPs that they could > access. > > It is a lot easier to find a new webhost than it is to change ISPs. > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Kelvin Williams > wrote: > > Net-Neutrality is something I fully support. The previous example > was just saying, if ARIN can't help us little guys, we can band > together and help ourselves. > > Kelvin Williams > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > Fax: 866.895.8557 > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: John Brown > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:39:24 -0600 > *To*: >; > Chris Gotstein> > > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > Hang on, I need to scream NET-NEUTRALITY. > > Ah, but market forces will keep you from adding those ACL?s. Your > customers will find another provider that is ACL free and then you > will be revenue free. :) > > > On 7/21/09 8:30 PM, "Kelvin Williams" > wrote: > > ARIN may not have the legal right to do anything. But, if they > (Apple, et al) don't want to play fair with the rest of us, they > don't have a legal right when we add ACLs blocking their traffic > from traversing our networks. ;)Kw > > Kelvin WilliamsAltus Communications Group, Inc.Office Direct: > 678.369.5968Office Main: 678.369.5970Fax: 866.895.8557Mobile: > 678.852.4173Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: John Brown > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:02 -0600 > *To*: Chris Gotstein >; > > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? > If Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different > then, what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. > > Its contracts law. > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" > wrote: > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point > where the big > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads > for a fee. > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with > every small ISP > that comes along asking for address space. > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP > space and also > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both > attempts > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have > an IPv6 block > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at > this time, the > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us > running pure > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, > mostly unused > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a > good start, or > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from > each of these > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block > holders of address > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these > large > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or > more of their > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then > they should > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion > of IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB > DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy > subscribers running Linux or current versions of Windows > that support IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were > running IPv6. > > > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT > can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, > etc) in use today. > > > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are > protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and > paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of these /8 > holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks > they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. > > > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per > IPv4 address because they can go for that. > > > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there > should be a steering group developed to address the real > issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW > freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In > my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their > networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can > transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users > still running Windows 98. > > > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks > to the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues > without the establishment of a transfer market, and work to > create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the > local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made > sense to us) > > > > > > Kw > > > > > > Kelvin Williams > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > > To: John Brown > > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > > > > > > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely > liking to have > > some), then a transfer market will > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will > suddenly > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple > continue to sit > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than > charging them > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. > Either way, > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the > money they lose. > > > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market > never forms > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which > case nobody will > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > > > Either way, it works the same. > > > > Ted > > > > John Brown wrote: > >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they > have to assess a > >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > >> > >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's > there was no fee as > >> part of the "contract". > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > >>> > >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT > >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak > about, > >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of > >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them > >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This > >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well > that uses > >>> a NAT type firewall > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Steve Wagner > >>> Vice President of Operations > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > >>> Boise, ID 83705 > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 > >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > >>> > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named > >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is > >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, > >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of > >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or > >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > >>> thereafter. Thank you. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > John Brown > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > >>> > >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of > managing > >>> the actual > >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space > allocated or > >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers > don't exist any > >>> more. > >>> > >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is > >>> higher than the > >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't > happen. I could > >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting > a public spot > >>> light on those providers. :| > >>> > >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of > >>> space should > >>> return the space they aren't using. > >>> > >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? > >>> > >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP > addresses ?? > >>> > >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get > space, I > >>> don't know. > >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a > broad brush. > >>> > >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people > doing > >>> good work > >>> under the guidelines they have. > >>> > >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > >>> request, I'm sure > >>> it can be resolved. > >>> > >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to > privately work > >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes > >>> muster and what > >>> may need to be done to help it float. > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Mike Horwath > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Hi. > >>>> > >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for > >>>> way too long. > >>>> > >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years > later, same > >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to > share the pool. > >>>> > >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s > >>>> when it was posed that > companies/institutions/government be > >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am > sure you > >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. > >>>> > >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > >>>> > >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who > have > >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the > >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) > >>>> > >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by > about 20 > >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > >>>> stock offering. > >>>> > >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding > companies: PROFIT > >>>> > >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing > field > >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It > never has > >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. > >>>> > >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! > drechsau at iphouse.net > >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by > whatever it is > >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > >>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net ). > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > >>>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > >>> > >>_______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Discuss > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >> Please contact info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > > > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > From kwilliams at altuscgi.com Tue Jul 21 22:56:48 2009 From: kwilliams at altuscgi.com (Kelvin Williams) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:56:48 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A667F17.1000809@uplogon.com> References: <553073100-1248229804-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-232319848-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <314812439-1248230608-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1750539672-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4A667F17.1000809@uplogon.com> Message-ID: <89123330-1248231386-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-47981197-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> I concur. But tell that to my Win98 subscribers who refuse to upgrade because their Internet works just fine. Kelvin Williams Altus Communications Group, Inc. Office Direct: 678.369.5968 Office Main: 678.369.5970 Fax: 866.895.8557 Mobile: 678.852.4173 Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed -----Original Message----- From: Chris Gotstein Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:53:11 To: Tony Valenti Cc: ; John Brown; Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Pure IPv6 isn't going to happen overnight, but running dual stack can happen now. The more IPv6 we can get out there the better. -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 chris at uplogon.com Tony Valenti wrote: > I'm in Omaha, Nebraska. > > The big thing to us is that as a content provider, we have to serve our > content on a network that is compatible with our customers. If we went > IPV6 on our gear, we'd go out of business because all our customers > would find a content provider who would serve it on IPs that they could > access. > > It is a lot easier to find a new webhost than it is to change ISPs. > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Kelvin Williams > wrote: > > Net-Neutrality is something I fully support. The previous example > was just saying, if ARIN can't help us little guys, we can band > together and help ourselves. > > Kelvin Williams > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > Fax: 866.895.8557 > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: John Brown > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:39:24 -0600 > *To*: >; > Chris Gotstein> > > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > Hang on, I need to scream NET-NEUTRALITY. > > Ah, but market forces will keep you from adding those ACL?s. Your > customers will find another provider that is ACL free and then you > will be revenue free. :) > > > On 7/21/09 8:30 PM, "Kelvin Williams" > wrote: > > ARIN may not have the legal right to do anything. But, if they > (Apple, et al) don't want to play fair with the rest of us, they > don't have a legal right when we add ACLs blocking their traffic > from traversing our networks. ;)Kw > > Kelvin WilliamsAltus Communications Group, Inc.Office Direct: > 678.369.5968Office Main: 678.369.5970Fax: 866.895.8557Mobile: > 678.852.4173Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: John Brown > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:02 -0600 > *To*: Chris Gotstein >; > > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? > If Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different > then, what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. > > Its contracts law. > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" > wrote: > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point > where the big > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads > for a fee. > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with > every small ISP > that comes along asking for address space. > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP > space and also > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both > attempts > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have > an IPv6 block > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at > this time, the > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us > running pure > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, > mostly unused > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a > good start, or > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from > each of these > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block > holders of address > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these > large > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or > more of their > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then > they should > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion > of IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB > DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy > subscribers running Linux or current versions of Windows > that support IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were > running IPv6. > > > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT > can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, > etc) in use today. > > > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are > protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and > paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of these /8 > holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks > they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. > > > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per > IPv4 address because they can go for that. > > > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there > should be a steering group developed to address the real > issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW > freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In > my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their > networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can > transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users > still running Windows 98. > > > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks > to the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues > without the establishment of a transfer market, and work to > create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the > local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made > sense to us) > > > > > > Kw > > > > > > Kelvin Williams > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > > To: John Brown > > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > > > > > > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely > liking to have > > some), then a transfer market will > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will > suddenly > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple > continue to sit > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than > charging them > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. > Either way, > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the > money they lose. > > > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market > never forms > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which > case nobody will > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > > > Either way, it works the same. > > > > Ted > > > > John Brown wrote: > >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they > have to assess a > >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > >> > >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's > there was no fee as > >> part of the "contract". > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > >>> > >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT > >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak > about, > >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of > >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them > >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This > >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well > that uses > >>> a NAT type firewall > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Steve Wagner > >>> Vice President of Operations > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > >>> Boise, ID 83705 > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 > >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > >>> > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named > >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is > >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, > >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of > >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or > >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > >>> thereafter. Thank you. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > John Brown > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > >>> > >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of > managing > >>> the actual > >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space > allocated or > >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers > don't exist any > >>> more. > >>> > >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is > >>> higher than the > >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't > happen. I could > >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting > a public spot > >>> light on those providers. :| > >>> > >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of > >>> space should > >>> return the space they aren't using. > >>> > >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? > >>> > >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP > addresses ?? > >>> > >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get > space, I > >>> don't know. > >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a > broad brush. > >>> > >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people > doing > >>> good work > >>> under the guidelines they have. > >>> > >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > >>> request, I'm sure > >>> it can be resolved. > >>> > >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to > privately work > >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes > >>> muster and what > >>> may need to be done to help it float. > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Mike Horwath > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Hi. > >>>> > >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for > >>>> way too long. > >>>> > >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years > later, same > >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to > share the pool. > >>>> > >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s > >>>> when it was posed that > companies/institutions/government be > >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am > sure you > >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. > >>>> > >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > >>>> > >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who > have > >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the > >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) > >>>> > >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by > about 20 > >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > >>>> stock offering. > >>>> > >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding > companies: PROFIT > >>>> > >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing > field > >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It > never has > >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. > >>>> > >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! > drechsau at iphouse.net > >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by > whatever it is > >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > >>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net ). > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > >>>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > >>> > >>_______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Discuss > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >> Please contact info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > > > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Jul 21 22:57:32 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:57:32 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <89123330-1248231386-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-47981197-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Stop enabling them :) On 7/21/09 8:56 PM, "Kelvin Williams" wrote: > I concur. > > But tell that to my Win98 subscribers who refuse to upgrade because their > Internet works just fine. > Kelvin Williams > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > Fax: 866.895.8557 > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Gotstein > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:53:11 > To: Tony Valenti > Cc: ; John Brown; > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > Pure IPv6 isn't going to happen overnight, but running dual stack can > happen now. The more IPv6 we can get out there the better. > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Tony Valenti wrote: >> > I'm in Omaha, Nebraska. >> > >> > The big thing to us is that as a content provider, we have to serve our >> > content on a network that is compatible with our customers. If we went >> > IPV6 on our gear, we'd go out of business because all our customers >> > would find a content provider who would serve it on IPs that they could >> > access. >> > >> > It is a lot easier to find a new webhost than it is to change ISPs. >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Kelvin Williams > > > wrote: >> > >> > Net-Neutrality is something I fully support. The previous example >> > was just saying, if ARIN can't help us little guys, we can band >> > together and help ourselves. >> > >> > Kelvin Williams >> > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >> > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >> > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >> > Fax: 866.895.8557 >> > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >> > >> > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > *From*: John Brown >> > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:39:24 -0600 >> > *To*: >; >> > Chris Gotstein> >> > >> > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> > >> > Hang on, I need to scream NET-NEUTRALITY. >> > >> > Ah, but market forces will keep you from adding those ACL?s. Your >> > customers will find another provider that is ACL free and then you >> > will be revenue free. :) >> > >> > >> > On 7/21/09 8:30 PM, "Kelvin Williams" > > > wrote: >> > >> > ARIN may not have the legal right to do anything. But, if they >> > (Apple, et al) don't want to play fair with the rest of us, they >> > don't have a legal right when we add ACLs blocking their traffic >> > from traversing our networks. ;)Kw >> > >> > Kelvin WilliamsAltus Communications Group, Inc.Office Direct: >> > 678.369.5968Office Main: 678.369.5970Fax: 866.895.8557Mobile: >> > 678.852.4173Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > *From*: John Brown >> > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:02 -0600 >> > *To*: Chris Gotstein> > >; > > > >> > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >> accountability. >> > I?ll ask the age old question again. >> > >> > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? >> > If Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different >> > then, what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. >> > >> > Its contracts law. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" > > > wrote: >> > >> > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point >> > where the big >> > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads >> > for a fee. >> > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with >> > every small ISP >> > that comes along asking for address space. >> > >> > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP >> > space and also >> > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both >> > attempts >> > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have >> > an IPv6 block >> > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at >> > this time, the >> > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us >> > running pure >> > IPv6 for a long time to come. >> > >> > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, >> > mostly unused >> > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a >> > good start, or >> > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from >> > each of these >> > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block >> > holders of address >> > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these >> > large >> > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or >> > more of their >> > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then >> > they should >> > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Chris Gotstein >> > Sr Network Engineer >> > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >> > 500 N Stephenson Ave >> > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >> > Phone: 906-774-4847 >> > Fax: 906-774-0335 >> > chris at uplogon.com >> > >> > Kelvin Williams wrote: >>> > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>> > > >>> > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion >> > of IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB >> > DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. >>> > > >>> > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy >> > subscribers running Linux or current versions of Windows >> > that support IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were >> > running IPv6. >>> > > >>> > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT >> > can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, >> > etc) in use today. >>> > > >>> > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are >> > protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and >> > paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of these /8 >> > holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks >> > they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >>> > > >>> > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per >> > IPv4 address because they can go for that. >>> > > >>> > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there >> > should be a steering group developed to address the real >> > issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW >> > freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In >> > my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their >> > networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can >> > transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users >> > still running Windows 98. >>> > > >>> > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks >> > to the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues >> > without the establishment of a transfer market, and work to >> > create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >>> > > >>> > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the >> > local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made >> > sense to us) >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Kw >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Kelvin Williams >>> > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>> > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>> > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>> > > Fax: 866.895.8557 >>> > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>> > > >>> > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > >>> > > >>> > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>> > > To: John Brown> > > >>> > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List> > > >>> > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >> > accountability. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely >> > liking to have >>> > > some), then a transfer market will >>> > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will >> > suddenly >>> > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple >> > continue to sit >>> > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than >> > charging them >>> > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. >> > Either way, >>> > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the >> > money they lose. >>> > > >>> > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market >> > never forms >>> > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which >> > case nobody will >>> > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>> > > >>> > > Either way, it works the same. >>> > > >>> > > Ted >>> > > >>> > > John Brown wrote: >>>> > >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they >> > have to assess a >>>> > >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>> > >> >>>> > >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's >> > there was no fee as >>>> > >> part of the "contract". >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> > >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> > >>> From: Steve Wagner >>>>> [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>> > >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>> > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> > >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >> > accountability. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>> > >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak >> > about, >>>>> > >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>> > >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>> > >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>> > >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well >> > that uses >>>>> > >>> a NAT type firewall >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> Regards, >>>>> > >>> Steve Wagner >>>>> > >>> Vice President of Operations >>>>> > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>> > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>> > >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>> > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>> > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>> > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>> > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>> > >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >> > >>>>> > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >> > >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>> > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>> > >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>> > >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>> > >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>> > >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>> > >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>> > >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>> > >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>> > >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>> > >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>> > >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> > >>>>> > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of >> > John Brown >>>>> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>> > >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>> > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >> > accountability. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of >> > managing >>>>> > >>> the actual >>>>> > >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space >> > allocated or >>>>> > >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers >> > don't exist any >>>>> > >>> more. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>> > >>> higher than the >>>>> > >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't >> > happen. I could >>>>> > >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting >> > a public spot >>>>> > >>> light on those providers. :| >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>> > >>> space should >>>>> > >>> return the space they aren't using. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>> > >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP >> > addresses ?? >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get >> > space, I >>>>> > >>> don't know. >>>>> > >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a >> > broad brush. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people >> > doing >>>>> > >>> good work >>>>> > >>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>> > >>> request, I'm sure >>>>> > >>> it can be resolved. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to >> > privately work >>>>> > >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>> > >>> muster and what >>>>> > >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> > >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> > >>>>>> > >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of >> > Mike Horwath >>>>>> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>> > >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>> > >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> > >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >> > accountability. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> Hi. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>> > >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>> > >>>> way too long. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>> > >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years >> > later, same >>>>>> > >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to >> > share the pool. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>> > >>>> when it was posed that >> > companies/institutions/government be >>>>>> > >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>> > >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am >> > sure you >>>>>> > >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who >> > have >>>>>> > >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>>>> > >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>>>> > >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by >> > about 20 >>>>>> > >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>> > >>>> stock offering. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding >> > companies: PROFIT >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing >> > field >>>>>> > >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It >> > never has >>>>>> > >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> -- >>>>>> > >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! >> > drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>> > >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by >> > whatever it is >>>>>> > >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>> > >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>> > >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are >> > subscribed to >>>>>> > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >> > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net ). >>>>>> > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if >> > you experience any issues. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>_______________________________________________ >>>>> > >>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> > >>> You are receiving this message because you are >> > subscribed to >>>>> > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> > ). >>>>> > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if >> > you experience any issues. >>>>> > >>> >>>> > >>_______________________________________________ >>>> > >> ARIN-Discuss >>>> > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> > ). >>>> > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> > >> Please contact info at arin.net if >> > you experience any issues. >>> > > >>> > >_______________________________________________ >>> > > ARIN-Discuss >>> > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> > ). >>> > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> > > Please contact info at arin.net if >> > you experience any issues. >>> > >_______________________________________________ >>> > > ARIN-Discuss >>> > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> > ). >>> > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> > > Please contact info at arin.net if >> > you experience any issues. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> > ). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you >> > experience any issues. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> > ). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you >> > experience any issues. >> > >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kwilliams at altuscgi.com Tue Jul 21 23:00:30 2009 From: kwilliams at altuscgi.com (Kelvin Williams) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:00:30 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <89123330-1248231386-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-47981197-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <654476000-1248231609-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-828999919-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Sure. Ok. I'm on that immediately. Their security risks alone justify such an action. Unfortunately the bean counters down the hall, and the guys up on "Mahogany Row" wouldn't quite understand. I will implement this tomorrow. You hiring?? Kelvin Williams Altus Communications Group, Inc. Office Direct: 678.369.5968 Office Main: 678.369.5970 Fax: 866.895.8557 Mobile: 678.852.4173 Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed -----Original Message----- From: John Brown Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:57:32 To: ; Chris Gotstein; Tony Valenti Cc: Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Stop enabling them :) On 7/21/09 8:56 PM, "Kelvin Williams" wrote: > I concur. > > But tell that to my Win98 subscribers who refuse to upgrade because their > Internet works just fine. > Kelvin Williams > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > Fax: 866.895.8557 > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Gotstein > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:53:11 > To: Tony Valenti > Cc: ; John Brown; > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > Pure IPv6 isn't going to happen overnight, but running dual stack can > happen now. The more IPv6 we can get out there the better. > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Tony Valenti wrote: >> > I'm in Omaha, Nebraska. >> > >> > The big thing to us is that as a content provider, we have to serve our >> > content on a network that is compatible with our customers. If we went >> > IPV6 on our gear, we'd go out of business because all our customers >> > would find a content provider who would serve it on IPs that they could >> > access. >> > >> > It is a lot easier to find a new webhost than it is to change ISPs. >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Kelvin Williams > > > wrote: >> > >> > Net-Neutrality is something I fully support. The previous example >> > was just saying, if ARIN can't help us little guys, we can band >> > together and help ourselves. >> > >> > Kelvin Williams >> > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >> > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >> > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >> > Fax: 866.895.8557 >> > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >> > >> > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > *From*: John Brown >> > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:39:24 -0600 >> > *To*: >; >> > Chris Gotstein> >> > >> > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> > >> > Hang on, I need to scream NET-NEUTRALITY. >> > >> > Ah, but market forces will keep you from adding those ACL?s. Your >> > customers will find another provider that is ACL free and then you >> > will be revenue free. :) >> > >> > >> > On 7/21/09 8:30 PM, "Kelvin Williams" > > > wrote: >> > >> > ARIN may not have the legal right to do anything. But, if they >> > (Apple, et al) don't want to play fair with the rest of us, they >> > don't have a legal right when we add ACLs blocking their traffic >> > from traversing our networks. ;)Kw >> > >> > Kelvin WilliamsAltus Communications Group, Inc.Office Direct: >> > 678.369.5968Office Main: 678.369.5970Fax: 866.895.8557Mobile: >> > 678.852.4173Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > *From*: John Brown >> > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:02 -0600 >> > *To*: Chris Gotstein> > >; > > > >> > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >> accountability. >> > I?ll ask the age old question again. >> > >> > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? >> > If Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different >> > then, what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. >> > >> > Its contracts law. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" > > > wrote: >> > >> > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point >> > where the big >> > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads >> > for a fee. >> > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with >> > every small ISP >> > that comes along asking for address space. >> > >> > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP >> > space and also >> > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both >> > attempts >> > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have >> > an IPv6 block >> > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at >> > this time, the >> > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us >> > running pure >> > IPv6 for a long time to come. >> > >> > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, >> > mostly unused >> > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a >> > good start, or >> > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from >> > each of these >> > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block >> > holders of address >> > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these >> > large >> > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or >> > more of their >> > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then >> > they should >> > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Chris Gotstein >> > Sr Network Engineer >> > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >> > 500 N Stephenson Ave >> > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >> > Phone: 906-774-4847 >> > Fax: 906-774-0335 >> > chris at uplogon.com >> > >> > Kelvin Williams wrote: >>> > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>> > > >>> > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion >> > of IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB >> > DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. >>> > > >>> > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy >> > subscribers running Linux or current versions of Windows >> > that support IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were >> > running IPv6. >>> > > >>> > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT >> > can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, >> > etc) in use today. >>> > > >>> > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are >> > protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and >> > paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of these /8 >> > holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks >> > they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >>> > > >>> > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per >> > IPv4 address because they can go for that. >>> > > >>> > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there >> > should be a steering group developed to address the real >> > issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW >> > freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In >> > my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their >> > networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can >> > transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users >> > still running Windows 98. >>> > > >>> > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks >> > to the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues >> > without the establishment of a transfer market, and work to >> > create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >>> > > >>> > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the >> > local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made >> > sense to us) >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Kw >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Kelvin Williams >>> > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>> > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>> > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>> > > Fax: 866.895.8557 >>> > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>> > > >>> > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > >>> > > >>> > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>> > > To: John Brown> > > >>> > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List> > > >>> > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >> > accountability. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely >> > liking to have >>> > > some), then a transfer market will >>> > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will >> > suddenly >>> > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple >> > continue to sit >>> > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than >> > charging them >>> > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. >> > Either way, >>> > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the >> > money they lose. >>> > > >>> > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market >> > never forms >>> > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which >> > case nobody will >>> > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>> > > >>> > > Either way, it works the same. >>> > > >>> > > Ted >>> > > >>> > > John Brown wrote: >>>> > >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they >> > have to assess a >>>> > >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>> > >> >>>> > >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's >> > there was no fee as >>>> > >> part of the "contract". >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> > >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> > >>> From: Steve Wagner >>>>> [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>> > >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>> > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> > >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >> > accountability. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>> > >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak >> > about, >>>>> > >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>> > >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>> > >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>> > >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well >> > that uses >>>>> > >>> a NAT type firewall >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> Regards, >>>>> > >>> Steve Wagner >>>>> > >>> Vice President of Operations >>>>> > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>> > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>> > >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>> > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>> > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>> > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>> > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>> > >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >> > >>>>> > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >> > >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>> > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>> > >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>> > >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>> > >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>> > >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>> > >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>> > >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>> > >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>> > >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>> > >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>> > >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> > >>>>> > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of >> > John Brown >>>>> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>> > >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>> > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >> > accountability. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of >> > managing >>>>> > >>> the actual >>>>> > >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space >> > allocated or >>>>> > >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers >> > don't exist any >>>>> > >>> more. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>> > >>> higher than the >>>>> > >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't >> > happen. I could >>>>> > >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting >> > a public spot >>>>> > >>> light on those providers. :| >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>> > >>> space should >>>>> > >>> return the space they aren't using. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>> > >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP >> > addresses ?? >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get >> > space, I >>>>> > >>> don't know. >>>>> > >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a >> > broad brush. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people >> > doing >>>>> > >>> good work >>>>> > >>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>> > >>> request, I'm sure >>>>> > >>> it can be resolved. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to >> > privately work >>>>> > >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>> > >>> muster and what >>>>> > >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> > >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> > >>>>>> > >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of >> > Mike Horwath >>>>>> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>> > >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>> > >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> > >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >> > accountability. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> Hi. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>> > >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>> > >>>> way too long. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>> > >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years >> > later, same >>>>>> > >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to >> > share the pool. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>> > >>>> when it was posed that >> > companies/institutions/government be >>>>>> > >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>> > >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am >> > sure you >>>>>> > >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who >> > have >>>>>> > >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>>>> > >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>>>> > >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by >> > about 20 >>>>>> > >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>> > >>>> stock offering. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding >> > companies: PROFIT >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing >> > field >>>>>> > >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It >> > never has >>>>>> > >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> -- >>>>>> > >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! >> > drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>> > >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by >> > whatever it is >>>>>> > >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>> > >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>> > >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are >> > subscribed to >>>>>> > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >> > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net ). >>>>>> > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if >> > you experience any issues. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>_______________________________________________ >>>>> > >>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> > >>> You are receiving this message because you are >> > subscribed to >>>>> > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> > ). >>>>> > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if >> > you experience any issues. >>>>> > >>> >>>> > >>_______________________________________________ >>>> > >> ARIN-Discuss >>>> > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> > ). >>>> > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> > >> Please contact info at arin.net if >> > you experience any issues. >>> > > >>> > >_______________________________________________ >>> > > ARIN-Discuss >>> > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> > ). >>> > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> > > Please contact info at arin.net if >> > you experience any issues. >>> > >_______________________________________________ >>> > > ARIN-Discuss >>> > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> > ). >>> > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> > > Please contact info at arin.net if >> > you experience any issues. >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> > ). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you >> > experience any issues. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> > ). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you >> > experience any issues. >> > >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tony.valenti at powerdnn.com Tue Jul 21 23:00:43 2009 From: tony.valenti at powerdnn.com (Tony Valenti) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:00:43 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <686700437-1248230841-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1392791892-@bxe1268.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <686700437-1248230841-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1392791892-@bxe1268.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: I honestly think that if ARIN is wanting to drive IPV6 adoption, what they really need to do is start targeting the "source" of IP traffic instead of the "destination". I don't claim to be an IPV6 expert, but from what I have gathered, an IPV6 system can initiate a conversation to an IPV4 network but not vice versa. If that's the case, then running a dual stack doesn't matter. If a customer is on an IPV4 network then they can access my IPV4 gear and if they're on an IPV6 network, then they can still access my IPV6 gear. If a majority of our customers were on IPV6 networks (and our upstream providers supported it), I wouldn't think twice before going IPV6. But, since our upstream providers aren't going to change, we're really held hostage in IPV4-mode by their decisions. On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Artur (eBoundHost) wrote: > - What legal right does ARIN have > - to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple > - got the space pre-ARIN and the rules > - where different then, what gives ARIN > - the ability to enforce rules today. > > Who says that they will put up a fight? Did anyone ask them to release the > unused space? > > Best Regards, > > Artur > eBoundHost > http://www.eboundhost.com > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tony.valenti at powerdnn.com Tue Jul 21 23:03:25 2009 From: tony.valenti at powerdnn.com (Tony Valenti) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:03:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A667E39.4010606@uplogon.com> References: <4A667E39.4010606@uplogon.com> Message-ID: We use Plesk and IPV6 isn't supported yet in the software either. They actually had it in their roadmap to support IPV6 but our sales rep said they scrapped it because nobody really was using IPV6 and it would have just been a waste of time. On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Chris Gotstein wrote: > That is an option, one which we are looking into. There are still some > issues with IPv6 on the client side, ie, handing out addresses/subnets, > client side routers/modems/cpe/etc supporting IPv6, etc. > > On top of that, there are almost no major websites running dual stack. Do a > dig or nslookup and see how few AAA records actually come up. > > In fact, from a web hosting stance, cpanel (which is wen hosting control > panel) doesn't support IPv6 yet! We host over 100 sites that could all be > dual stack accessible if cpanel would support IPv6. > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > John Brown wrote: > >> There is at least one provider (who runs a damm good network) that is >> selling IPv4 transit REALLY CHEAP, you just have to also connect via IPv6. >> >> We are talking $2 to $3 per Mb/s >> >> Of course you can only get this at POP sites they are at..... >> >> So there are some that are applying market forces to encourage a more >> rapid use and deployment of IPv6 >> >> >> >> >> On 7/21/09 8:35 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: >> >> I would love to get my IPv6 on, but it doesn't go very far.... :) >> >> -- >> Chris Gotstein >> Sr Network Engineer >> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >> 500 N Stephenson Ave >> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >> Phone: 906-774-4847 >> Fax: 906-774-0335 >> chris at uplogon.com >> >> Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >> > Chris Gotstein writes: >> > >> > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where >> the >> > > big guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for >> a >> > > fee. >> > >> > We've been there before, where address space was ridiculously >> > difficult or costly to get: >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Network_Identification_Code >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAP_address >> > >> > Funny thing happened... those areas did not take off, and the >> > Internet was built on competing technology. >> > >> > Ever thought that in a post-exhaustion world, the path of least >> > resistance might be to just go ahead and get your IPv6 on? >> > >> > -r >> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From broswell at syssrc.com Tue Jul 21 22:51:21 2009 From: broswell at syssrc.com (Bob Roswell) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:51:21 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> Message-ID: <15BDDC14871D2A49BFCEEEF409EB298308F6E108@exchange.syssrcad.syssrc.com> Tony has it right. We are multi-homed with Verizon, Level 3, and Comcast. None of them are willing to provision us with Native IPv6. At best, they offer IPv6 by encapsulating it in a IPv4 tunnel, and getting that done has been next to impossible. Bob Roswell broswell at syssrc.com From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Tony Valenti Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:43 PM To: John Brown Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned. I think a big mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly assumes that we have something to do with making IPV6 a reality and managing IPV4 address space. Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and asked them when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After being escalated all the way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that they have no plans to implement IPV6 which means that if I put any content on an IPV6 address, I can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US won't have access to it. So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't care, and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address space because the internet is officially out, what will you do? As a webhosting company, we have no choice but to pay whatever the black market price for IPs is or go out of business/quit accepting customers. If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually emphasizes the problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything to fix the problem - they just make the current process harder. ARIN is a doomsday prophet powerless to change the fate that we all will endure. On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown wrote: I'll ask the age old question again. What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. Its contracts law. On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP that comes along asking for address space. We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure IPv6 for a long time to come. ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 chris at uplogon.com Kelvin Williams wrote: > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were running IPv6. > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address because they can go for that. > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) > > > Kw > > > Kelvin Williams > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > Fax: 866.895.8557 > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > Sent from my BlackBerry(r) smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > To: John Brown > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have > some), then a transfer market will > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > Either way, it works the same. > > Ted > > John Brown wrote: >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >> part of the "contract". >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>> >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>> a NAT type firewall >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steve Wagner >>> Vice President of Operations >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>> the actual >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >>> more. >>> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>> higher than the >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >>> light on those providers. :| >>> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>> space should >>> return the space they aren't using. >>> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>> don't know. >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>> good work >>> under the guidelines they have. >>> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>> request, I'm sure >>> it can be resolved. >>> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>> muster and what >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>> way too long. >>>> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>>> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>> stock offering. >>>> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT >>>> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rs at seastrom.com Tue Jul 21 23:04:47 2009 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:04:47 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A667E39.4010606@uplogon.com> (Chris Gotstein's message of "Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:49:29 -0500") References: <4A667E39.4010606@uplogon.com> Message-ID: <863a8p7700.fsf@seastrom.com> Chris Gotstein writes: > That is an option, one which we are looking into. There are still > some issues with IPv6 on the client side, ie, handing out > addresses/subnets, client side routers/modems/cpe/etc supporting IPv6, > etc. Yes. Some of us who ran ISPs in the early 90s remember the difficulties well. Trumpet Winsock, anyone? Everythnig old is new again, and some number of those who man up and forge ahead will win big. You gotta play to win, though. > On top of that, there are almost no major websites running dual > stack. Do a dig or nslookup and see how few AAA records actually come > up. See above. > In fact, from a web hosting stance, cpanel (which is wen hosting > control panel) doesn't support IPv6 yet! We host over 100 sites that > could all be dual stack accessible if cpanel would support IPv6. This is by no means the biggest shortcoming of cpanel. -r From chris at uplogon.com Tue Jul 21 23:05:51 2009 From: chris at uplogon.com (Chris Gotstein) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:05:51 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <4A667E39.4010606@uplogon.com> Message-ID: <4A66820F.1010700@uplogon.com> Chicken and egg problem. No one wants to support IPv6 in their app cause there aren't any customers, and we can't push out IPv6 to our customers cause there isn't any content to access. That sad part is the that OS's that run under Plesk and Cpanel all FULLY SUPPORT IPv6! -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 chris at uplogon.com Tony Valenti wrote: > We use Plesk and IPV6 isn't supported yet in the software either. They > actually had it in their roadmap to support IPV6 but our sales rep said > they scrapped it because nobody really was using IPV6 and it would have > just been a waste of time. > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Chris Gotstein > wrote: > > That is an option, one which we are looking into. There are still > some issues with IPv6 on the client side, ie, handing out > addresses/subnets, client side routers/modems/cpe/etc supporting > IPv6, etc. > > On top of that, there are almost no major websites running dual > stack. Do a dig or nslookup and see how few AAA records actually > come up. > > In fact, from a web hosting stance, cpanel (which is wen hosting > control panel) doesn't support IPv6 yet! We host over 100 sites > that could all be dual stack accessible if cpanel would support IPv6. > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > John Brown wrote: > > There is at least one provider (who runs a damm good network) > that is selling IPv4 transit REALLY CHEAP, you just have to > also connect via IPv6. > > We are talking $2 to $3 per Mb/s > > Of course you can only get this at POP sites they are at..... > > So there are some that are applying market forces to encourage a > more rapid use and deployment of IPv6 > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:35 PM, "Chris Gotstein" > wrote: > > I would love to get my IPv6 on, but it doesn't go very far.... :) > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Chris Gotstein > writes: > > > > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a > point where the > > > big guys are holding available IP address space over our > heads for a > > > fee. > > > > We've been there before, where address space was ridiculously > > difficult or costly to get: > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Network_Identification_Code > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAP_address > > > > Funny thing happened... those areas did not take off, and the > > Internet was built on competing technology. > > > > Ever thought that in a post-exhaustion world, the path of > least > > resistance might be to just go ahead and get your IPv6 on? > > > > -r > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > From cpeterson at portnetworks.com Tue Jul 21 22:47:02 2009 From: cpeterson at portnetworks.com (Carl Peterson) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:47:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <632B9F90-58BF-4A2C-A652-0ECA49931BD6@portnetworks.com> I was just going to post the same thing but it is only fair that we develop a consensus as to when it is ok to blacklist a block for unfair use of ip space. Once we have a quorum of sorts, like minded admins and companies should act as a group. As a basic rule I would start by saying that if a company or group is holding a large block of ipv4 which they know they will never use, the part that will never be used should be returned. The ip space that they are holding only has value because the rest of us route to it. Carl Peterson Port Networks Llc On Jul 21, 2009, at 10:30 PM, arin-discuss-request at arin.net wrote: > Send ARIN-discuss mailing list submissions to > arin-discuss at arin.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > arin-discuss-request at arin.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > arin-discuss-owner at arin.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. (Kelvin Williams) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:30:25 +0000 > From: "Kelvin Williams" > To: "John Brown" , "Chris Gotstein" > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > Message-ID: > <553073100-1248229804-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-232319848- at bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > ARIN may not have the legal right to do anything. But, if they > (Apple, et al) don't want to play fair with the rest of us, they > don't have a legal right when we add ACLs blocking their traffic > from traversing our networks. ;) > > Kw > > > Kelvin Williams > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > Fax: 866.895.8557 > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Brown > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:02 > To: Chris Gotstein; > Cc: > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If > Apple got > the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives > ARIN the > ability to enforce rules today. > > Its contracts law. > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > >> I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where >> the big >> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. >> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small >> ISP >> that comes along asking for address space. >> >> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and >> also >> requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts >> because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 >> block >> and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, >> the >> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure >> IPv6 for a long time to come. >> >> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly >> unused >> blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, >> or >> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of >> these >> companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of >> address >> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >> blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their >> block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they >> should >> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >> >> >> -- >> Chris Gotstein >> Sr Network Engineer >> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >> 500 N Stephenson Ave >> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >> Phone: 906-774-4847 >> Fax: 906-774-0335 >> chris at uplogon.com >> >> Kelvin Williams wrote: >>>> Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>>> >>>> I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. >>>> Our >>> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL >>> subscribers. >>>> >>>> In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers >>>> running Linux or >>> current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of >>> web >>> destinations were running IPv6. >>>> >>>> I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can >>>> cause problems >>> for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >>>> >>>> So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting >>>> what blocks >>> we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now >>> be at the >>> mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of >>> the blocks >>> they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >>>> >>>> Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 >>>> address because >>> they can go for that. >>>> >>>> I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a >>>> steering >>> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and >>> the DoD to >>> implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they >>> need to pay. >>> In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their >>> networks >>> aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition >>> versus the ISPs >>> of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >>>> >>>> Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >>>> responsible >>> little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >>> establishment of a >>> transfer market, and work to create a series of large bandwidth >>> IPv4 to IPv6 >>> gateways. >>>> >>>> (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local >>>> brew >>> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >>>> >>>> >>>> Kw >>>> >>>> >>>> Kelvin Williams >>>> Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>>> Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>>> Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>>> Fax: 866.895.8557 >>>> Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>>> >>>> Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>> >>>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>>> To: John Brown >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to >>>> have >>>> some), then a transfer market will >>>> exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >>>> have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue >>>> to sit >>>> on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging >>>> them >>>> a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, >>>> they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they >>>> lose. >>>> >>>> Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >>>> and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case >>>> nobody will >>>> be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>>> >>>> Either way, it works the same. >>>> >>>> Ted >>>> >>>> John Brown wrote: >>>>>> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to >>>>>> assess a >>>>>> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>>>> >>>>>> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was >>>>>> no fee as >>>>>> part of the "contract". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>>>>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >>>>>>>> accountability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>>>>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>>>>>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>>>>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>>>>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>>>>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>>>>>> a NAT type firewall >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Steve Wagner >>>>>>>> Vice President of Operations >>>>>>>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>>>>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>>>>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>>>>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>>>>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>>>>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>>>>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>>>>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>>>>>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>>>>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>>>>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>>>>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>>>>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>>>>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>>>>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>>>>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>>>>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>>>>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>>>>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>>>>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>>>>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >>>>>>>> accountability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>>>>>> the actual >>>>>>>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space >>>>>>>> allocated or >>>>>>>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't >>>>>>>> exist any >>>>>>>> more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>>>>> higher than the >>>>>>>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. >>>>>>>> I could >>>>>>>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a >>>>>>>> public spot >>>>>>>> light on those providers. :| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>>>>> space should >>>>>>>> return the space they aren't using. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>>>>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP >>>>>>>> addresses ?? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>>>>>> don't know. >>>>>>>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad >>>>>>>> brush. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>>>>>> good work >>>>>>>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>>>>> request, I'm sure >>>>>>>> it can be resolved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to >>>>>>>> privately work >>>>>>>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>>>>> muster and what >>>>>>>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>>>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike >>>>>>>>>> Horwath >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >>>>>>>>>> accountability. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>>>>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>>>>>> way too long. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>>>>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>>>>>>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share >>>>>>>>>> the pool. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>>>>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>>>>>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>>>>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>>>>>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>>>>>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>>>>>>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>>>>>>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>>>>>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>>>>>> stock offering. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding >>>>>>>>>> companies: PROFIT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>>>>>>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>>>>>>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>>>>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-discuss mailing list > ARIN-discuss at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > End of ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6 > ******************************************* From rs at seastrom.com Tue Jul 21 23:10:45 2009 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:10:45 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: (John Brown's message of "Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:37:56 -0600") References: Message-ID: <86vdll5s5m.fsf@seastrom.com> John Brown writes: > I recently acquired a defunct ISP and their net-blocks. > > ... > > In thinking about this, I've decided that the RIGHT ANSWER ? is to return > the space to the free pool. Maybe others will do the right thing. I don't > know. But at least I'll sleep to night knowing that I wasn't a PIG. > > NET 205.201.128.0/20 is hereby returned. > > PS I couldn't find a form to fill out that says RETURN TO FREE POOL. Email goes to hostmaster at arin.net. https://www.arin.net/resources/templates/netmod.txt Line 1 of the template is [M]odify or [R]eturn. And thanks for doing your part and returning unused address space. -r From tony.valenti at powerdnn.com Tue Jul 21 23:18:35 2009 From: tony.valenti at powerdnn.com (Tony Valenti) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:18:35 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A66845D.3010506@bogus.com> References: <851686854-1248230723-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-974457500-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4A66845D.3010506@bogus.com> Message-ID: Why should I spend the time trying to set up IPV6 servers when the ISPs don't care? On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > You need to find a new sales rep. > > as2828 will sell you v6 transit. they have v6 customers, prefixs in the > routing table, etc. > > joel > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > I have several uplinks to XO. And they have stated they have no IPv6 > > plans to us. > > > > Kelvin Williams > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From*: John Brown > > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:43:46 -0600 > > *To*: Tony Valenti > > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > > Who is that ?upstream???? > > > > Change providers ?? > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:42 PM, "Tony Valenti" wrote: > > > > I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned. > > I think a big mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly > > assumes that we have something to do with making IPV6 a reality and > > managing IPV4 address space. > > > > Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and > > asked them when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After being > > escalated all the way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that > > they have no plans to implement IPV6 which means that if I put any > > content on an IPV6 address, I can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US > > won't have access to it. > > > > So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't > > care, and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address > > space because the internet is officially out, what will you do? As > > a webhosting company, we have no choice but to pay whatever the > > black market price for IPs is or go out of business/quit accepting > > customers. > > > > If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually emphasizes > > the problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything > > to fix the problem - they just make the current process harder. > > ARIN is a doomsday prophet powerless to change the fate that we all > > will endure. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown > > wrote: > > > > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? > > If Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different > > then, what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. > > > > Its contracts law. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > > > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point > > where the big > > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads > > for a fee. > > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with > > every small ISP > > that comes along asking for address space. > > > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP > > space and also > > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both > > attempts > > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an > > IPv6 block > > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this > > time, the > > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us > > running pure > > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, > > mostly unused > > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good > > start, or > > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from > > each of these > > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders > > of address > > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these > > large > > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more > > of their > > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then > > they should > > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > > > > -- > > Chris Gotstein > > Sr Network Engineer > > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > > 500 N Stephenson Ave > > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > > Phone: 906-774-4847 > > Fax: 906-774-0335 > > chris at uplogon.com > > > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > > > > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of > > IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB > > DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > > > > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers > > running Linux or current versions of Windows that support > > IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were running IPv6. > > > > > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT > > can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, > > etc) in use today. > > > > > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are > > protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and > > paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of these /8 > > holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks > > they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. > > > > > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 > > address because they can go for that. > > > > > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should > > be a steering group developed to address the real issues. > > Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW freeing > > up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In my > > opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their > > networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can > > transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users > > still running Windows 98. > > > > > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to > > the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues > > without the establishment of a transfer market, and work to > > create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > > > > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the > > local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made > > sense to us) > > > > > > > > > Kw > > > > > > > > > Kelvin Williams > > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > > > To: John Brown > > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > > accountability. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely > > liking to have > > > some), then a transfer market will > > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will > > suddenly > > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple > > continue to sit > > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than > > charging them > > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either > > way, > > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money > > they lose. > > > > > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market > > never forms > > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case > > nobody will > > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > > > > > Either way, it works the same. > > > > > > Ted > > > > > > John Brown wrote: > > >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they > > have to assess a > > >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > > >> > > >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there > > was no fee as > > >> part of the "contract". > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > > >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > > accountability. > > >>> > > >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a > NAT > > >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak > about, > > >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type > of > > >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in > them > > >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This > > >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that > uses > > >>> a NAT type firewall > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Steve Wagner > > >>> Vice President of Operations > > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC > > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > > >>> Boise, ID 83705 > > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 > > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 > > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 > > >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > > >>> > > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named > > >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is > > >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > > >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you > are > > >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, > distribution, > > >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents > of > > >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > > >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it > or > > >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > > >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > > >>> thereafter. Thank you. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John > > Brown > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > > >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > > accountability. > > >>> > > >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of > managing > > >>> the actual > > >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space > > allocated or > > >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers > > don't exist any > > >>> more. > > >>> > > >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is > > >>> higher than the > > >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't > > happen. I could > > >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a > > public spot > > >>> light on those providers. :| > > >>> > > >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs > of > > >>> space should > > >>> return the space they aren't using. > > >>> > > >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > > >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? > > >>> > > >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP > > addresses ?? > > >>> > > >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get > space, I > > >>> don't know. > > >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a > > broad brush. > > >>> > > >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people > doing > > >>> good work > > >>> under the guidelines they have. > > >>> > > >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > > >>> request, I'm sure > > >>> it can be resolved. > > >>> > > >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to > > privately work > > >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes > > >>> muster and what > > >>> may need to be done to help it float. > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Mike > > Horwath > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > > >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > > accountability. > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi. > > >>>> > > >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > > >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on > for > > >>>> way too long. > > >>>> > > >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > > >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, > > same > > >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to > > share the pool. > > >>>> > > >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the > mid/late-1990s > > >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government > be > > >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > > >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure > you > > >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. > > >>>> > > >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > > >>>> > > >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who > have > > >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > > >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are > the > > >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) > > >>>> > > >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by > about 20 > > >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > > >>>> stock offering. > > >>>> > > >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding > > companies: PROFIT > > >>>> > > >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing > field > > >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It > > never has > > >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. > > >>>> > > >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! > > drechsau at iphouse.net > > >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by > > whatever it is > > >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > > >>>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. > > >>>> > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > >>> ARIN-Discuss > > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed > to > > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. > > >>> > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >> ARIN-Discuss > > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed > to > > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > ARIN-Discuss > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed > to > > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > >_______________________________________________ > > > ARIN-Discuss > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed > to > > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keefe at techwarepc.com Tue Jul 21 23:18:55 2009 From: keefe at techwarepc.com (Keefe John) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:18:55 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> References: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A8@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra><4A665609.1060501@ipinc.net> <736808020-1248228224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1932433480-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> Message-ID: <064801ca0a7b$27466360$75d32a20$@com> Another great example of wasted IP space is the 44 block. Does amateur radio really need a /8? I'd be surprised if more than a few thousand IP addresses in this block were in use. I'm a HAM myself and still believe this is a waste. >From what I have seen ARIN has been to afraid to even talk about taking IP space back from the "legacy" holders. I don't believe charging excessive fees to the huge holders is going to fix the problem either. What's $100,000 or even $1,000,000 to Apple or HP? Realistically, it would probably cost them that much to clean up their networks and renumber anyways. What Arin needs to do is force these huge holders to give back unused blocks like the NANP did with telephone number thousand blocks. This is the only way these large organizations are going to give up the space. Keefe John Partner/Network Architect Techware N115 W19006 Edison Dr Germantown WI 53022 T: 262.252.9000 TF: 800.TECHWARE M: 262.893.9518 --------------------------------- http://www.techwareit.com/ -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Gotstein Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:14 PM To: kwilliams at altuscgi.com Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP that comes along asking for address space. We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure IPv6 for a long time to come. ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 chris at uplogon.com Kelvin Williams wrote: > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were running IPv6. > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address because they can go for that. > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) > > > Kw > > > Kelvin Williams > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > Fax: 866.895.8557 > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > Sent from my BlackBerryR smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > To: John Brown > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have > some), then a transfer market will > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > Either way, it works the same. > > Ted > > John Brown wrote: >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >> part of the "contract". >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>> >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>> a NAT type firewall >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steve Wagner >>> Vice President of Operations >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>> the actual >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >>> more. >>> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>> higher than the >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >>> light on those providers. :| >>> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>> space should >>> return the space they aren't using. >>> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>> don't know. >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>> good work >>> under the guidelines they have. >>> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>> request, I'm sure >>> it can be resolved. >>> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>> muster and what >>> may need to be done to help it float. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>> way too long. >>>> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>>> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>> stock offering. >>>> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT >>>> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From kwilliams at altuscgi.com Tue Jul 21 23:21:55 2009 From: kwilliams at altuscgi.com (Kelvin Williams) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:21:55 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <851686854-1248230723-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-974457500-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4A66845D.3010506@bogus.com> Message-ID: <1340107040-1248232894-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-248359202-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Its not that we don't care. Its that we have end users who don't. Maybe we should use ARINs resources to educate the masses, similar to the Digital TV campaign. If there isn't mass education, then we ISPs are just picking on people with old computers. Kelvin Williams Altus Communications Group, Inc. Office Direct: 678.369.5968 Office Main: 678.369.5970 Fax: 866.895.8557 Mobile: 678.852.4173 Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed -----Original Message----- From: Tony Valenti Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:18:35 To: Joel Jaeggli Cc: ; John Brown; Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Why should I spend the time trying to set up IPV6 servers when the ISPs don't care? On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > You need to find a new sales rep. > > as2828 will sell you v6 transit. they have v6 customers, prefixs in the > routing table, etc. > > joel > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > I have several uplinks to XO. And they have stated they have no IPv6 > > plans to us. > > > > Kelvin Williams > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From*: John Brown > > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:43:46 -0600 > > *To*: Tony Valenti > > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > > Who is that ?upstream???? > > > > Change providers ?? > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:42 PM, "Tony Valenti" wrote: > > > > I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned. > > I think a big mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly > > assumes that we have something to do with making IPV6 a reality and > > managing IPV4 address space. > > > > Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and > > asked them when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After being > > escalated all the way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that > > they have no plans to implement IPV6 which means that if I put any > > content on an IPV6 address, I can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US > > won't have access to it. > > > > So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't > > care, and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address > > space because the internet is officially out, what will you do? As > > a webhosting company, we have no choice but to pay whatever the > > black market price for IPs is or go out of business/quit accepting > > customers. > > > > If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually emphasizes > > the problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything > > to fix the problem - they just make the current process harder. > > ARIN is a doomsday prophet powerless to change the fate that we all > > will endure. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown > > wrote: > > > > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? > > If Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different > > then, what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. > > > > Its contracts law. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > > > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point > > where the big > > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads > > for a fee. > > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with > > every small ISP > > that comes along asking for address space. > > > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP > > space and also > > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both > > attempts > > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an > > IPv6 block > > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this > > time, the > > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us > > running pure > > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, > > mostly unused > > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good > > start, or > > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from > > each of these > > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders > > of address > > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these > > large > > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more > > of their > > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then > > they should > > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > > > > -- > > Chris Gotstein > > Sr Network Engineer > > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > > 500 N Stephenson Ave > > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > > Phone: 906-774-4847 > > Fax: 906-774-0335 > > chris at uplogon.com > > > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > > > > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of > > IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB > > DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > > > > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers > > running Linux or current versions of Windows that support > > IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were running IPv6. > > > > > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT > > can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, > > etc) in use today. > > > > > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are > > protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and > > paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of these /8 > > holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks > > they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. > > > > > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 > > address because they can go for that. > > > > > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should > > be a steering group developed to address the real issues. > > Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW freeing > > up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In my > > opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their > > networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can > > transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users > > still running Windows 98. > > > > > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to > > the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues > > without the establishment of a transfer market, and work to > > create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > > > > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the > > local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made > > sense to us) > > > > > > > > > Kw > > > > > > > > > Kelvin Williams > > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > > > To: John Brown > > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > > accountability. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely > > liking to have > > > some), then a transfer market will > > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will > > suddenly > > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple > > continue to sit > > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than > > charging them > > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either > > way, > > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money > > they lose. > > > > > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market > > never forms > > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case > > nobody will > > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > > > > > Either way, it works the same. > > > > > > Ted > > > > > > John Brown wrote: > > >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they > > have to assess a > > >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > > >> > > >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there > > was no fee as > > >> part of the "contract". > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > > >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > > accountability. > > >>> > > >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a > NAT > > >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak > about, > > >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type > of > > >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in > them > > >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This > > >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that > uses > > >>> a NAT type firewall > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Steve Wagner > > >>> Vice President of Operations > > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC > > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > > >>> Boise, ID 83705 > > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 > > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 > > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 > > >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > > >>> > > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named > > >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is > > >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > > >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you > are > > >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, > distribution, > > >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents > of > > >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > > >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it > or > > >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > > >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > > >>> thereafter. Thank you. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John > > Brown > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > > >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > > accountability. > > >>> > > >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of > managing > > >>> the actual > > >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space > > allocated or > > >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers > > don't exist any > > >>> more. > > >>> > > >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is > > >>> higher than the > > >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't > > happen. I could > > >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a > > public spot > > >>> light on those providers. :| > > >>> > > >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs > of > > >>> space should > > >>> return the space they aren't using. > > >>> > > >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > > >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? > > >>> > > >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP > > addresses ?? > > >>> > > >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get > space, I > > >>> don't know. > > >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a > > broad brush. > > >>> > > >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people > doing > > >>> good work > > >>> under the guidelines they have. > > >>> > > >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > > >>> request, I'm sure > > >>> it can be resolved. > > >>> > > >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to > > privately work > > >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes > > >>> muster and what > > >>> may need to be done to help it float. > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Mike > > Horwath > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > > >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > > accountability. > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi. > > >>>> > > >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > > >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on > for > > >>>> way too long. > > >>>> > > >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > > >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, > > same > > >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to > > share the pool. > > >>>> > > >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the > mid/late-1990s > > >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government > be > > >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > > >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure > you > > >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. > > >>>> > > >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > > >>>> > > >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who > have > > >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > > >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are > the > > >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) > > >>>> > > >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by > about 20 > > >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > > >>>> stock offering. > > >>>> > > >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding > > companies: PROFIT > > >>>> > > >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing > field > > >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It > > never has > > >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. > > >>>> > > >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! > > drechsau at iphouse.net > > >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by > > whatever it is > > >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > > >>>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. > > >>>> > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > >>> ARIN-Discuss > > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed > to > > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. > > >>> > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >> ARIN-Discuss > > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed > to > > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > ARIN-Discuss > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed > to > > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > >_______________________________________________ > > > ARIN-Discuss > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed > to > > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joelja at bogus.com Tue Jul 21 23:25:55 2009 From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:25:55 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <851686854-1248230723-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-974457500-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4A66845D.3010506@bogus.com> Message-ID: <4A6686C3.7030203@bogus.com> Tony Valenti wrote: > Why should I spend the time trying to set up IPV6 servers when the ISPs > don't care? That's orthogonal to the observation that was made. The observation that XO has no IPV6 plans is factually incorrect. They offer ipv6 service, it has customers. joel > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Joel Jaeggli > wrote: > > You need to find a new sales rep. > > as2828 will sell you v6 transit. they have v6 customers, prefixs in the > routing table, etc. > > joel > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > I have several uplinks to XO. And they have stated they have no IPv6 > > plans to us. > > > > Kelvin Williams > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From*: John Brown > > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:43:46 -0600 > > *To*: Tony Valenti > > > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > > Who is that ?upstream???? > > > > Change providers ?? > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:42 PM, "Tony Valenti" > wrote: > > > > I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned. > > I think a big mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly > > assumes that we have something to do with making IPV6 a > reality and > > managing IPV4 address space. > > > > Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and > > asked them when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After > being > > escalated all the way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was > told that > > they have no plans to implement IPV6 which means that if I put any > > content on an IPV6 address, I can expect at a minimum, 25% of > the US > > won't have access to it. > > > > So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply > don't > > care, and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address > > space because the internet is officially out, what will you > do? As > > a webhosting company, we have no choice but to pay whatever the > > black market price for IPs is or go out of business/quit accepting > > customers. > > > > If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually > emphasizes > > the problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces > anything > > to fix the problem - they just make the current process harder. > > ARIN is a doomsday prophet powerless to change the fate that > we all > > will endure. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown > > > > wrote: > > > > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? > > If Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different > > then, what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. > > > > Its contracts law. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" > wrote: > > > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point > > where the big > > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads > > for a fee. > > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with > > every small ISP > > that comes along asking for address space. > > > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP > > space and also > > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on > both > > attempts > > because we could prove we needed the space. We also > have an > > IPv6 block > > and already have it implemented on our routers. But > at this > > time, the > > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us > > running pure > > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, > > mostly unused > > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be > a good > > start, or > > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from > > each of these > > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block > holders > > of address > > space on justification, why can't they do the same on > these > > large > > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% > or more > > of their > > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then > > they should > > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to > ARIN. > > > > > > -- > > Chris Gotstein > > Sr Network Engineer > > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > > 500 N Stephenson Ave > > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > > Phone: 906-774-4847 > > Fax: 906-774-0335 > > chris at uplogon.com > > > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > > > > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the > depletion of > > IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB > > DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > > > > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy > subscribers > > running Linux or current versions of Windows that support > > IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were > running IPv6. > > > > > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT > > can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, > > etc) in use today. > > > > > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are > > protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and > > paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of > these /8 > > holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks > > they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes > into play. > > > > > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year > per IPv4 > > address because they can go for that. > > > > > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there > should > > be a steering group developed to address the real issues. > > Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW > freeing > > up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In my > > opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their > > networks aren't accessed by the general public, so > they can > > transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users > > still running Windows 98. > > > > > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big > blocks to > > the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues > > without the establishment of a transfer market, and > work to > > create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > > > > > (All of the above was written after too many beers > at the > > local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made > > sense to us) > > > > > > > > > Kw > > > > > > > > > Kelvin Williams > > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > > > To: John Brown > > > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > > accountability. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely > > liking to have > > > some), then a transfer market will > > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple > will > > suddenly > > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple > > continue to sit > > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than > > charging them > > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. > Either > > way, > > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets > the money > > they lose. > > > > > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market > > never forms > > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In > which case > > nobody will > > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > > > > > Either way, it works the same. > > > > > > Ted > > > > > > John Brown wrote: > > >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they > > have to assess a > > >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > > >> > > >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's > there > > was no fee as > > >> part of the "contract". > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Steve Wagner > [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net > ] > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > > >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > > accountability. > > >>> > > >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits > behind a NAT > > >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you > speak about, > > >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those > type of > > >>> entities for the address space they use, may > result in them > > >>> returning this address space to the allocation > pool. This > > >>> would be true for any other end user entity as > well that uses > > >>> a NAT type firewall > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Steve Wagner > > >>> Vice President of Operations > > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC > > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > > >>> Boise, ID 83705 > > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 > > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 > > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 > > >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > > > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > > >>> > > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > > >>> The information in this message is intended for > the named > > >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is > > >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > > >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, > you are > > >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, > distribution, > > >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the > contents of > > >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have > received > > >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or > disseminate it or > > >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the > sender by > > >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > > >>> thereafter. Thank you. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > ] On Behalf Of John > > Brown > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > > >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > > accountability. > > >>> > > >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job > of managing > > >>> the actual > > >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space > > allocated or > > >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers > > don't exist any > > >>> more. > > >>> > > >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their > space is > > >>> higher than the > > >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't > > happen. I could > > >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of > putting a > > public spot > > >>> light on those providers. :| > > >>> > > >>> I believe that the early end user entities that > got gobs of > > >>> space should > > >>> return the space they aren't using. > > >>> > > >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > > >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? > > >>> > > >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP > > addresses ?? > > >>> > > >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't > get space, I > > >>> don't know. > > >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a > > broad brush. > > >>> > > >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable > people doing > > >>> good work > > >>> under the guidelines they have. > > >>> > > >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > > >>> request, I'm sure > > >>> it can be resolved. > > >>> > > >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to > > privately work > > >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it > passes > > >>> muster and what > > >>> may need to be done to help it float. > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > > >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > ] On Behalf Of Mike > > Horwath > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > > >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > > >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > > accountability. > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi. > > >>>> > > >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running > out of > > >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been > going on for > > >>>> way too long. > > >>>> > > >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then > that I > > >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years > later, > > same > > >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to > > share the pool. > > >>>> > > >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the > mid/late-1990s > > >>>> when it was posed that > companies/institutions/government be > > >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > > >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I > am sure you > > >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. > > >>>> > > >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > > >>>> > > >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old > boys who have > > >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign > on their > > >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of > us are the > > >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) > > >>>> > > >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time > by about 20 > > >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address > Give Away' > > >>>> stock offering. > > >>>> > > >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding > > companies: PROFIT > > >>>> > > >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The > playing field > > >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It > > never has > > >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. > > >>>> > > >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! > > drechsau at iphouse.net > > >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by > > whatever it is > > >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > > >>>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net ). > > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list > subscription at: > > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > > >>>> > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > >>> ARIN-Discuss > > >>> You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net ). > > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list > subscription at: > > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >>> Please contact info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > > >>> > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >> ARIN-Discuss > > >> You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net ). > > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list > subscription at: > > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >> Please contact info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > ARIN-Discuss > > > You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net ). > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > > Please contact info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > > >_______________________________________________ > > > ARIN-Discuss > > > You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net ). > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > > Please contact info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are > subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net ). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > From joelja at bogus.com Tue Jul 21 23:15:41 2009 From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:15:41 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <851686854-1248230723-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-974457500-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <851686854-1248230723-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-974457500-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <4A66845D.3010506@bogus.com> You need to find a new sales rep. as2828 will sell you v6 transit. they have v6 customers, prefixs in the routing table, etc. joel Kelvin Williams wrote: > I have several uplinks to XO. And they have stated they have no IPv6 > plans to us. > > Kelvin Williams > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > Fax: 866.895.8557 > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: John Brown > *Date*: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:43:46 -0600 > *To*: Tony Valenti > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > Who is that ?upstream???? > > Change providers ?? > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:42 PM, "Tony Valenti" wrote: > > I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned. > I think a big mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly > assumes that we have something to do with making IPV6 a reality and > managing IPV4 address space. > > Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and > asked them when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After being > escalated all the way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that > they have no plans to implement IPV6 which means that if I put any > content on an IPV6 address, I can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US > won't have access to it. > > So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't > care, and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address > space because the internet is officially out, what will you do? As > a webhosting company, we have no choice but to pay whatever the > black market price for IPs is or go out of business/quit accepting > customers. > > If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually emphasizes > the problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything > to fix the problem - they just make the current process harder. > ARIN is a doomsday prophet powerless to change the fate that we all > will endure. > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown > wrote: > > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? > If Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different > then, what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. > > Its contracts law. > > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point > where the big > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads > for a fee. > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with > every small ISP > that comes along asking for address space. > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP > space and also > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both > attempts > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an > IPv6 block > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this > time, the > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us > running pure > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, > mostly unused > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good > start, or > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from > each of these > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders > of address > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these > large > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more > of their > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then > they should > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of > IPv4. Our Broadband division services residential and SMB > DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. > > > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers > running Linux or current versions of Windows that support > IPv6, and the majority of web destinations were running IPv6. > > > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT > can cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, > etc) in use today. > > > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are > protecting what blocks we manage from excess waste and > paying for every block, will now be at the mercy of these /8 > holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the blocks > they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. > > > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 > address because they can go for that. > > > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should > be a steering group developed to address the real issues. > Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW freeing > up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. In my > opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their > networks aren't accessed by the general public, so they can > transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing with users > still running Windows 98. > > > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to > the responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues > without the establishment of a transfer market, and work to > create a series of large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the > local brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made > sense to us) > > > > > > Kw > > > > > > Kelvin Williams > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > > To: John Brown > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > > > > > > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely > liking to have > > some), then a transfer market will > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will > suddenly > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple > continue to sit > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than > charging them > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either > way, > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money > they lose. > > > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market > never forms > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case > nobody will > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > > > Either way, it works the same. > > > > Ted > > > > John Brown wrote: > >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they > have to assess a > >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > >> > >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there > was no fee as > >> part of the "contract". > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > >>> > >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT > >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, > >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of > >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them > >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This > >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses > >>> a NAT type firewall > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Steve Wagner > >>> Vice President of Operations > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > >>> Boise, ID 83705 > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 > >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > >>> > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named > >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is > >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, > >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of > >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or > >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > >>> thereafter. Thank you. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John > Brown > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > >>> > >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing > >>> the actual > >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space > allocated or > >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers > don't exist any > >>> more. > >>> > >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is > >>> higher than the > >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't > happen. I could > >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a > public spot > >>> light on those providers. :| > >>> > >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of > >>> space should > >>> return the space they aren't using. > >>> > >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? > >>> > >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP > addresses ?? > >>> > >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I > >>> don't know. > >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a > broad brush. > >>> > >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing > >>> good work > >>> under the guidelines they have. > >>> > >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > >>> request, I'm sure > >>> it can be resolved. > >>> > >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to > privately work > >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes > >>> muster and what > >>> may need to be done to help it float. > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike > Horwath > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Hi. > >>>> > >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for > >>>> way too long. > >>>> > >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, > same > >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to > share the pool. > >>>> > >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s > >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be > >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you > >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. > >>>> > >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > >>>> > >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have > >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the > >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) > >>>> > >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 > >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > >>>> stock offering. > >>>> > >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding > companies: PROFIT > >>>> > >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field > >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It > never has > >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. > >>>> > >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! > drechsau at iphouse.net > >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by > whatever it is > >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > >>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>> > >>_______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Discuss > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jda at tapodi.net Tue Jul 21 23:52:31 2009 From: jda at tapodi.net (Jon Auer) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:52:31 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Message-ID: I'm in the same boat upstream-wise. As of the last time I inquired of my upstreams (9 months ago so maybe its time to check again) IPv6 was not available. TWC told me they had no plans to support it and Cogent said their engineers were looking into it but they did not have a deployment timeline. We just hit 80% on our /19. I'm getting my paperwork in order to ask for another allocation but I'm starting to hear through the grapevine that ARIN has become more picky than usual over the past few months with regards to vetting IPv4 requests (as they should be). So, ARIN is a member organization. Each of us has a vote. Just like Sprint, Comcast and each regional TWC network. Together we small service providers probably have more votes than they do. Of the people in this thread I recognize at least two of you from industry lists, etc. Not sure if that's reciprocal. (Hi! Techware, UP Logon (WISPA right?)) Lets all get more involved with the ARIN process and fix this. See: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Who would be in favor of a policy along the lines of the following: ARIN shall not issue any IPv4 Number Resources unless the requesting organization has: 1. A IPv6 subnet properly allocated from ARIN 2. Said IPv6 subnet is announced in the global IPv6 routing table 3. Said IPv6 subnet is visible from a neutral 3rd party's looking glass (routeviews.org or similar) 4. Organization's customers or end users that would normally be assigned a non-RFC1918 IPv4 address are given the option of additionally being assigned a IPv6 subnet from said provider within 12 months or the IPv4 Number Resource granted under this policy shall be revoked. I had a IPv6 subnet allocated from ARIN and routed globally though HE.net's tunnel broker within 48 hours. Meeting a policy like that should be easy. Even if you are a large provider 12 months should be enough time to get one customer running with IPv6 to demonstrate token compliance with section 4... On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:42 PM, wrote: > Send ARIN-discuss mailing list submissions to > ? ? ? ?arin-discuss at arin.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > ? ? ? ?http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ? ? ? ?arin-discuss-request at arin.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ? ? ? ?arin-discuss-owner at arin.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > ? 1. Re: Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. (Tony Valenti) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:42:39 -0500 > From: Tony Valenti > To: John Brown > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned.I think a big > mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly assumes that we have > something to do with making IPV6 a reality and managing IPV4 address space. > > Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and asked them > when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. ?After being escalated all the > way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that they have no plans to > implement IPV6 which means that if I put any content on an IPV6 address, I > can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US won't have access to it. > > So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't care, > and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address space because > the internet is officially out, what will you do? ?As a webhosting company, > we have no choice but to pay whatever the black market price for IPs is or > go out of business/quit accepting customers. > > If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ?ARIN continually emphasizes the > problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything to fix the > problem - they just make the current process harder. ?ARIN is a doomsday > prophet powerless to change the fate that we all will endure. > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown wrote: > >> ?I?ll ask the age old question again. >> >> What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? ?If Apple got >> the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the >> ability to ?enforce rules today. >> >> Its contracts law. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: >> >> I would agree. ?Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big >> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. >> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP >> that comes along asking for address space. >> >> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also >> requesting additional IP space. ?We were successful on both attempts >> because we could prove we needed the space. ?We also have an IPv6 block >> and already have it implemented on our routers. ?But at this time, the >> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure >> IPv6 for a long time to come. >> >> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused >> blocks of IP address space. ?A working group would be a good start, or >> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these >> companies. ?ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address >> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >> blocks? ?If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their >> block, then they can keep it and we move on. ?If not, then they should >> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >> >> >> -- >> Chris Gotstein >> Sr Network Engineer >> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >> 500 N Stephenson Ave >> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >> Phone: 906-774-4847 >> Fax: 906-774-0335 >> chris at uplogon.com >> >> Kelvin Williams wrote: >> > Whoa, whoa, whoa. >> > >> > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. >> > >> > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux >> or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web >> destinations were running IPv6. >> > >> > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause >> problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >> > >> > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what >> blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be >> at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the >> blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >> > >> > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address >> because they can go for that. >> > >> > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering >> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to >> implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. >> In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks >> aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the >> ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >> > >> > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >> responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >> establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large >> bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >> > >> > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >> > >> > >> > Kw >> > >> > >> > Kelvin Williams >> > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >> > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >> > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >> > Fax: 866.895.8557 >> > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >> > >> > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt >> > >> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >> > To: John Brown >> > Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >> > some), then a transfer market will >> > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >> > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit >> > on them, they lose that money. ?It's no different than charging them >> > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. ?Either way, >> > they lose money. ?The only difference is who gets the money they lose. >> > >> > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >> > and that block of numbers never gains value. ?In which case nobody will >> > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >> > >> > Either way, it works the same. >> > >> > Ted >> > >> > John Brown wrote: >> >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >> >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >> >> >> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >> >> part of the "contract". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >> >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> >>> >> >>> If either Apple or HP ?corporate network sits behind a NAT >> >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >> >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >> >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >> >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >> >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >> >>> a NAT type firewall >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Steve Wagner >> >>> Vice President of Operations >> >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >> >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >> >>> Boise, ID 83705 >> >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >> >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >> >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >> >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >> >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >> >>> >> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >> >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >> >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >> >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >> >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >> >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >> >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >> >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >> >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >> >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >> >>> thereafter. Thank you. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of John Brown >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >> >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> >>> >> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >> >>> the actual >> >>> usage ratios. ?Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >> >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >> >>> more. >> >>> >> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >> >>> higher than the >> >>> cost of them just getting new space. ?So it doesn't happen. ?I could >> >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >> >>> light on those providers. :| >> >>> >> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >> >>> space should >> >>> return the space they aren't using. >> >>> >> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >> >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >> >>> >> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >> >>> >> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >> >>> don't know. >> >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >> >>> >> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >> >>> good work >> >>> under the guidelines they have. >> >>> >> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >> >>> request, I'm sure >> >>> it can be resolved. >> >>> >> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >> >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >> >>> muster and what >> >>> may need to be done to help it float. >> >>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >> >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >> >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi. >> >>>> >> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >> >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >> >>>> way too long. >> >>>> >> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >> >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. ?16 years later, same >> >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >> >>>> >> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >> >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >> >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >> >>>> netblocks. ?Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >> >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >> >>>> >> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >> >>>> >> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >> >>>> benefits for themselves. ?They even have a sign on their >> >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. ?(the rest of us are the >> >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >> >>>> >> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >> >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >> >>>> stock offering. >> >>>> >> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: ?PROFIT >> >>>> >> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. ?The playing field >> >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. ?It never has >> >>>> been. ?I don't think it ever will be. >> >>>> >> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Mike Horwath ? ? ?ipHouse - Welcome home! ? ? ? drechsau at iphouse.net >> >>>> ? ? ? ? The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >> >>>> ? ? ? ? that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> ARIN-Discuss >> >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >>>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> ARIN-Discuss >> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> ARIN-Discuss >> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-discuss mailing list > ARIN-discuss at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > End of ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 8 > ******************************************* > From fathi at ecommerce.com Wed Jul 22 00:02:24 2009 From: fathi at ecommerce.com (Fathi Said) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:02:24 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <863a8p7700.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <4A667E39.4010606@uplogon.com> <863a8p7700.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <4A668F50.70504@ecommerce.com> Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > Chris Gotstein writes: > >> In fact, from a web hosting stance, cpanel (which is wen hosting >> control panel) doesn't support IPv6 yet! We host over 100 sites that >> could all be dual stack accessible if cpanel would support IPv6. > > This is by no means the biggest shortcoming of cpanel. I can sense there is some frustration in the air in regards to how Plesk and/or cPanel operate and how this duopoly appears to be hindering serious innovation. We run a very sizeable shared web hosting operation (500k+ hosted domains) and we faced similar challenges. About a year ago, we undertook the task of developing our own provisioning infrastructure designed from the ground up to be native to a cloud environment (and much more). This fall, we are ready to release and migrate our own customer base and then take it further and make it usable by any host. I'd love to see who on this list would be interested in forming a group that participates in its further development. Our focus would be to help making sure it's designed to innovate, change the way we think about how shared hosting is delivered and avoid the inherent design flaws that come with cPanel/Plesk that make our life hard and our customers unhappy. This was kind of off-topic, but that said: we'll make it work with IPv6. If you're interested, please message me off-list for further discussion. -- Fathi Said, CEO Ecommerce, Inc. From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 00:27:38 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:27:38 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A66953A.6050307@gmail.com> Jon, Thanks for the constructive suggestion. For anyone who is interested in policy development in this area, I would highly encourage you to subscribe to the Public Policy Mailing List, discuss this and other policy ideas, and make a proposal through the Policy Development Process if there appears to be support for an idea. Myself or anyone else on the Advisory Council will be happy to work with you to assist in the process. It's also worth noting that the Policy Development Process (PDP), Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), and the Public Policy Meetings are all open to any interested party, whether or not they're an ARIN member or Designated Member Representative. In addition, the members of the Advisory Council (which plays a key role in the PDP) and the Board of Trustees (which ratifies policies and sets fees, among other things) are elected by the membership. We are currently in the process of soliciting questions to ask of nominees for either/both positions, so if there's an issue you feel strongly about, you should make sure the question is asked of candidates so you can vote accordingly. Thanks again, Scott Jon Auer wrote: > Who would be in favor of a policy along the lines of the following: > > ARIN shall not issue any IPv4 Number Resources unless the requesting > organization has: > 1. A IPv6 subnet properly allocated from ARIN > 2. Said IPv6 subnet is announced in the global IPv6 routing table > 3. Said IPv6 subnet is visible from a neutral 3rd party's looking > glass (routeviews.org or similar) > 4. Organization's customers or end users that would normally be > assigned a non-RFC1918 IPv4 address are given the option of > additionally being assigned a IPv6 subnet from said provider within 12 > months or the IPv4 Number Resource granted under this policy shall be > revoked. > > I had a IPv6 subnet allocated from ARIN and routed globally though > HE.net's tunnel broker within 48 hours. > Meeting a policy like that should be easy. > Even if you are a large provider 12 months should be enough time to > get one customer running with IPv6 to demonstrate token compliance > with section 4... > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:42 PM, wrote: > >> Send ARIN-discuss mailing list submissions to >> arin-discuss at arin.net >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> arin-discuss-request at arin.net >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> arin-discuss-owner at arin.net >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-discuss digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. (Tony Valenti) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:42:39 -0500 >> From: Tony Valenti >> To: John Brown >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >> >> I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned.I think a big >> mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly assumes that we have >> something to do with making IPV6 a reality and managing IPV4 address space. >> >> Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and asked them >> when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After being escalated all the >> way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that they have no plans to >> implement IPV6 which means that if I put any content on an IPV6 address, I >> can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US won't have access to it. >> >> So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't care, >> and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address space because >> the internet is officially out, what will you do? As a webhosting company, >> we have no choice but to pay whatever the black market price for IPs is or >> go out of business/quit accepting customers. >> >> If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually emphasizes the >> problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything to fix the >> problem - they just make the current process harder. ARIN is a doomsday >> prophet powerless to change the fate that we all will endure. >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown wrote: >> >> >>> I?ll ask the age old question again. >>> >>> What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple got >>> the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the >>> ability to enforce rules today. >>> >>> Its contracts law. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: >>> >>> I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big >>> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. >>> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP >>> that comes along asking for address space. >>> >>> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also >>> requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts >>> because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block >>> and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the >>> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure >>> IPv6 for a long time to come. >>> >>> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused >>> blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or >>> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these >>> companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address >>> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >>> blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their >>> block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should >>> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Chris Gotstein >>> Sr Network Engineer >>> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >>> 500 N Stephenson Ave >>> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >>> Phone: 906-774-4847 >>> Fax: 906-774-0335 >>> chris at uplogon.com >>> >>> Kelvin Williams wrote: >>> >>>> Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>>> >>>> I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >>>> >>> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. >>> >>>> In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux >>>> >>> or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web >>> destinations were running IPv6. >>> >>>> I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause >>>> >>> problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >>> >>>> So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what >>>> >>> blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be >>> at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the >>> blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >>> >>>> Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address >>>> >>> because they can go for that. >>> >>>> I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering >>>> >>> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to >>> implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. >>> In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks >>> aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the >>> ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >>> >>>> Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >>>> >>> responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >>> establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large >>> bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >>> >>>> (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >>>> >>> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >>> >>>> Kw >>>> >>>> >>>> Kelvin Williams >>>> Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>>> Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>>> Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>>> Fax: 866.895.8557 >>>> Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>>> >>>> Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>> >>>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>>> To: John Brown >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >>>> some), then a transfer market will >>>> exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >>>> have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit >>>> on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them >>>> a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, >>>> they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. >>>> >>>> Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >>>> and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will >>>> be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>>> >>>> Either way, it works the same. >>>> >>>> Ted >>>> >>>> John Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >>>>> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>>> >>>>> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >>>>> part of the "contract". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>> >>>>>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>>>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>>>> a NAT type firewall >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Steve Wagner >>>>>> Vice President of Operations >>>>>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>>>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>>> >>>>>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of John Brown >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>>>> the actual >>>>>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>>>>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >>>>>> more. >>>>>> >>>>>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>>> higher than the >>>>>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could >>>>>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >>>>>> light on those providers. :| >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>>> space should >>>>>> return the space they aren't using. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>>> >>>>>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>>>>> >>>>>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>>>> don't know. >>>>>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>>>> good work >>>>>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>>> request, I'm sure >>>>>> it can be resolved. >>>>>> >>>>>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >>>>>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>>> muster and what >>>>>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>>> way too long. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>>>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>>>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>>>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>>> stock offering. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>>>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>>>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>>>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-discuss mailing list >> ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> >> End of ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 8 >> ******************************************* >> >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From drechsau at iphouse.net Wed Jul 22 01:43:42 2009 From: drechsau at iphouse.net (Mike Horwath) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:43:42 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <86prbth405.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> <20090721214752.GB76933@iphouse.net> <86prbth405.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <20090722054342.GG76933@iphouse.net> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 09:59:22PM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > Off-list: Back on list, thanks for trying to move this away from the public eye. > Mike Horwath writes: > > > If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field should be > > level when it comes to this resource. It never has been. I don't > > think it ever will be. > > Please complete the following sentence: > > The last ARIN public policy meeting I attended was > ARIN _____ (number) in ____________ (city) in _______________ (month, year). > > Thanks, Oooooh, that was witty. Stay on topic...your rhetoric doesn't further the discussion. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune From john at citylinkfiber.com Wed Jul 22 02:03:07 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:03:07 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <20090722054342.GG76933@iphouse.net> Message-ID: Hidden in the email below is a really important bit of data. Lots of people on these lists talk on the lists, but rarely if ever goto the actual meetings and work on the process. Participation is more than a keyboard. Its showing up and participating at the meetings. Personally I think ARIN could do more to get to rural areas and have 1 day work shops, ala RIPE and others. But that doesn?t excuse people from showing up at the meetings and having their voice heard. If 100 little ISP?s showed up at the October meeting and was unified on their cause / statement, I suspect it would be HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR. On 7/21/09 11:43 PM, "Mike Horwath" wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 09:59:22PM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >> > Off-list: > > Back on list, thanks for trying to move this away from the public eye. > >> > Mike Horwath writes: >> > >>> > > If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field should be >>> > > level when it comes to this resource. It never has been. I don't >>> > > think it ever will be. >> > >> > Please complete the following sentence: >> > >> > The last ARIN public policy meeting I attended was >> > ARIN _____ (number) in ____________ (city) in _______________ (month, >> year). >> > >> > Thanks, > > Oooooh, that was witty. > > Stay on topic...your rhetoric doesn't further the discussion. > > -- > Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net > The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is > that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 02:06:29 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:06:29 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A66AC65.20402@gmail.com> It's also worth noting that ARIN has been doing a lot of work to make remote participation easy and meaningful. So even if you can't travel in person, anyone willing to set aside some time can fully participate in the Public Policy Meeting, as well as on the Public Policy Mailing List. And, of course, I encourage everyone to do so. -Scott John Brown wrote: > Hidden in the email below is a really important bit of data. > > Lots of people on these lists talk on the lists, but rarely if ever > goto the actual meetings and work on the process. > Participation is more than a keyboard. Its showing up and > participating at the meetings. > > Personally I think ARIN could do more to get to rural areas and have 1 > day work shops, ala RIPE and others. > > But that doesn?t excuse people from showing up at the meetings and > having their voice heard. > > If 100 little ISP?s showed up at the October meeting and was unified > on their cause / statement, I suspect it would be HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR. > > > > > On 7/21/09 11:43 PM, "Mike Horwath" wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 09:59:22PM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Off-list: > > Back on list, thanks for trying to move this away from the public eye. > > > Mike Horwath writes: > > > > > If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field > should be > > > level when it comes to this resource. It never has been. I don't > > > think it ever will be. > > > > Please complete the following sentence: > > > > The last ARIN public policy meeting I attended was > > ARIN _____ (number) in ____________ (city) in _______________ > (month, year). > > > > Thanks, > > Oooooh, that was witty. > > Stay on topic...your rhetoric doesn't further the discussion. > > -- > Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net > The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is > that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 22 02:34:06 2009 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:34:06 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <553073100-1248229804-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-232319848-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <314812439-1248230608-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1750539672-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <8A6EF234-C28A-454F-BB28-7F9D76C0B15E@delong.com> Noone is suggesting that anyone should go IPv6 only on content servers. What is being suggested is that you go to dual-stack soon-ish so that when we start seeing IPv6-only eye-balls due to IPv4 exhaustion, your web site is still available to those IPv6-only users. Owen On Jul 21, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Tony Valenti wrote: > I'm in Omaha, Nebraska. > > The big thing to us is that as a content provider, we have to serve > our content on a network that is compatible with our customers. If > we went IPV6 on our gear, we'd go out of business because all our > customers would find a content provider who would serve it on IPs > that they could access. > > It is a lot easier to find a new webhost than it is to change ISPs. > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Kelvin Williams > wrote: > Net-Neutrality is something I fully support. The previous example > was just saying, if ARIN can't help us little guys, we can band > together and help ourselves. > > Kelvin Williams > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > Fax: 866.895.8557 > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > From: John Brown > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:39:24 -0600 > To: ; Chris Gotstein > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > Hang on, I need to scream NET-NEUTRALITY. > > Ah, but market forces will keep you from adding those ACL?s. Your > customers will find another provider that is ACL free and then you > will be revenue free. :) > > > On 7/21/09 8:30 PM, "Kelvin Williams" wrote: > > ARIN may not have the legal right to do anything. But, if they > (Apple, et al) don't want to play fair with the rest of us, they > don't have a legal right when we add ACLs blocking their traffic > from traversing our networks. ;)Kw > > Kelvin WilliamsAltus Communications Group, Inc.Office Direct: > 678.369.5968Office Main: 678.369.5970Fax: 866.895.8557Mobile: > 678.852.4173Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > From: John Brown > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:02 -0600 > To: Chris Gotstein; > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > I?ll ask the age old question again. > > What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If > Apple got the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, > what gives ARIN the ability to enforce rules today. > > Its contracts law. > > > > > On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: > > I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the > big > guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. > Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small > ISP > that comes along asking for address space. > > We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and > also > requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts > because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 > block > and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, > the > only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure > IPv6 for a long time to come. > > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly > unused > blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, > or > maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of > these > companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of > address > space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large > blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their > block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they > should > break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. > > > -- > Chris Gotstein > Sr Network Engineer > UP Logon/Computer Connection UP > 500 N Stephenson Ave > Iron Mountain, MI 49801 > Phone: 906-774-4847 > Fax: 906-774-0335 > chris at uplogon.com > > Kelvin Williams wrote: > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. > > > > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. > Our Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL > subscribers. > > > > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers > running Linux or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and > the majority of web destinations were running IPv6. > > > > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can > cause problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use > today. > > > > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting > what blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, > will now be at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a > tiny portion of the blocks they are assigned when the "transfer > market" comes into play. > > > > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 > address because they can go for that. > > > > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a > steering group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, > HP and the DoD to implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If > they can't, they need to pay. In my opinion, especially when looking > at the DoD most of their networks aren't accessed by the general > public, so they can transition versus the ISPs of the world dealing > with users still running Windows 98. > > > > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the > responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the > establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of > large bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. > > > > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local > brew pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) > > > > > > Kw > > > > > > Kelvin Williams > > Altus Communications Group, Inc. > > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 > > Office Main: 678.369.5970 > > Fax: 866.895.8557 > > Mobile: 678.852.4173 > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 > > To: John Brown > > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > > > > > > > > > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to > have > > some), then a transfer market will > > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly > > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue > to sit > > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging > them > > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, > > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they > lose. > > > > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms > > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case > nobody will > > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. > > > > Either way, it works the same. > > > > Ted > > > > John Brown wrote: > >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to > assess a > >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? > >> > >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no > fee as > >> part of the "contract". > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM > >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > >>> > >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT > >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, > >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of > >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them > >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This > >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses > >>> a NAT type firewall > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Steve Wagner > >>> Vice President of Operations > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > >>> Boise, ID 83705 > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 > >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > >>> > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named > >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is > >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, > >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of > >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or > >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > >>> thereafter. Thank you. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM > >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > >>> > >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing > >>> the actual > >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space > allocated or > >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't > exist any > >>> more. > >>> > >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is > >>> higher than the > >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I > could > >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a > public spot > >>> light on those providers. :| > >>> > >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of > >>> space should > >>> return the space they aren't using. > >>> > >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? > >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? > >>> > >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? > >>> > >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I > >>> don't know. > >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad > brush. > >>> > >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing > >>> good work > >>> under the guidelines they have. > >>> > >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation > >>> request, I'm sure > >>> it can be resolved. > >>> > >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately > work > >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes > >>> muster and what > >>> may need to be done to help it float. > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM > >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon > >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List > >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 > accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Hi. > >>>> > >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of > >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for > >>>> way too long. > >>>> > >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I > >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same > >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the > pool. > >>>> > >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s > >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be > >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of > >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you > >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. > >>>> > >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. > >>>> > >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have > >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their > >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the > >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) > >>>> > >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 > >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' > >>>> stock offering. > >>>> > >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: > PROFIT > >>>> > >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field > >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has > >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. > >>>> > >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net > >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is > >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune > >>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>> > >>_______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Discuss > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >_______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2105 bytes Desc: not available URL: From netops at serverzone.net Wed Jul 22 02:05:10 2009 From: netops at serverzone.net (SZ NetOps) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:05:10 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <686700437-1248230841-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1392791892-@bxe1268.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <686700437-1248230841-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1392791892-@bxe1268.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <4A66AC16.7000801@serverzone.net> Wouldn't justification be in order for blocks that size? Could any of the legacy providers justify the 80% rule like everyone else is expected to? I don't think they could come up with 20%. Artur (eBoundHost) wrote: > - What legal right does ARIN have > - to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple > - got the space pre-ARIN and the rules > - where different then, what gives ARIN > - the ability to enforce rules today. > > Who says that they will put up a fight? Did anyone ask them to release the unused space? > > Best Regards, > > Artur > eBoundHost > http://www.eboundhost.com > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From craig.finseth at state.mn.us Wed Jul 22 08:24:48 2009 From: craig.finseth at state.mn.us (Craig Finseth) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:24:48 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> (message from Chris Gotstein on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:14:08 -0500) References: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A8@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra><4A665609.1060501@ipinc.net> <736808020-1248228224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1932433480-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> Message-ID: <200907221224.n6MCOmQA010201@inana.itg.state.mn.us> ... ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or ... In all fairness, it is by no means obvious that there are large, mostly unused blocks, especially the old class A ones assigned to companies. Many of those are in full use. However, the electronic paperwork isn't necessarily up to date. We've been using a /16 worth originally assigned to HP. It was a lot of work to get the records sorted out (we eventually did) and I can't see most people bothering. Hence, it _appears_ that HP has a lot of space that "must" be unused, but it is likely not the case. I believe the people who have looked into the unused swamp problem generally say that it's a lot smaller than most people think. (See previous discussions on this list.) Craig A. Finseth craig.finseth at state.mn.us Systems Architect +1 651 201 1011 desk State of Minnesota, Office of Enterprise Technology 658 Cedar Ave +1 651 297 5368 fax St Paul MN 55155 +1 651 297 1111 TAC, for reporting problems From drechsau at iphouse.net Wed Jul 22 09:16:19 2009 From: drechsau at iphouse.net (Mike Horwath) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:16:19 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <20090722054342.GG76933@iphouse.net> Message-ID: <20090722131619.GB84093@iphouse.net> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:03:07AM -0600, John Brown wrote: > Hidden in the email below is a really important bit of data. I saw the data, but is irrelevant in my opinion. > Lots of people on these lists talk on the lists, but rarely if ever > goto the actual meetings and work on the process. Participation is > more than a keyboard. Its showing up and participating at the > meetings. ... > If 100 little ISP?s showed up at the October meeting and was unified > on their cause / statement, I suspect it would be HEARD LOUD AND > CLEAR. Mailing lists are more accessible and used than the meetings. No requirement to be heard has ever been stated that you had to go to a meeting physically to have your opinion on the table, your needs, wants, and discussions aired. It isn't 100 little ISPs, it is 100 ARIN members. Size matters not, we all supposedly have the same valued vote. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Jul 22 09:17:03 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:17:03 +0100 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7A8@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802492072@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was > no fee as part of the "contract". It is a principle of common law that if there is no money (or equivalent) paid then there is no legal contract. Has this changed in the USA? I'd like to see all these entities billed retroactively back to the beginning of ARIN. If they complain, then we could negotiate it down to just the past year if they sign an RSA. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Jul 22 09:21:25 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:21:25 +0100 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A665609.1060501@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580249208E@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking > to have some), then a transfer market will exist, and those > unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly have a > transferable value What if HP and Apple sell those addresses to the Russian government for use in their schools connectivity program? Everyone assumes that ARIN region ISPs would be able to buy up addresses that they need, but markets are global these days. And both Apple and HP could potentially get some business advantage from a Russian sale that they would not get by selling to local ISPs. --Michael Dillon From drechsau at iphouse.net Wed Jul 22 09:22:47 2009 From: drechsau at iphouse.net (Mike Horwath) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:22:47 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> References: <736808020-1248228224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1932433480-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> Message-ID: <20090722132246.GC84093@iphouse.net> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 09:14:08PM -0500, Chris Gotstein wrote: > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly > unused blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good > start, or maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from > each of these companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block > holders of address space on justification, why can't they do the > same on these large blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using > 80% or more of their block, then they can keep it and we move on. > If not, then they should break up their blocks, and return the > un-used space to ARIN. Naysayer: Won't happen, boys club benefit and all that Optimistic Internet Person: Not withstanding the example companies above, fingers need to be pointed at many different organizations and requests to them could be done to help create internal and positive feedback ending in equality to how each member is treated. Reality: Unless you are one of the members of the club, you will jump through hoops and do much paperwork to justify your 'net existence. As I mentioned yesterday, this topic is a repeat topic, and will continue to repeat until changes occur. And going physically to a meeting was never a requirement to be heard. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune From drw at cimtel.net Wed Jul 22 09:27:19 2009 From: drw at cimtel.net (Danny Whittenburg) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:27:19 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <20090722132246.GC84093@iphouse.net> References: <736808020-1248228224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1932433480-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> <20090722132246.GC84093@iphouse.net> Message-ID: I have one question about all the threads going back and forth. Is anyone from ARIN reading these? Danny Whittenburg Cimarron Telephone Company Director of IT Services (B) 918-865-3311 ext.262 (C) 918-694-0138 drw at cimtel.net www.cimtel.net -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:23 AM To: Chris Gotstein Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 09:14:08PM -0500, Chris Gotstein wrote: > ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly > unused blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good > start, or maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from > each of these companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block > holders of address space on justification, why can't they do the > same on these large blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using > 80% or more of their block, then they can keep it and we move on. > If not, then they should break up their blocks, and return the > un-used space to ARIN. Naysayer: Won't happen, boys club benefit and all that Optimistic Internet Person: Not withstanding the example companies above, fingers need to be pointed at many different organizations and requests to them could be done to help create internal and positive feedback ending in equality to how each member is treated. Reality: Unless you are one of the members of the club, you will jump through hoops and do much paperwork to justify your 'net existence. As I mentioned yesterday, this topic is a repeat topic, and will continue to repeat until changes occur. And going physically to a meeting was never a requirement to be heard. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. NOTE: This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. NOTE: This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jul 22 09:40:11 2009 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:40:11 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Nathaniel - While ARIN is being diligent in verifying IPv4 address requests, the outstanding size of the IPv4 free pool is not creating an "strain" on meeting the needs of ISP's for IPv4 addresses. What most smaller ISP's are experiencing in difficulty obtaining IPv4 address space is due to the requirements to show existing utilization of upstream ISP's assignment and/or to show that they are multi-homed. These requirements in the IPv4 policy stem from the communities concern that having every ISP today immediately get an IPv4 address block would result in some assignments going unused, and further would result in a rapidly growing IPv4 routing table. I acknowledge it can be challenging for a smaller ISP to obtain their own IPv4 address block, but want to be clear that the reason for this is the current policy and concerns about routing, not per se any result of the pending depletion of the IPv4 available pool. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN p.s. As always, the ARIN policy in this area can be changed if the community reaches consensus on improvements. Information on the policy development process can be found at On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Nathaniel B. Lyon wrote: > Shon, > > I couldn't have said this any better myself. We are a small/medium > WISP based out of Northfield Minnesota and we have been trying to > get an IPv4 block ourselves for some time now and actually found > that it might be easier robbing a bank than getting an IPv4 block > assigned to us. We recently threw up our hands and went after an > IPv6 block, easiest thing in the world to obtain. We were handed a / > 32 of IPv6 addresses literally in a 1 day. Don't get me wrong, that > is great, but we are most likely not going to see IPv6 fully > utilized across the board for 5 years. So in the meantime, what are > we to do? > > Long story a little shorter, my organization feels like the big guys > have pretty much wrecked it for everyone mid-sized and below. For > us to even get our foot in the door with our own IPv4 pool is a pipe > dream. To make matters worse, we are sitting here with this nice > pool of IPv6 addresses and we can't even start testing these IP's > because our upstream isn't capable yet of allowing these to > transport across their network. > > I don't know if we are the only organization that is feeling the > strain of the "lack" of IPv4 addresses, but something needs to give > between now and when IPv6 is the standard. IPv6 is not going to be > the standard over night, so handing every ISP a /32 in IPv6 world is > NOT the fix either. Smaller organizations need to be looked at and > given a fair chance at the IPv4 world. Not having a shot in the > dark at an IPv4 pool is greatly straining some ISP?s. > > It?s nice to hear others are feeling like their IPv4 needs are not > ever going to be met, which is sad to say the least. I urge others > to come out and share their opinions. Unwired Broadband and > NorthfieldWiFi can?t be the only two ISP?s getting the short end of > the stick in the IPv4 world. > > Nathaniel B. Lyon > Owner, NorthfieldWiFi > (612) 991-4260 > www.northfieldwifi.com > nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From khunt at huntbrothers.com Wed Jul 22 09:42:22 2009 From: khunt at huntbrothers.com (Kevin Hunt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:42:22 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 7/21/09 9:37 PM, "John Brown" wrote: > I recently acquired a defunct ISP and their net-blocks. > > Some of those net-blocks I don't need today. I may need them in the future > if my business keeps growing. Hopefully I can get some space then. > > Lots of smart people in this industry have told me to HOLD ON TO THE SPACE, > don't give it back. > > NET 205.201.128.0/20 is hereby returned. > I mostly lurk and rarely give much attention to most threads here, but find this thread interesting. First, a public thank you from a small ISP ( 2 /20's) to Mr. Brown. Giving space back certainly deserves kudos ! Second, I'm guilty of lurking but not participating in the list, must less going to the meetings. I'll work on changing that. Third, ARIN is in a sticky situation with the legacy allocations, and I'd like to hear f/ the ARIN employees/board on if any discussions were ever held with the legacy providers regarding voluntarily giving some of the space back. -- W. Kevin Hunt CCIE #11841 Linux+ SME From drechsau at iphouse.net Wed Jul 22 09:43:34 2009 From: drechsau at iphouse.net (Mike Horwath) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:43:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <736808020-1248228224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1932433480-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4A6675F0.5070403@uplogon.com> <20090722132246.GC84093@iphouse.net> Message-ID: <20090722134334.GB84355@iphouse.net> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:27:19AM -0500, Danny Whittenburg wrote: > I have one question about all the threads going back and forth. Is > anyone from ARIN reading these? There is one reading it for sure, and it is nice to see an ARIN person post in this thread so far. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune From tony.valenti at powerdnn.com Wed Jul 22 09:44:09 2009 From: tony.valenti at powerdnn.com (Tony Valenti) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:44:09 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Danny - I think the better question to ask is "Does anybody from ARIN care?" On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:40 AM, John Curran wrote: > Nathaniel - > > While ARIN is being diligent in verifying IPv4 address requests, the > outstanding > size of the IPv4 free pool is not creating an "strain" on meeting the > needs of ISP's > for IPv4 addresses. > > What most smaller ISP's are experiencing in difficulty obtaining IPv4 > address space > is due to the requirements to show existing utilization of upstream > ISP's assignment > and/or to show that they are multi-homed. These requirements in the > IPv4 policy > stem from the communities concern that having every ISP today > immediately get > an IPv4 address block would result in some assignments going unused, > and further > would result in a rapidly growing IPv4 routing table. > > I acknowledge it can be challenging for a smaller ISP to obtain their > own IPv4 > > address block, but want to be clear that the reason for this is the current policy > > and concerns about routing, not per se any result of the pending depletion of > the IPv4 available pool. > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > p.s. As always, the ARIN policy in this area can be changed if the > community reaches > consensus on improvements. Information on the policy development > process can > be found at > > > On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Nathaniel B. Lyon wrote: > > Shon, > > I couldn't have said this any better myself. We are a small/medium WISP > based out of Northfield Minnesota and we have been trying to get an IPv4 > block ourselves for some time now and actually found that it might be easier > robbing a bank than getting an IPv4 block assigned to us. We recently threw > up our hands and went after an IPv6 block, easiest thing in the world to > obtain. We were handed a /32 of IPv6 addresses literally in a 1 day. Don't > get me wrong, that is great, but we are most likely not going to see IPv6 > fully utilized across the board for 5 years. So in the meantime, what are > we to do? > > Long story a little shorter, my organization feels like the big guys have > pretty much wrecked it for everyone mid-sized and below. For us to even get > our foot in the door with our own IPv4 pool is a pipe dream. To make > matters worse, we are sitting here with this nice pool of IPv6 addresses and > we can't even start testing these IP's because our upstream isn't capable > yet of allowing these to transport across their network. > > I don't know if we are the only organization that is feeling the strain of > the "lack" of IPv4 addresses, but something needs to give between now and > when IPv6 is the standard. IPv6 is not going to be the standard over night, > so handing every ISP a /32 in IPv6 world is NOT the fix either. Smaller > organizations need to be looked at and given a *fair chance* at the IPv4 > world. Not having a shot in the dark at an IPv4 pool is greatly straining > some ISP?s. > > It?s nice to hear others are feeling like their IPv4 needs are not ever > going to be met, which is sad to say the least. I urge others to come out > and share their opinions. Unwired Broadband and NorthfieldWiFi can?t be the > only two ISP?s getting the short end of the stick in the IPv4 world. > > Nathaniel B. Lyon > Owner, NorthfieldWiFi > (612) 991-4260 > www.northfieldwifi.com > nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rs at seastrom.com Wed Jul 22 09:46:25 2009 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:46:25 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <20090722054342.GG76933@iphouse.net> (Mike Horwath's message of "Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:43:42 -0500") References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> <20090721214752.GB76933@iphouse.net> <86prbth405.fsf@seastrom.com> <20090722054342.GG76933@iphouse.net> Message-ID: <86tz1425la.fsf@seastrom.com> >> > If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field should be >> > level when it comes to this resource. It never has been. I don't >> > think it ever will be. >> >> Please complete the following sentence: >> >> The last ARIN public policy meeting I attended was >> ARIN _____ (number) in ____________ (city) in _______________ (month, year). >> >> Thanks, > > Oooooh, that was witty. > > Stay on topic...your rhetoric doesn't further the discussion. I'm completely serious. I've never seen you post to PPML, at least not from this address or drechsau at mac.com. I only looked going back to 2004 so if you can point me at public archives going back further you have my apologies ahead of time for categorizing you as a non-participant, but nothing in the past five and a half years does not invalidate my point. The playing field is indeed level, within the tolerances of practicabiliy. Perhaps you might choose to participate in the public policy process in the future so that any perceived inequities could be addressed? Thanks, -r From jradel at vantage.com Wed Jul 22 09:56:39 2009 From: jradel at vantage.com (Jon Radel) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:56:39 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <1340107040-1248232894-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-248359202-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <851686854-1248230723-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-974457500-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4A66845D.3010506@bogus.com> <1340107040-1248232894-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-248359202-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <4A671A97.7070007@vantage.com> Kelvin Williams wrote: > Its not that we don't care. Its that we have end users who don't. > > Maybe we should use ARINs resources to educate the masses, similar to > the Digital TV campaign. Hmmm...I think we've looped around to where I got on this mailing list a couple of years ago. At that point some people were ganging up on ARIN staff and going on at some considerable length about how horrible, bad, just terrible it was that ARIN was wasting the funds provided by small ISPs by sending staff to technical conferences to do outreach on IPv6. Sigh. P.S. I'd settle for my management and upstream providers caring about IPv6. I'm at peace with the vast majority of our customers thinking I'm insane should I start talking to them about the plumbing. If it's lower than layer 7, they don't care. -- Jon Radel Senior Director of Engineering Vantage Communications p: 267-756-1014 f: 202-742-5661 e: jradel at vantage.com "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the state of science, whatever the matter may be." ~Lord Kelvin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3303 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From drechsau at iphouse.net Wed Jul 22 10:04:37 2009 From: drechsau at iphouse.net (Mike Horwath) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:04:37 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <86tz1425la.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> <20090721214752.GB76933@iphouse.net> <86prbth405.fsf@seastrom.com> <20090722054342.GG76933@iphouse.net> <86tz1425la.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <20090722140437.GC84355@iphouse.net> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 09:46:25AM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > I've never seen you post to PPML, at least not from this address or > drechsau at mac.com. I only looked going back to 2004 so if you can > point me at public archives going back further you have my apologies > ahead of time for categorizing you as a non-participant, but nothing > in the past five and a half years does not invalidate my point. Try: drechsau at geeks.org drechsau at visi.com for addresses that have/had been on this list dating back years. I list an example below for you. I want to invalidate your point in that as far as I know, there has never been a requirement to physically go to a meeting to have opinions heard. I apologize for being antagonistic. I hate repeating myself, and this thread is full of fail for such repeating. The mantra hasn't changed, the issues are the same issues that are 9+ years old. > The playing field is indeed level, within the tolerances of > practicabiliy. Perhaps you might choose to participate in the > public policy process in the future so that any perceived inequities > could be addressed? Opinion: I don't believe the playing field is level within any tolerance of practicality. You have your opinion. That doens't make you right and me wrong, nor the converse. Proof: this issue is old and repetitive, without movement to resolve the long standing issues of organizations holding blocks they do not need (I said 'need', not 'want'), nor have used (since allocated) to the same levels that the rest of us normal netizens are held to. back to topic... I have participated multiple times via email. here is something from Sept 14th, 2000: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2000-September/000128.html Look familar? (kudos to the ARIN folx maintaining the list - the pipermail interface is one of the best I have seen in terms of look) -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune From drw at cimtel.net Wed Jul 22 10:22:14 2009 From: drw at cimtel.net (Danny Whittenburg) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:22:14 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Mr. Curran, It is nice to see the man in charge is listening to us little guys out here. My company is getting ready to test your statement as we prepare to obtain more IPv4 addressing. Hope you are right. On another note I have noticed a lot of discussion pertaining to HP, Apple and others that they have an extraordinary amount of IPv4 addresses that are not being used and may never be used. I would ask you if that is a true statement and if so what is ARIN prepared to do about it, if anything? Danny Whittenburg Cimarron Telephone Company Director of IT Services (B) 918-865-3311 ext.262 (C) 918-694-0138 drw at cimtel.net www.cimtel.net ________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:40 AM To: Nathaniel B.Lyon Cc: ARIN Discussion List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Nathaniel - While ARIN is being diligent in verifying IPv4 address requests, the outstanding size of the IPv4 free pool is not creating an "strain" on meeting the needs of ISP's for IPv4 addresses. What most smaller ISP's are experiencing in difficulty obtaining IPv4 address space is due to the requirements to show existing utilization of upstream ISP's assignment and/or to show that they are multi-homed. These requirements in the IPv4 policy stem from the communities concern that having every ISP today immediately get an IPv4 address block would result in some assignments going unused, and further would result in a rapidly growing IPv4 routing table. I acknowledge it can be challenging for a smaller ISP to obtain their own IPv4 address block, but want to be clear that the reason for this is the current policy and concerns about routing, not per se any result of the pending depletion of the IPv4 available pool. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN p.s. As always, the ARIN policy in this area can be changed if the community reaches consensus on improvements. Information on the policy development process can be found at On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Nathaniel B. Lyon wrote: Shon, I couldn't have said this any better myself. We are a small/medium WISP based out of Northfield Minnesota and we have been trying to get an IPv4 block ourselves for some time now and actually found that it might be easier robbing a bank than getting an IPv4 block assigned to us. We recently threw up our hands and went after an IPv6 block, easiest thing in the world to obtain. We were handed a /32 of IPv6 addresses literally in a 1 day. Don't get me wrong, that is great, but we are most likely not going to see IPv6 fully utilized across the board for 5 years. So in the meantime, what are we to do? Long story a little shorter, my organization feels like the big guys have pretty much wrecked it for everyone mid-sized and below. For us to even get our foot in the door with our own IPv4 pool is a pipe dream. To make matters worse, we are sitting here with this nice pool of IPv6 addresses and we can't even start testing these IP's because our upstream isn't capable yet of allowing these to transport across their network. I don't know if we are the only organization that is feeling the strain of the "lack" of IPv4 addresses, but something needs to give between now and when IPv6 is the standard. IPv6 is not going to be the standard over night, so handing every ISP a /32 in IPv6 world is NOT the fix either. Smaller organizations need to be looked at and given a fair chance at the IPv4 world. Not having a shot in the dark at an IPv4 pool is greatly straining some ISP's. It's nice to hear others are feeling like their IPv4 needs are not ever going to be met, which is sad to say the least. I urge others to come out and share their opinions. Unwired Broadband and NorthfieldWiFi can't be the only two ISP's getting the short end of the stick in the IPv4 world. Nathaniel B. Lyon Owner, NorthfieldWiFi (612) 991-4260 www.northfieldwifi.com nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net ________________________________ NOTE: This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. ________________________________ NOTE: This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jul 22 10:25:55 2009 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:25:55 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7403045C-3029-4BA3-92F2-B2FC98F2B9C7@arin.net> On Jul 22, 2009, at 9:42 AM, Kevin Hunt wrote: > ... > Third, ARIN is in a sticky situation with the legacy allocations, > and I'd > like to hear f/ the ARIN employees/board on if any discussions were > ever > held with the legacy providers regarding voluntarily giving some of > the > space back. Kevin - The short answer is: Yes, ARIN has, and over the years there's also been various efforts in the community to reach out to legacy holders and see if these blocks are in use or can be returned. ARIN's efforts at outreach are documented here: Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jul 22 10:29:50 2009 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:29:50 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <4D829BE6-FC1B-499B-A79A-AC622684DDBC@arin.net> On Jul 22, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Tony Valenti wrote: > I think the better question to ask is "Does anybody from ARIN care?" Tony - Can you elaborate? The ARIN organization is hard at work doing exactly what the community has instructed through the Pubic Policy process. Is there a concern that the policy needs to be changed, or is there some other concern? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From chris at uplogon.com Wed Jul 22 10:42:06 2009 From: chris at uplogon.com (Chris Gotstein) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:42:06 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <7403045C-3029-4BA3-92F2-B2FC98F2B9C7@arin.net> References: <7403045C-3029-4BA3-92F2-B2FC98F2B9C7@arin.net> Message-ID: <4A67253E.7020301@uplogon.com> What about the DoD? Weren't they very close to finishing up their IPv6 transition? Shouldn't some of those blocks be coming back to ARIN soon? Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 chris at uplogon.com John Curran wrote: > On Jul 22, 2009, at 9:42 AM, Kevin Hunt wrote: >> ... >> Third, ARIN is in a sticky situation with the legacy allocations, and I'd >> like to hear f/ the ARIN employees/board on if any discussions were ever >> held with the legacy providers regarding voluntarily giving some of the >> space back. > > Kevin - > > The short answer is: Yes, ARIN has, and over the years there's also > been various efforts in the community to reach out to legacy holders > and see if these blocks are in use or can be returned. > > ARIN's efforts at outreach are documented here: > > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jlewis at atlantic.net Wed Jul 22 10:33:29 2009 From: jlewis at atlantic.net (jlewis at atlantic.net) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, John Brown wrote: > I recently acquired a defunct ISP and their net-blocks. > > Some of those net-blocks I don't need today. I may need them in the future > if my business keeps growing. Hopefully I can get some space then. ... > In thinking about this, I've decided that the RIGHT ANSWER ? is to return > the space to the free pool. Maybe others will do the right thing. I don't > know. But at least I'll sleep to night knowing that I wasn't a PIG. That's interesting. My past experience in acquisitions of dying ISPs with their own ARIN-assigned space has been that ARIN will make you show justification/utilization before updating the reassignments to point to you. Is this no longer the case? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | Senior Network Engineer | Atlantic.net | ________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key__________ From rs at seastrom.com Wed Jul 22 11:03:07 2009 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:03:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <20090722140437.GC84355@iphouse.net> (Mike Horwath's message of "Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:04:37 -0500") References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> <20090721214752.GB76933@iphouse.net> <86prbth405.fsf@seastrom.com> <20090722054342.GG76933@iphouse.net> <86tz1425la.fsf@seastrom.com> <20090722140437.GC84355@iphouse.net> Message-ID: <863a8ozro4.fsf@seastrom.com> So, now that I stand corrected about yor participation on the lists, I am sure that the AC would appreciate concrete attempts to address perceived inequities if they come in the form of a policy proposal (which one need not be an ARIN member or meeting attendee to submit). -r From scurtis at perimetercenter.com Wed Jul 22 11:02:52 2009 From: scurtis at perimetercenter.com (Steven Curtis) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:02:52 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] UNSCRIBE Message-ID: <9152ADBF7936E9459052C8909F2C868301EBF79C@logan.ptc.local> UNSCRIBE Steve Curtis Perimeter Technology Center, Inc. www.perimetercenter.com 322 East Archer Tulsa, OK 74103 (918) 592-5551 xt. 5520 (office) (918) 592-5552 (fax) (918) 557-2346 (cell) scurtis at perimetercenter.com PTC Provides: ? Data Center Services Ranging from co-location to fully managed hosting solutions. From bandwidth to power to environmental to network fabric to physical and technical security, no facility in this region matches our redundancies at each step, Fortune 500 trained operations/engineering staff and resulting uptime ? Monitored & Managed Network Services Whether your systems are located in our facility or yours, be pro-active not re-active to improve reliability and control of remote or hosted systems. Utilize our network operations center (NOC), proven processes and innate core competencies on some or all of your devices from the individual sever operating system all the way out ? Professional Services Leverage our IT infrastructure expertise inside of your infrastructure. Our professional networking services are offered in three flavors or any combination thereof: 1. As an objective consultant to validate current internal structure and/or future design 2. As the lead consultant in the design phase 3. As the implementation team working alone ? Business Continuity Office Space Perimeter Technology operates a business continuity office space facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. This space is preconfigured to our client's specifications in the event of a declaration of disaster. Shared business continuity office space offers customers the peace of mind to relocate and continue operations without the high cost of leasing dedicated office space. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcjones at mis.net Wed Jul 22 10:39:39 2009 From: lcjones at mis.net (LCJones) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:39:39 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <4A6724AB.5090108@mis.net> I too am in an IPV4 predicament where by the termination of an upstream provider has caused a forced renumbering of 2 /20's and several /24's on our network. I prepare myself for the *grief* of attempting to procure an equivalent or even a stripped down amount of space so that we can start the renumbering process for our datacenter clients. Which means I need additional space prior to returning the reassignment from the former upstream. Am I allowed to get before giving? -- Les Jones Network Operations - Central NOC Mikrotec Internet Services 1001 Winchester Road Lexington, KY. 40505 - US 1-888-921-2525 x 6289 1-859-361-7667 - Mobile lcjones at mis.net From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jul 22 12:10:38 2009 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:10:38 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <0E1E1D4B-940F-41CE-90AC-BB0C9C6ED719@arin.net> On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Plimpton Ben wrote: > John > > If this were the case, once a smaller ISP had met your routing > criteria, shouldn't we all then be able to request IP's based on > what our needs will be for the next few months and not have to > justify our previous allocations. Ben - ARIN doesn't have routing criteria. ARIN does have policies set by the community which require an ISP to be able to justify a minimum size block before being able to come directly to ARIN for an allocation. Once you meet that minimum address requirement, you can come to ARIN. > I'm guessing that at some point, organizations with large > allocations have made requests for additional space without having > to justify the usage on their other blocks or else this wouldn't be > an issue b/c they would have filled them up already and the rest of > the community wouldn't feel that they're squatting on their previous > allocations. Everytime you come for an additional allocation, you have to show utilization of your existing address blocks. This applies to equally to all requesters. The concern expressed is that there are some folks who hold large historically allocations of address space which do not come in at all for additional allocations, and hence never have to show their usage. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jul 22 12:21:35 2009 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:21:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example In-Reply-To: <4A67253E.7020301@uplogon.com> References: <7403045C-3029-4BA3-92F2-B2FC98F2B9C7@arin.net> <4A67253E.7020301@uplogon.com> Message-ID: <2DA95672-95E1-4915-9657-8516ECB50435@arin.net> On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Chris Gotstein wrote: > > What about the DoD? Weren't they very close to finishing up their > IPv6 > transition? Shouldn't some of those blocks be coming back to ARIN > soon? Chris - Recognize that ARIN cannot comment on the status of any of its members, so that's a question that I cannot address. I will note that most organizations that have looked at IPv6 transition have adopted a strategy which has both IPv4 and IPv6 (dual stack) in parallel for quite some time, and that means that IPv4 resources only become available after IPv6 has become prevalent. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Wed Jul 22 12:26:17 2009 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:26:17 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:33:29AM -0400, jlewis at atlantic.net wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, John Brown wrote: [...] > >In thinking about this, I've decided that the RIGHT ANSWER ? is to return > >the space to the free pool. Maybe others will do the right thing. I don't > >know. But at least I'll sleep to night knowing that I wasn't a PIG. > > That's interesting. My past experience in acquisitions of dying ISPs with > their own ARIN-assigned space has been that ARIN will make you show > justification/utilization before updating the reassignments to point to > you. Is this no longer the case? Justification/utilization has always been important in these types of cases. That and legal paperwork showing that the acquisition has occurred are the only real hurdles to be cleared. With that said, I'd like to add that if I'd come into control of an allocation like one Mr. Brown has, I'd be doing the *exact* same thing he's indicated he's doing: give it back to ARIN We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table (relatively) late. From Brad at broadcore.com Wed Jul 22 12:29:56 2009 From: Brad at broadcore.com (Brad Anouar) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:29:56 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A6724AB.5090108@mis.net> Message-ID: <6B1CCA64F8687E48B7B3222685B891392130D265@Mail.nextcom.net> Les, We found ourselves in the same predicament three years ago when we decided to get our own IP space and return our providers'. Because we had to reassign all of our customers' IPs, we were forced to do a few at a time. After proving that we have efficiently allocated our existing IPs, Arin was kind enough to grant us the new IP space with the condition of promising to return the old one to our provider over the next couple of years. Brad Anouar Director - Systems Engineering Broadcore P: 310-360-2028 F: 310-360-2029 brad at broadcore.com -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of LCJones Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:40 AM Cc: ARIN Discussion List; John Curran Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. I too am in an IPV4 predicament where by the termination of an upstream provider has caused a forced renumbering of 2 /20's and several /24's on our network. I prepare myself for the *grief* of attempting to procure an equivalent or even a stripped down amount of space so that we can start the renumbering process for our datacenter clients. Which means I need additional space prior to returning the reassignment from the former upstream. Am I allowed to get before giving? -- Les Jones Network Operations - Central NOC Mikrotec Internet Services 1001 Winchester Road Lexington, KY. 40505 - US 1-888-921-2525 x 6289 1-859-361-7667 - Mobile lcjones at mis.net _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 12:53:42 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:53:42 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <6B1CCA64F8687E48B7B3222685B891392130D265@Mail.nextcom.net> References: <6B1CCA64F8687E48B7B3222685B891392130D265@Mail.nextcom.net> Message-ID: <915F4473-FD95-4325-82BF-A7596AAF1476@gmail.com> Also, such "renumber and return" situations are covered in policy, so ARIN should give all new applicants a reasonable amount of time to renumber out of any ISP space used to justify the allocation/assignment. -Scott On Jul 22, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Brad Anouar wrote: > Les, > > We found ourselves in the same predicament three years ago when we > decided to get our own IP space and return our providers'. Because > we had to reassign all of our customers' IPs, we were forced to do a > few at a time. After proving that we have efficiently allocated our > existing IPs, Arin was kind enough to grant us the new IP space with > the condition of promising to return the old one to our provider > over the next couple of years. > > Brad Anouar > Director - Systems Engineering > Broadcore > P: 310-360-2028 > F: 310-360-2029 > brad at broadcore.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of LCJones > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:40 AM > Cc: ARIN Discussion List; John Curran > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > I too am in an IPV4 predicament where by the termination of an > upstream > provider has caused a forced renumbering of 2 /20's and several / > 24's on > our network. I prepare myself for the *grief* of attempting to procure > an equivalent or even a stripped down amount of space so that we can > start the renumbering process for our datacenter clients. Which > means I > need additional space prior to returning the reassignment from the > former upstream. > > Am I allowed to get before giving? > > -- > Les Jones > Network Operations - Central NOC > Mikrotec Internet Services > 1001 Winchester Road > Lexington, KY. 40505 - US > 1-888-921-2525 x 6289 > 1-859-361-7667 - Mobile > lcjones at mis.net > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jbreault at hostlogistic.com Wed Jul 22 13:08:44 2009 From: jbreault at hostlogistic.com (Breault Jonathan) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:08:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <0E1E1D4B-940F-41CE-90AC-BB0C9C6ED719@arin.net> Message-ID: Basically, I think the problem is that once you hold a resource from arin, you only need to justify when you request new resources... I think there is missing a policy that would allow ARIN to ask every 3-5 years for justification on the resources' usage and take action on the blocks that have a too small Usage Ratio. The question we all need to ask is, do we really want to produce justification on regular basis? What should we do with weak isp's? Going after the big historical allocation might be a way to release some ip blocks. But it can also affect people with smaller blocks ... Maybe we should give an incentive to holders of /20 that use 2 C classes on it so they just move to a /22 ... Maybe somebody on the list has ideas on how something like that can be achieved without being unfair for others... jonathan Le 22/07/09 12:10 PM, ??John Curran?? a ?crit?: > On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Plimpton Ben wrote: > >> John >> >> If this were the case, once a smaller ISP had met your routing >> criteria, shouldn't we all then be able to request IP's based on >> what our needs will be for the next few months and not have to >> justify our previous allocations. > > Ben - ARIN doesn't have routing criteria. ARIN does have policies set > by the community which require an ISP to be able to justify a minimum > size block before being able to come directly to ARIN for an allocation. > Once you meet that minimum address requirement, you can come to > ARIN. > >> I'm guessing that at some point, organizations with large >> allocations have made requests for additional space without having >> to justify the usage on their other blocks or else this wouldn't be >> an issue b/c they would have filled them up already and the rest of >> the community wouldn't feel that they're squatting on their previous >> allocations. > > Everytime you come for an additional allocation, you have to show > utilization of your existing address blocks. This applies to equally to > all requesters. > > The concern expressed is that there are some folks who hold large > historically allocations of address space which do not come in at all > for additional allocations, and hence never have to show their usage. > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jmaimon at chl.com Wed Jul 22 13:32:19 2009 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:32:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> Message-ID: <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> John Osmon wrote: > > We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but > we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table > (relatively) late. Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. From alex.ryu at kdlinc.com Wed Jul 22 13:37:14 2009 From: alex.ryu at kdlinc.com (Alex H. Ryu) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:37:14 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> Message-ID: <278B5E4BCD5E654385A9F83C7CA6D517A081BD0D40@MAILBOX-01.qcommcorp.ad> Probably it may not necessary. But this kind of IP return request should go to hostmaster at arin.net, I think. Maybe put the template for IP address Return Request ? Alex _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From woody at pch.net Wed Jul 22 13:53:04 2009 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: <632B9F90-58BF-4A2C-A652-0ECA49931BD6@portnetworks.com> References: <632B9F90-58BF-4A2C-A652-0ECA49931BD6@portnetworks.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Carl Peterson wrote: > I was just going to post the same thing but it is only fair that we > develop a consensus as to when it is ok to blacklist a block for unfair > use of ip space. Once we have a quorum of sorts, like minded admins and > companies should act as a group. > As a basic rule I would start by saying that if a company or group is > holding a large block of ipv4 which they know they will never use, the > part that will never be used should be returned. The ip space that they > are holding only has value because the rest of us route to it. How do you propose to know the difference between space which is unused, and space which is in use on networks which are not directly routed to the portions of the Internet that you can see? Presuming you cannot see the use that people are putting space to, how would your black-holing them penalize them? Once you and your compatriots black-hole them, presuming they comply with your desires and return the space, and it gets doled out to someone else, how do you propose to get the space un-black-holed, so you don't just penalize the subsequent recipient? I see a heck of a lot more complaints from people who've recently received new space that they can't get people to stop black-holing, than I see complaints from people unable to get space. -Bill From jrhett at svcolo.com Wed Jul 22 14:17:01 2009 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:17:01 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <851686854-1248230723-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-974457500-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <851686854-1248230723-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-974457500-@bxe1021.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <082BDE39-BBAC-4BBE-A7A2-A64CB2291E1B@svcolo.com> On Jul 21, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Kelvin Williams wrote: > I have several uplinks to XO. And they have stated they have no IPv6 > plans to us. XO has a small v6 testbed. Bug your salesperson to get on it. But they are supposed to be offering it in general (non-beta) mode this August, although right now I'd suspect more like September. But they are getting there. -- Jo Rhett Senior Network Engineer Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jul 22 14:55:07 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:55:07 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A67608B.5080909@ipinc.net> Ultimately it boils down to the following: Current customers of ISP's all have an IPv4 address assigned. There will come a point for ALL ISP's whether they are /8 holders or small ones, where they won't have any more IPv4 than what they already have handed out to existing customers. There won't be any more IPv4, either from begging ARIN or buying it from someone else, no matter how much you are willing to pay. At that point, NEW customers of those ISP's will be told that they either have to do IPv6 or nothing. For a period of time, those new customers will probably go to other ISPs that still have IPv4. But eventually, ALL ISP's will be out of IPv4 and those new customers will have to take IPv6 or nothing. So, if your a growing ISP and you have lots of unused IPv4 you will be able to grow for a longer time than a competitor who has a little amount of unused IPv4. You benefit and your competitor who has a small amount of IPv4 unused will lose out - BUT they will ONLY lose out on GROWTH. In other words, if your a small ISP and YOUR MAKING MONEY then the IPv4 runout merely means that while your out-of-IPv4, your competitors will simply make more and more money than you. It doesn't mean that you will start LOSING money. You will make the same money you have always made. If your feeding yourself and your family, then you will continue to do so. Eventually, when there's no more ISP's that have IPv4 to give out, then customers will be forced to take IPv6 - and you will be able to pick up growing from where you left off. I think the problem here is that so many people in the ISP business are assuming that growth is only going to happen by stealing customers. Meaning, that if my competitors are growing, it's because they are taking customers away from me, and I'm getting smaller. I humbly submit here that IPv4 depletion isn't going to work this way. Just because you can't give IPv4 to new customers, because you have run out, doesn't mean that your going to lose any existing ones. And if you do lose an existing customer then you will be back in the game and have IPv4 to hand out that your existing customer was using. Thus, I don't buy the fairness arguments I see here. ISPs need to concentrate on making their existing customers happy with their service - that's how you keep from losing customers. And ISP's need to take the long view and realize that the period of time after they have run out of IPv4 and while all their other competitors are still giving out IPv4 is going to be a lot shorter than they think. Some of these small ISP's complaining are are like a small restaurant owner located in town who has an established clientele that likes his food and is keeping him going, who wants to throw all that away so that he can grow to the size of a Burger King or McDonalds, and have a clientele who hates eating his food, and only goes there because they are forced to by their kids who are demanding Happy Meals. So, as an ISP owner you would rather have customers who hate you but are with you because your the only game in town with IPv4? May I ask why your even in the ISP business in the first place? Do you even LIKE the Internet? Or is it nothing more than a convenient mechanism to make money for you, and you would be just as happy selling life insurance policies or something? Think about it. Ted Breault Jonathan wrote: > Basically, I think the problem is that once you hold a resource from arin, > you only need to justify when you request new resources... I think there is > missing a policy that would allow ARIN to ask every 3-5 years for > justification on the resources' usage and take action on the blocks that > have a too small Usage Ratio. > > The question we all need to ask is, do we really want to produce > justification on regular basis? > > What should we do with weak isp's? > > Going after the big historical allocation might be a way to release some ip > blocks. But it can also affect people with smaller blocks ... Maybe we > should give an incentive to holders of /20 that use 2 C classes on it so > they just move to a /22 ... > > Maybe somebody on the list has ideas on how something like that can be > achieved without being unfair for others... > > > jonathan > > Le 22/07/09 12:10 PM, ? John Curran ? a ?crit : > >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Plimpton Ben wrote: >> >>> John >>> >>> If this were the case, once a smaller ISP had met your routing >>> criteria, shouldn't we all then be able to request IP's based on >>> what our needs will be for the next few months and not have to >>> justify our previous allocations. >> Ben - ARIN doesn't have routing criteria. ARIN does have policies set >> by the community which require an ISP to be able to justify a minimum >> size block before being able to come directly to ARIN for an allocation. >> Once you meet that minimum address requirement, you can come to >> ARIN. >> >>> I'm guessing that at some point, organizations with large >>> allocations have made requests for additional space without having >>> to justify the usage on their other blocks or else this wouldn't be >>> an issue b/c they would have filled them up already and the rest of >>> the community wouldn't feel that they're squatting on their previous >>> allocations. >> Everytime you come for an additional allocation, you have to show >> utilization of your existing address blocks. This applies to equally to >> all requesters. >> >> The concern expressed is that there are some folks who hold large >> historically allocations of address space which do not come in at all >> for additional allocations, and hence never have to show their usage. >> >> /John >> >> John Curran >> President and CEO >> ARIN >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jul 22 15:12:53 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:12:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A6724AB.5090108@mis.net> References: <4A661400.604@unwiredbb.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714E1@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> <4A6724AB.5090108@mis.net> Message-ID: <4A6764B5.7060303@ipinc.net> Yes, that is how we did it when we got our /19 see https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four2214 Ted LCJones wrote: > I too am in an IPV4 predicament where by the termination of an upstream > provider has caused a forced renumbering of 2 /20's and several /24's on > our network. I prepare myself for the *grief* of attempting to procure > an equivalent or even a stripped down amount of space so that we can > start the renumbering process for our datacenter clients. Which means I > need additional space prior to returning the reassignment from the > former upstream. > > Am I allowed to get before giving? > From mhalligan at bitpusher.com Wed Jul 22 15:13:30 2009 From: mhalligan at bitpusher.com (Michael T. Halligan) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:13:30 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A67608B.5080909@ipinc.net> References: <4A67608B.5080909@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <01AD2672-6907-4B04-A62B-5F033BD8EC16@bitpusher.com> > > IPv4 runout merely means that while your out-of-IPv4, your > competitors will simply make more and more money than you. It > doesn't mean that you will start LOSING money. You will make the > same money you have always made. If your feeding yourself and your > family, then you will continue to do so. Your train of thought is bizarre. If a customer cannot grow within an ISP, they leave. That is lost revenue. From swm at emanon.com Wed Jul 22 15:07:59 2009 From: swm at emanon.com (Scott Morris) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:07:59 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example In-Reply-To: <2DA95672-95E1-4915-9657-8516ECB50435@arin.net> References: <7403045C-3029-4BA3-92F2-B2FC98F2B9C7@arin.net> <4A67253E.7020301@uplogon.com> <2DA95672-95E1-4915-9657-8516ECB50435@arin.net> Message-ID: <4A67638F.5010201@emanon.com> Testing for transition and being close to complete migration at two ENTIRELY different things. And they aren't under any push or requirement to give back. Personally I've always wondered just what kind of things with THAT MANY IP addresses is the DoD really doing on the public internet anyway??? For a classified side of things, they can use any address set they want as it shouldn't be touching the internet. :) But that's just my opinion. Still doesn't change the rules or regulations (or lack thereof). The overall problem is that it seems to have been much easier for the large players to obtain IPv4 addresses. These are the same large players who appear to be thoroughly unmotivated to even run IPv6 on their networks, and yet they are the upstream providers for the smaller players who are getting beaten to death with these policy shifts. Just my two cents.... *Scott Morris*, CCIE/x4/ (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al. CCSI #21903, JNCI-M, JNCI-ER swm at emanon.com Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil...... John Curran wrote: > On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Chris Gotstein wrote: >> >> What about the DoD? Weren't they very close to finishing up their IPv6 >> transition? Shouldn't some of those blocks be coming back to ARIN soon? > > Chris - > > Recognize that ARIN cannot comment on the status of any of its > members, so that's a question that I cannot address. I will note > that most organizations that have looked at IPv6 transition have > adopted a strategy which has both IPv4 and IPv6 (dual stack) in > parallel for quite some time, and that means that IPv4 resources > only become available after IPv6 has become prevalent. > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jul 22 15:28:30 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:28:30 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580249208E@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580249208E@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <4A67685E.90003@ipinc.net> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking >> to have some), then a transfer market will exist, and those >> unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly have a >> transferable value > > What if HP and Apple sell those addresses to the Russian government for > use in their schools connectivity program? Shhh! Shut up Michael!!!! Your spilling the beans on the secret plans to make Russia even less competitive!!!! We were planning on getting them addicted to IPv4 so that when it ran out they would be as screwed us as we are, and now you've gone and spoiled it!! Ted From rob at raser.com Wed Jul 22 14:29:22 2009 From: rob at raser.com (rob servis) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:29:22 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6 References: <632B9F90-58BF-4A2C-A652-0ECA49931BD6@portnetworks.com> Message-ID: <006e01ca0afa$55880600$800101df@kahuna> > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Carl Peterson wrote: > > I was just going to post the same thing but it is only fair that we > > develop a consensus as to when it is ok to blacklist a block for unfair > > use of ip space. Once we have a quorum of sorts, like minded admins and > > companies should act as a group. > > As a basic rule I would start by saying that if a company or group is > > holding a large block of ipv4 which they know they will never use, the > > part that will never be used should be returned. The ip space that they > > are holding only has value because the rest of us route to it. > > How do you propose to know the difference between space which is unused, > and space which is in use on networks which are not directly routed to the > portions of the Internet that you can see? > > Presuming you cannot see the use that people are putting space to, how > would your black-holing them penalize them? > > Once you and your compatriots black-hole them, presuming they comply with > your desires and return the space, and it gets doled out to someone else, > how do you propose to get the space un-black-holed, so you don't just > penalize the subsequent recipient? > > I see a heck of a lot more complaints from people who've recently received > new space that they can't get people to stop black-holing, than I see > complaints from people unable to get space. > > -Bill I concur --- this could end up a mess if routes started getting blackholed. Although a controlled use of a coordinated facility like the BOGON system could be okay if it is BGP based. There is a presumption here that the 'unused' space is somehow contiguous and therefore even possible to return in any meaningful size chunks. Telcos and NPA/NXX assignments had a similar problem to solve. CLECs were given entire exchanges (10,000 blocks of numbers) until NANPA realized this was not going to be sustainable with the number of new CLECs asking for numbers. They then cut assignments back to 1,000 blocks of numbers and in some cases asked CLECs to give back 9,000 phone numbers. By then the CLECs had given out numbers throughout the entire 10,000 number range (everyone wants 1111 or 2222). It caused some customer service issues and definitely a lot of time and energy to accomplish that relinquishment. Returning IPs from these big blocks may be just as problematic ... a /22 here, a /24 there. This could be a mess. Rob Servis RASER, Inc. From rob at raser.com Wed Jul 22 15:40:41 2009 From: rob at raser.com (rob servis) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:40:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. References: <4A67608B.5080909@ipinc.net> <01AD2672-6907-4B04-A62B-5F033BD8EC16@bitpusher.com> Message-ID: <010601ca0b04$4c35a800$800101df@kahuna> > > IPv4 runout merely means that while your out-of-IPv4, your > > competitors will simply make more and more money than you. It > > doesn't mean that you will start LOSING money. You will make the > > same money you have always made. If your feeding yourself and your > > family, then you will continue to do so. > > Your train of thought is bizarre. If a customer cannot grow within an > ISP, they leave. That is lost revenue. > At first blush, I would have agreed with Ted. For many small to medium sized ISPs --- growth re-assignments to commercial end users are mostly limited to very large customers who really need their own IP space. It is not very common for customers with small /29 or /28s to come back and need more IPs. However, the biggest need for IP growth is the shift from very efficient dialup --- where there is a 6:1 or better ratio between customers and IPs to the broadband world (cable, DSL, wireless) where you only have a 1:1 ratio. In that case we do lose revenue if we don't have IPs to assign to DSL pools. We don't have an upgrade path to convert those dialups to DSL or wireless if we are out of IPs. We lose money if we can't keep converting the same $$$ from dialup to broadband. Rob Servis RASER, Inc. From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jul 22 15:39:36 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:39:36 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example In-Reply-To: <4A67638F.5010201@emanon.com> References: <7403045C-3029-4BA3-92F2-B2FC98F2B9C7@arin.net> <4A67253E.7020301@uplogon.com> <2DA95672-95E1-4915-9657-8516ECB50435@arin.net> <4A67638F.5010201@emanon.com> Message-ID: <4A676AF8.1020500@ipinc.net> Scott Morris wrote: > The overall problem is that it seems to have been much easier for the > large players to obtain IPv4 addresses. These are the same large > players who appear to be thoroughly unmotivated to even run IPv6 on > their networks, and yet they are the upstream providers for the smaller > players who are getting beaten to death with these policy shifts. > Of course it's easier. It's like the old joke about the refrigerator repairman. It's easier because they do this all the time and they have their operation setup to integrate everything that's needed when IP request time comes around. So when request time comes around all the information is right there and all they have to do is push a button and the request is fully generated and off it goes to ARIN. Of course, OTOH, once IPv4 runout happens and ARIN isn't handing out IPv4 anymore, these large players will be up a creek. Their burn rate is far too high to be satisfied by scrabbling around the Internet looking for unused small IPv4 blocks here and there that they can buy up at garage sales. Ted From GBove at nyigc.com Wed Jul 22 15:24:51 2009 From: GBove at nyigc.com (Gerald Bove) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:24:51 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A67608B.5080909@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <1272A58E063C684BA7A0EA1A323B58F702E76C73@mailserver4.nyigc.globe> I usually try to keep quite and read, but I must disagree with this. 1) No one runs an ISP for the fun of it, they do it to make money. Maybe making money off doing something they enjoy, but not purely for the fun of it. Anyone who tells you different is lying. 2) No ISP can stop selling service and expect to survive, if even only for a couple months. A basic business rule says if your not growing, your dying. Every ISP knows that when your smaller, you have to hedge your bets so to speak. You pay more for transit then you would like because you know the more clients you take on, the less the total cost works out to be. Any ISP that can live for any extended amount of time without taking on new clients has either stopped upgrading and improving their network (which is sure death in this day and age), or have won the Internet. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the "sky is falling" camp personally. Yes the transition is going to be hard, yes its going to get even harder as time goes by, but this is hardly "news", we all knew this was coming. Our best bet at the moment is for us all to implement IPv6 (as been mentioned by many people already), and take a real good look at our own IPv4 usage, not just the big dogs. Maybe its time for us all to start really implementing the terms on our IP Justification forms. When was the last time you took a good look at all your clients with /28's and bigger? Do you really need to give EVERY client a /29? All this talk about extending IPv4 is just a band-aid, not a solution. A solution would be a conversation on how to really push IPv6 implementation. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:55 PM To: Breault Jonathan Cc: ARIN Discussion List Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Ultimately it boils down to the following: Current customers of ISP's all have an IPv4 address assigned. There will come a point for ALL ISP's whether they are /8 holders or small ones, where they won't have any more IPv4 than what they already have handed out to existing customers. There won't be any more IPv4, either from begging ARIN or buying it from someone else, no matter how much you are willing to pay. At that point, NEW customers of those ISP's will be told that they either have to do IPv6 or nothing. For a period of time, those new customers will probably go to other ISPs that still have IPv4. But eventually, ALL ISP's will be out of IPv4 and those new customers will have to take IPv6 or nothing. So, if your a growing ISP and you have lots of unused IPv4 you will be able to grow for a longer time than a competitor who has a little amount of unused IPv4. You benefit and your competitor who has a small amount of IPv4 unused will lose out - BUT they will ONLY lose out on GROWTH. In other words, if your a small ISP and YOUR MAKING MONEY then the IPv4 runout merely means that while your out-of-IPv4, your competitors will simply make more and more money than you. It doesn't mean that you will start LOSING money. You will make the same money you have always made. If your feeding yourself and your family, then you will continue to do so. Eventually, when there's no more ISP's that have IPv4 to give out, then customers will be forced to take IPv6 - and you will be able to pick up growing from where you left off. I think the problem here is that so many people in the ISP business are assuming that growth is only going to happen by stealing customers. Meaning, that if my competitors are growing, it's because they are taking customers away from me, and I'm getting smaller. I humbly submit here that IPv4 depletion isn't going to work this way. Just because you can't give IPv4 to new customers, because you have run out, doesn't mean that your going to lose any existing ones. And if you do lose an existing customer then you will be back in the game and have IPv4 to hand out that your existing customer was using. Thus, I don't buy the fairness arguments I see here. ISPs need to concentrate on making their existing customers happy with their service - that's how you keep from losing customers. And ISP's need to take the long view and realize that the period of time after they have run out of IPv4 and while all their other competitors are still giving out IPv4 is going to be a lot shorter than they think. Some of these small ISP's complaining are are like a small restaurant owner located in town who has an established clientele that likes his food and is keeping him going, who wants to throw all that away so that he can grow to the size of a Burger King or McDonalds, and have a clientele who hates eating his food, and only goes there because they are forced to by their kids who are demanding Happy Meals. So, as an ISP owner you would rather have customers who hate you but are with you because your the only game in town with IPv4? May I ask why your even in the ISP business in the first place? Do you even LIKE the Internet? Or is it nothing more than a convenient mechanism to make money for you, and you would be just as happy selling life insurance policies or something? Think about it. Ted Breault Jonathan wrote: > Basically, I think the problem is that once you hold a resource from > arin, you only need to justify when you request new resources... I > think there is missing a policy that would allow ARIN to ask every 3-5 > years for justification on the resources' usage and take action on the > blocks that have a too small Usage Ratio. > > The question we all need to ask is, do we really want to produce > justification on regular basis? > > What should we do with weak isp's? > > Going after the big historical allocation might be a way to release > some ip blocks. But it can also affect people with smaller blocks ... > Maybe we should give an incentive to holders of /20 that use 2 C > classes on it so they just move to a /22 ... > > Maybe somebody on the list has ideas on how something like that can be > achieved without being unfair for others... > > > jonathan > > Le 22/07/09 12:10 PM, ? John Curran ? a ?crit : > >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Plimpton Ben wrote: >> >>> John >>> >>> If this were the case, once a smaller ISP had met your routing >>> criteria, shouldn't we all then be able to request IP's based on >>> what our needs will be for the next few months and not have to >>> justify our previous allocations. >> Ben - ARIN doesn't have routing criteria. ARIN does have policies >> set by the community which require an ISP to be able to justify a >> minimum size block before being able to come directly to ARIN for an allocation. >> Once you meet that minimum address requirement, you can come to ARIN. >> >>> I'm guessing that at some point, organizations with large >>> allocations have made requests for additional space without having >>> to justify the usage on their other blocks or else this wouldn't be >>> an issue b/c they would have filled them up already and the rest of >>> the community wouldn't feel that they're squatting on their previous >>> allocations. >> Everytime you come for an additional allocation, you have to show >> utilization of your existing address blocks. This applies to equally >> to all requesters. >> >> The concern expressed is that there are some folks who hold large >> historically allocations of address space which do not come in at all >> for additional allocations, and hence never have to show their usage. >> >> /John >> >> John Curran >> President and CEO >> ARIN >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Wed Jul 22 15:43:25 2009 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:43:25 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> Message-ID: <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > John Osmon wrote: > > > > >We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but > >we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table > >(relatively) late. > > Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to significant difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Wed Jul 22 15:51:26 2009 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:51:26 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <085e01ca0b05$d2ff7720$78fe6560$@net> Write it up. The policy proposal template is on the site. Worst that can happen is that it gets shot down and that in and of itself would expose some issues we may not have seen. Aaron -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jon Auer Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:53 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. I'm in the same boat upstream-wise. As of the last time I inquired of my upstreams (9 months ago so maybe its time to check again) IPv6 was not available. TWC told me they had no plans to support it and Cogent said their engineers were looking into it but they did not have a deployment timeline. We just hit 80% on our /19. I'm getting my paperwork in order to ask for another allocation but I'm starting to hear through the grapevine that ARIN has become more picky than usual over the past few months with regards to vetting IPv4 requests (as they should be). So, ARIN is a member organization. Each of us has a vote. Just like Sprint, Comcast and each regional TWC network. Together we small service providers probably have more votes than they do. Of the people in this thread I recognize at least two of you from industry lists, etc. Not sure if that's reciprocal. (Hi! Techware, UP Logon (WISPA right?)) Lets all get more involved with the ARIN process and fix this. See: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Who would be in favor of a policy along the lines of the following: ARIN shall not issue any IPv4 Number Resources unless the requesting organization has: 1. A IPv6 subnet properly allocated from ARIN 2. Said IPv6 subnet is announced in the global IPv6 routing table 3. Said IPv6 subnet is visible from a neutral 3rd party's looking glass (routeviews.org or similar) 4. Organization's customers or end users that would normally be assigned a non-RFC1918 IPv4 address are given the option of additionally being assigned a IPv6 subnet from said provider within 12 months or the IPv4 Number Resource granted under this policy shall be revoked. I had a IPv6 subnet allocated from ARIN and routed globally though HE.net's tunnel broker within 48 hours. Meeting a policy like that should be easy. Even if you are a large provider 12 months should be enough time to get one customer running with IPv6 to demonstrate token compliance with section 4... On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:42 PM, wrote: > Send ARIN-discuss mailing list submissions to > arin-discuss at arin.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > arin-discuss-request at arin.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > arin-discuss-owner at arin.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. (Tony Valenti) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:42:39 -0500 > From: Tony Valenti > To: John Brown > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned.I think a big > mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly assumes that we have > something to do with making IPV6 a reality and managing IPV4 address space. > > Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and asked them > when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After being escalated all the > way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that they have no plans to > implement IPV6 which means that if I put any content on an IPV6 address, I > can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US won't have access to it. > > So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't care, > and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address space because > the internet is officially out, what will you do? As a webhosting company, > we have no choice but to pay whatever the black market price for IPs is or > go out of business/quit accepting customers. > > If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually emphasizes the > problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything to fix the > problem - they just make the current process harder. ARIN is a doomsday > prophet powerless to change the fate that we all will endure. > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown wrote: > >> I?ll ask the age old question again. >> >> What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If Apple got >> the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives ARIN the >> ability to enforce rules today. >> >> Its contracts law. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: >> >> I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where the big >> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. >> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small ISP >> that comes along asking for address space. >> >> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and also >> requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts >> because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 block >> and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the >> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure >> IPv6 for a long time to come. >> >> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly unused >> blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or >> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of these >> companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of address >> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >> blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their >> block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should >> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >> >> >> -- >> Chris Gotstein >> Sr Network Engineer >> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >> 500 N Stephenson Ave >> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >> Phone: 906-774-4847 >> Fax: 906-774-0335 >> chris at uplogon.com >> >> Kelvin Williams wrote: >> > Whoa, whoa, whoa. >> > >> > I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL subscribers. >> > >> > In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running Linux >> or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority of web >> destinations were running IPv6. >> > >> > I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause >> problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >> > >> > So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what >> blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will now be >> at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny portion of the >> blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >> > >> > Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address >> because they can go for that. >> > >> > I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a steering >> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and the DoD to >> implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they need to pay. >> In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their networks >> aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition versus the >> ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >> > >> > Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >> responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >> establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of large >> bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >> > >> > (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >> > >> > >> > Kw >> > >> > >> > Kelvin Williams >> > Altus Communications Group, Inc. >> > Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >> > Office Main: 678.369.5970 >> > Fax: 866.895.8557 >> > Mobile: 678.852.4173 >> > >> > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt >> > >> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >> > To: John Brown >> > Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >> > some), then a transfer market will >> > exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >> > have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue to sit >> > on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them >> > a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, >> > they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they lose. >> > >> > Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >> > and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody will >> > be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >> > >> > Either way, it works the same. >> > >> > Ted >> > >> > John Brown wrote: >> >> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to assess a >> >> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >> >> >> >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no fee as >> >> part of the "contract". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >> >>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> >>> >> >>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >> >>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >> >>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >> >>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >> >>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >> >>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >> >>> a NAT type firewall >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Steve Wagner >> >>> Vice President of Operations >> >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >> >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >> >>> Boise, ID 83705 >> >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >> >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >> >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >> >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >> >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >> >>> >> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >> >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >> >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >> >>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >> >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >> >>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >> >>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >> >>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> >>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >> >>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >> >>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >> >>> thereafter. Thank you. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of John Brown >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >> >>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >> >>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> >>> >> >>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >> >>> the actual >> >>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >> >>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist any >> >>> more. >> >>> >> >>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >> >>> higher than the >> >>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I could >> >>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public spot >> >>> light on those providers. :| >> >>> >> >>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >> >>> space should >> >>> return the space they aren't using. >> >>> >> >>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >> >>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >> >>> >> >>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >> >>> >> >>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >> >>> don't know. >> >>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >> >>> >> >>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >> >>> good work >> >>> under the guidelines they have. >> >>> >> >>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >> >>> request, I'm sure >> >>> it can be resolved. >> >>> >> >>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately work >> >>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >> >>> muster and what >> >>> may need to be done to help it float. >> >>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >> >>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >> >>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >> >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi. >> >>>> >> >>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >> >>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >> >>>> way too long. >> >>>> >> >>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >> >>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >> >>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the pool. >> >>>> >> >>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >> >>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >> >>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >> >>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >> >>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >> >>>> >> >>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >> >>>> >> >>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >> >>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >> >>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >> >>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >> >>>> >> >>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >> >>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >> >>>> stock offering. >> >>>> >> >>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: PROFIT >> >>>> >> >>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >> >>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >> >>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >> >>>> >> >>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net >> >>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >> >>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> ARIN-Discuss >> >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >>>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> ARIN-Discuss >> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> ARIN-Discuss >> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-discuss mailing list > ARIN-discuss at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > End of ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 8 > ******************************************* > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jul 22 15:57:48 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:57:48 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <01AD2672-6907-4B04-A62B-5F033BD8EC16@bitpusher.com> References: <4A67608B.5080909@ipinc.net> <01AD2672-6907-4B04-A62B-5F033BD8EC16@bitpusher.com> Message-ID: <4A676F3C.4030809@ipinc.net> Michael T. Halligan wrote: >> >> IPv4 runout merely means that while your out-of-IPv4, your competitors >> will simply make more and more money than you. It doesn't mean that >> you will start LOSING money. You will make the same money you have >> always made. If your feeding yourself and your family, then you will >> continue to do so. > > Your train of thought is bizarre. If a customer cannot grow within an > ISP, they leave. That is lost revenue. > No true. Customers of ISP's that regularly grow their own usage of IPv4 are either ISP's themselves - in which they are in the same boat as you - or service providers (webhosters and such) or very large orgs who aren't using address translation. And all of these customers should be well aware of the constraints in the global IPv4 supply, and you should already be talking to them NOW about their future use, and getting them to buy usage of more IPv4 from you now, so that you can get your requests going now. IPv4 runout is only a few more years away. And I will also point out that once IPv4 runout happens, the large consumers of IPv4 will have a VERY limited number of competitors of yours to choose from, and those competitors will rapidly start raising prices for large blocks of IPv4. If pricing for a single IP address jumps by, let's say, 100 times, then this might only be a $20 a year price increase for an end-user using a single IP address. I'll leave you to do the math for your "growing" IPv4 customers but it's easy to see that customers who regularly grow their IPv4 usage, particularly by large amounts, are going to be among the first to be severely crimped after runout occurs. They will pass their shortages and price increases down to their users, just as you are doing to them. They also will be much more aggressive about pushing address translation and you will see address translation appearing in places it didn't before. For example most college dormitories hand out public IPv4 to their students in the form of ethernet connections. That's probably going to be some of the first "gimmies" to disappear. The students will get private addresses for free, not public. Ted From ptimmins at clearrate.com Wed Jul 22 15:49:49 2009 From: ptimmins at clearrate.com (Paul G. Timmins) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:49:49 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: <006e01ca0afa$55880600$800101df@kahuna> References: <632B9F90-58BF-4A2C-A652-0ECA49931BD6@portnetworks.com> <006e01ca0afa$55880600$800101df@kahuna> Message-ID: Sorry for the top post, I blame outlook. What actually happened is that they had to look for any range of 1,000 numbers where they used less than 100 of them, and return anything they couldn't justify. The relinquishment works by a coordinator (National Pooling) that coordinates requests for new ranges, and uses LNP to port the entire range of 1,000 numbers (minus numbers being used, if any (these are known as "polluted" blocks because they aren't contiguous ranges of 1,000)). (Local utilities commissions are involved in this whole thing too, and getting numbers is a huge mess of paperwork) Customers did not have to relinquish existing numbers (renumbering) and the only energy required was that of the phone companies in basically equal quantities (ILECs had to do this too, some of our number blocks used to belong to the ILEC). We don't really have an analog to LNP in the network. At the time, LNP was an existing tool that could be leveraged for this, so it was that much easier to do. The only issue was tracking down number inventory and performing the accounting that should have been required under the NRUF anyway (the telco equivalent to an ARIN justification). -Paul -----Original Message----- Telcos and NPA/NXX assignments had a similar problem to solve. CLECs were given entire exchanges (10,000 blocks of numbers) until NANPA realized this was not going to be sustainable with the number of new CLECs asking for numbers. They then cut assignments back to 1,000 blocks of numbers and in some cases asked CLECs to give back 9,000 phone numbers. By then the CLECs had given out numbers throughout the entire 10,000 number range (everyone wants 1111 or 2222). It caused some customer service issues and definitely a lot of time and energy to accomplish that relinquishment. Returning IPs from these big blocks may be just as problematic ... a /22 here, a /24 there. This could be a mess. Rob Servis RASER, Inc. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jbreault at hostlogistic.com Wed Jul 22 16:02:03 2009 From: jbreault at hostlogistic.com (Breault Jonathan) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:02:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A67608B.5080909@ipinc.net> Message-ID: Ted, My email wasn't about small isps that are thinking that running out of ips will stop their growth.... Its not about Isp profitability ... Its not about money ... I am not saying that ipv4 migration to ipv6 will be the end of the world... Its about being able to do ipv6 migration right ... I might be the only one to believe that we can't fully switch to IPV6 by converting smaller isps to the tier1 ... Tier1 and large backbone tier2 need to go to ipv6 first, there is no work real work around to it ... until we see a couple Tier1 doing native IPV6 on all their POPs... I still think that forcing a better usage of IPV4 will help the goal of going to ipv6 Faster ... When I see that we gave out a /9 to verizon I cant see how we are trying to help the cause of IPV6 ... We all need to go Ipv6 one day, but its hard without native ipv6 available and heaven harder to drop ipv4 ... If we IPv4 will still be needed for a couple of years... So why don't we all try to get it done right ? Jonathan Le 22/07/09 2:55 PM, ??Ted Mittelstaedt?? a ?crit?: > Ultimately it boils down to the following: > > Current customers of ISP's all have an IPv4 address assigned. > > There will come a point for ALL ISP's whether they are /8 holders > or small ones, where they won't have any more IPv4 than what they > already have handed out to existing customers. There won't be > any more IPv4, either from begging ARIN or buying it from someone else, > no matter how much you are willing to pay. > > At that point, NEW customers of those ISP's will be told that > they either have to do IPv6 or nothing. > > For a period of time, those new customers will probably go to other > ISPs that still have IPv4. > > But eventually, ALL ISP's will be out of IPv4 and those new customers > will have to take IPv6 or nothing. > > So, if your a growing ISP and you have lots of unused IPv4 you will > be able to grow for a longer time than a competitor who has a little > amount of unused IPv4. You benefit and your competitor who has a small > amount of IPv4 unused will lose out - BUT they will ONLY lose out on GROWTH. > > In other words, if your a small ISP and YOUR MAKING MONEY then the > IPv4 runout merely means that while your out-of-IPv4, your competitors > will simply make more and more money than you. It doesn't mean that you > will start LOSING money. You will make the same money you have always > made. If your feeding yourself and your family, then you will continue > to do so. > > Eventually, when there's no more ISP's that have IPv4 to give out, then > customers will be forced to take IPv6 - and you will be able to pick up > growing from where you left off. > > I think the problem here is that so many people in the ISP business are > assuming that growth is only going to happen by stealing customers. > Meaning, that if my competitors are growing, it's because they are > taking customers away from me, and I'm getting smaller. > > I humbly submit here that IPv4 depletion isn't going to work this way. > Just because you can't give IPv4 to new customers, because you have run > out, doesn't mean that your going to lose any existing ones. And if you > do lose an existing customer then you will be back in the game and have > IPv4 to hand out that your existing customer was using. > > Thus, I don't buy the fairness arguments I see here. ISPs need to > concentrate on making their existing customers happy with their service > - that's how you keep from losing customers. And ISP's need to take the > long view and realize that the period of time after they have run out of > IPv4 and while all their other competitors are still giving out IPv4 is > going to be a lot shorter than they think. > > Some of these small ISP's complaining are are like a small restaurant > owner located in town who has an established clientele that likes his > food and is keeping him going, who wants to throw all that away so that > he can grow to the size of a Burger King or McDonalds, and have a > clientele who hates eating his food, and only goes there because they > are forced to by their kids who are demanding Happy Meals. > > So, as an ISP owner you would rather have customers who hate you but are > with you because your the only game in town with IPv4? May I ask why > your even in the ISP business in the first place? Do you even LIKE the > Internet? Or is it nothing more than a convenient mechanism to make > money for you, and you would be just as happy selling life insurance > policies or something? > > Think about it. > > Ted > > Breault Jonathan wrote: >> Basically, I think the problem is that once you hold a resource from arin, >> you only need to justify when you request new resources... I think there is >> missing a policy that would allow ARIN to ask every 3-5 years for >> justification on the resources' usage and take action on the blocks that >> have a too small Usage Ratio. >> >> The question we all need to ask is, do we really want to produce >> justification on regular basis? >> >> What should we do with weak isp's? >> >> Going after the big historical allocation might be a way to release some ip >> blocks. But it can also affect people with smaller blocks ... Maybe we >> should give an incentive to holders of /20 that use 2 C classes on it so >> they just move to a /22 ... >> >> Maybe somebody on the list has ideas on how something like that can be >> achieved without being unfair for others... >> >> >> jonathan >> >> Le 22/07/09 12:10 PM, ? John Curran ? a ?crit : >> >>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Plimpton Ben wrote: >>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> If this were the case, once a smaller ISP had met your routing >>>> criteria, shouldn't we all then be able to request IP's based on >>>> what our needs will be for the next few months and not have to >>>> justify our previous allocations. >>> Ben - ARIN doesn't have routing criteria. ARIN does have policies set >>> by the community which require an ISP to be able to justify a minimum >>> size block before being able to come directly to ARIN for an allocation. >>> Once you meet that minimum address requirement, you can come to >>> ARIN. >>> >>>> I'm guessing that at some point, organizations with large >>>> allocations have made requests for additional space without having >>>> to justify the usage on their other blocks or else this wouldn't be >>>> an issue b/c they would have filled them up already and the rest of >>>> the community wouldn't feel that they're squatting on their previous >>>> allocations. >>> Everytime you come for an additional allocation, you have to show >>> utilization of your existing address blocks. This applies to equally to >>> all requesters. >>> >>> The concern expressed is that there are some folks who hold large >>> historically allocations of address space which do not come in at all >>> for additional allocations, and hence never have to show their usage. >>> >>> /John >>> >>> John Curran >>> President and CEO >>> ARIN >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > From stwagner at syringanetworks.net Wed Jul 22 16:06:35 2009 From: stwagner at syringanetworks.net (Steve Wagner) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:06:35 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> Message-ID: As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of Idaho has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit behind two different firewalls. Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls And so forth into perpetuity it seems In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies have, particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address space behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a company entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, B, C etc. There is no technical or administrative justification I can see. Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the tide for many years. It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP address space by entity and determine how many of these organizations sit behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small portion of their allocation. Regards, Steve Wagner Vice President of Operations Syringa Networks, LLC 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 Boise, ID 83705 Office: 208.229.6104 Main: 208.229.6100 Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 Fax: 208.229.6110 Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net Web: www.syringanetworks.net "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" Privilege and Confidentiality Notice The information in this message is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Osmon Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > John Osmon wrote: > > > > >We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but > >we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table > >(relatively) late. > > Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to significant difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Wed Jul 22 16:00:07 2009 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example In-Reply-To: <4A67638F.5010201@emanon.com> References: <7403045C-3029-4BA3-92F2-B2FC98F2B9C7@arin.net> <4A67253E.7020301@uplogon.com> <2DA95672-95E1-4915-9657-8516ECB50435@arin.net> <4A67638F.5010201@emanon.com> Message-ID: <946727.81361.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> >The overall problem is that it seems to have been much easier for the >large players to obtain IPv4 addresses. These are the same large >players who appear to be thoroughly unmotivated to even run IPv6 on >their networks, and yet they are the upstream providers for the smaller >players who are getting beaten to death with these policy shifts. As far as I can tell, all large ISPs are working to support IPv6. They haven't all completed their work yet, but maybe they have two more years to do so? Lee From dsong at nexgit.com Wed Jul 22 16:10:10 2009 From: dsong at nexgit.com (David Song) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:10:10 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <006e01ca0afa$55880600$800101df@kahuna> References: <632B9F90-58BF-4A2C-A652-0ECA49931BD6@portnetworks.com> <006e01ca0afa$55880600$800101df@kahuna> Message-ID: Unsubscribe -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of rob servis Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:29 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6 > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Carl Peterson wrote: > > I was just going to post the same thing but it is only fair that we > > develop a consensus as to when it is ok to blacklist a block for unfair > > use of ip space. Once we have a quorum of sorts, like minded > admins and > > companies should act as a group. > > As a basic rule I would start by saying that if a company or > group is > > holding a large block of ipv4 which they know they will never > use, the > > part that will never be used should be returned. The ip space > that they > > are holding only has value because the rest of us route to it. > > How do you propose to know the difference between space which is > unused, and space which is in use on networks which are not directly > routed to the portions of the Internet that you can see? > > Presuming you cannot see the use that people are putting space to, how > would your black-holing them penalize them? > > Once you and your compatriots black-hole them, presuming they comply > with your desires and return the space, and it gets doled out to > someone else, how do you propose to get the space un-black-holed, so > you don't just penalize the subsequent recipient? > > I see a heck of a lot more complaints from people who've recently > received new space that they can't get people to stop black-holing, > than I see complaints from people unable to get space. > > -Bill I concur --- this could end up a mess if routes started getting blackholed. Although a controlled use of a coordinated facility like the BOGON system could be okay if it is BGP based. There is a presumption here that the 'unused' space is somehow contiguous and therefore even possible to return in any meaningful size chunks. Telcos and NPA/NXX assignments had a similar problem to solve. CLECs were given entire exchanges (10,000 blocks of numbers) until NANPA realized this was not going to be sustainable with the number of new CLECs asking for numbers. They then cut assignments back to 1,000 blocks of numbers and in some cases asked CLECs to give back 9,000 phone numbers. By then the CLECs had given out numbers throughout the entire 10,000 number range (everyone wants 1111 or 2222). It caused some customer service issues and definitely a lot of time and energy to accomplish that relinquishment. Returning IPs from these big blocks may be just as problematic ... a /22 here, a /24 there. This could be a mess. Rob Servis RASER, Inc. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jul 22 16:16:53 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:16:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <010601ca0b04$4c35a800$800101df@kahuna> References: <4A67608B.5080909@ipinc.net> <01AD2672-6907-4B04-A62B-5F033BD8EC16@bitpusher.com> <010601ca0b04$4c35a800$800101df@kahuna> Message-ID: <4A6773B5.4040905@ipinc.net> rob servis wrote: >>> IPv4 runout merely means that while your out-of-IPv4, your >>> competitors will simply make more and more money than you. It >>> doesn't mean that you will start LOSING money. You will make the >>> same money you have always made. If your feeding yourself and your >>> family, then you will continue to do so. >> Your train of thought is bizarre. If a customer cannot grow within an >> ISP, they leave. That is lost revenue. >> > > At first blush, I would have agreed with Ted. For many small to medium > sized ISPs --- growth re-assignments to commercial end users are mostly > limited to very large customers who really need their own IP space. It is > not very common for customers with small /29 or /28s to come back and need > more IPs. > > However, the biggest need for IP growth is the shift from very efficient > dialup --- where there is a 6:1 or better ratio between customers and IPs to > the broadband world (cable, DSL, wireless) where you only have a 1:1 ratio. > In that case we do lose revenue if we don't have IPs to assign to DSL pools. > We don't have an upgrade path to convert those dialups to DSL or wireless if > we are out of IPs. We lose money if we can't keep converting the same $$$ > from dialup to broadband. > I don't see this as much of a problem. We have both dialup and DSL customers, we've been selling DSL since Feb. 2001 and we have been marketing DSL to our customers ever since then. All of our competitors have been doing this to their dialup customer base as well. The customers remaining on dialup are either stuck in areas where they have no broadband and dialup is the only thing available, or they are least-cost customers who cannot find a neighbors open wireless network that they can scam free service off of. If I felt that there was much chance of shifting them to broadband I would consider IPv4 runout a boon, since I could create a marketing campaign that would essentially state that if they don't shift right now, that they would not be guaranteed a public IPv4 address in the future. But I think that would be a waste as these folks generally wouldn't know an IP address from a postal address, and when they eventually do shift, I can simply charge them $2 more a month for a "public" address vs a "private" address and I am certain that just about all of them would go for the private address - and wouldn't know the difference. The end users who do care are the ones who want to remotely access their machine, or online game or whatever, and they all switched to broadband years ago. Of our DSL customers, easily 90% of them run DSL modem/router CPE devices that do NOT have ANY ports forwarded and run NAT already within the device - these folks are effectively on private numbers now, at least, on the PC's that they have plugged into their CPE's. Of course, it does get a bit ridiculous to have CPE's that are translators on translated IP numbers on the DSL network, but I don't think it would be much different than customers who put a Linksys address translator behind a DSL CPE that's running translation now. And I run into probably one of those every couple of weeks, completely oblivious to the fact that they are double-natting. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jul 22 16:47:07 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:47:07 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A677ACB.4030702@ipinc.net> Breault, You had asked "...without being unfair for others..." and the fairness aspect is what I was responding to. My personal belief is that IPv4 runout will be a fundamentally unfair event for many reasons - the issue of large ISP's not offering IPv6 right now is just one of the many reasons it will be unfair. But, here is my belief, the unfairness will be merely that the ISP's who aren't paying attention will be broadsided, those will be the roadkill. I very seriously doubt that ANYONE subscribed to this list will be in that group. Anyone subscribed here already knows what's coming down the pike. The shift will be "fair" to ALL ISP's that right now, start getting ready for it, whether they are big or small. It will only be unfair when you compare those ISP's who are planning for it, against the rest of the crowd out there who isn't. Your absolutely right that the large networks need to start routing IPv6. Some are, the majority, at least in the US, probably aren't. Looking glass on my router - its http://whois.ipinc.net/cgi-bin/lg.pl if you want to see for yourself - only shows a grand total of 1935 network entries for IPv6 routes vs 289378 network entries for IPv4 routes. In short, a bit more than half of 1% of all advertising AS's on the Internet are advertising both IPv4 and IPv6. And, IPv4 runout per http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html states current date of exhaustion in 3 years, tops, so somehow in the next 3 years we are supposed to go from less than 1% to 100% of all ASs on the Internet being dual-stacked? Yeah, right. That's a train wreck in the making if there ever was one. I think we all seriously have to face the fact that it's already too late for IPv6 migration to be done right. Rule changes that may have made it more fair should have been done a decade ago. They weren't then, because everyone figured "Oh we have a decade to figure it out" Now the decade is over and people are still undecided as to what to do. The train wreck will have happened and the mess will be cleaned up before everyone agrees. There is still enough time right now for an individual ISP that has a network manager with any common sense, to get it together to save their ISP for themselves and be ready for the transition. But there's not enough time to save the rest of the ISP's out there who are fat, dumb and happy, and utterly oblivious. Ted Breault Jonathan wrote: > Ted, > > My email wasn't about small isps that are thinking that running out of ips > will stop their growth.... Its not about Isp profitability ... Its not > about money ... I am not saying that ipv4 migration to ipv6 will be the end > of the world... Its about being able to do ipv6 migration right ... > > I might be the only one to believe that we can't fully switch to IPV6 by > converting smaller isps to the tier1 ... Tier1 and large backbone tier2 need > to go to ipv6 first, there is no work real work around to it ... until we > see a couple Tier1 doing native IPV6 on all their POPs... > > I still think that forcing a better usage of IPV4 will help the goal of > going to ipv6 Faster ... When I see that we gave out a /9 to verizon I cant > see how we are trying to help the cause of IPV6 ... We all need to go Ipv6 > one day, but its hard without native ipv6 available and heaven harder to > drop ipv4 ... If we > > IPv4 will still be needed for a couple of years... So why don't we all try > to get it done right ? > > Jonathan > > Le 22/07/09 2:55 PM, ? Ted Mittelstaedt ? a ?crit : > >> Ultimately it boils down to the following: >> >> Current customers of ISP's all have an IPv4 address assigned. >> >> There will come a point for ALL ISP's whether they are /8 holders >> or small ones, where they won't have any more IPv4 than what they >> already have handed out to existing customers. There won't be >> any more IPv4, either from begging ARIN or buying it from someone else, >> no matter how much you are willing to pay. >> >> At that point, NEW customers of those ISP's will be told that >> they either have to do IPv6 or nothing. >> >> For a period of time, those new customers will probably go to other >> ISPs that still have IPv4. >> >> But eventually, ALL ISP's will be out of IPv4 and those new customers >> will have to take IPv6 or nothing. >> >> So, if your a growing ISP and you have lots of unused IPv4 you will >> be able to grow for a longer time than a competitor who has a little >> amount of unused IPv4. You benefit and your competitor who has a small >> amount of IPv4 unused will lose out - BUT they will ONLY lose out on GROWTH. >> >> In other words, if your a small ISP and YOUR MAKING MONEY then the >> IPv4 runout merely means that while your out-of-IPv4, your competitors >> will simply make more and more money than you. It doesn't mean that you >> will start LOSING money. You will make the same money you have always >> made. If your feeding yourself and your family, then you will continue >> to do so. >> >> Eventually, when there's no more ISP's that have IPv4 to give out, then >> customers will be forced to take IPv6 - and you will be able to pick up >> growing from where you left off. >> >> I think the problem here is that so many people in the ISP business are >> assuming that growth is only going to happen by stealing customers. >> Meaning, that if my competitors are growing, it's because they are >> taking customers away from me, and I'm getting smaller. >> >> I humbly submit here that IPv4 depletion isn't going to work this way. >> Just because you can't give IPv4 to new customers, because you have run >> out, doesn't mean that your going to lose any existing ones. And if you >> do lose an existing customer then you will be back in the game and have >> IPv4 to hand out that your existing customer was using. >> >> Thus, I don't buy the fairness arguments I see here. ISPs need to >> concentrate on making their existing customers happy with their service >> - that's how you keep from losing customers. And ISP's need to take the >> long view and realize that the period of time after they have run out of >> IPv4 and while all their other competitors are still giving out IPv4 is >> going to be a lot shorter than they think. >> >> Some of these small ISP's complaining are are like a small restaurant >> owner located in town who has an established clientele that likes his >> food and is keeping him going, who wants to throw all that away so that >> he can grow to the size of a Burger King or McDonalds, and have a >> clientele who hates eating his food, and only goes there because they >> are forced to by their kids who are demanding Happy Meals. >> >> So, as an ISP owner you would rather have customers who hate you but are >> with you because your the only game in town with IPv4? May I ask why >> your even in the ISP business in the first place? Do you even LIKE the >> Internet? Or is it nothing more than a convenient mechanism to make >> money for you, and you would be just as happy selling life insurance >> policies or something? >> >> Think about it. >> >> Ted >> >> Breault Jonathan wrote: >>> Basically, I think the problem is that once you hold a resource from arin, >>> you only need to justify when you request new resources... I think there is >>> missing a policy that would allow ARIN to ask every 3-5 years for >>> justification on the resources' usage and take action on the blocks that >>> have a too small Usage Ratio. >>> >>> The question we all need to ask is, do we really want to produce >>> justification on regular basis? >>> >>> What should we do with weak isp's? >>> >>> Going after the big historical allocation might be a way to release some ip >>> blocks. But it can also affect people with smaller blocks ... Maybe we >>> should give an incentive to holders of /20 that use 2 C classes on it so >>> they just move to a /22 ... >>> >>> Maybe somebody on the list has ideas on how something like that can be >>> achieved without being unfair for others... >>> >>> >>> jonathan >>> >>> Le 22/07/09 12:10 PM, ? John Curran ? a ?crit : >>> >>>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Plimpton Ben wrote: >>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> If this were the case, once a smaller ISP had met your routing >>>>> criteria, shouldn't we all then be able to request IP's based on >>>>> what our needs will be for the next few months and not have to >>>>> justify our previous allocations. >>>> Ben - ARIN doesn't have routing criteria. ARIN does have policies set >>>> by the community which require an ISP to be able to justify a minimum >>>> size block before being able to come directly to ARIN for an allocation. >>>> Once you meet that minimum address requirement, you can come to >>>> ARIN. >>>> >>>>> I'm guessing that at some point, organizations with large >>>>> allocations have made requests for additional space without having >>>>> to justify the usage on their other blocks or else this wouldn't be >>>>> an issue b/c they would have filled them up already and the rest of >>>>> the community wouldn't feel that they're squatting on their previous >>>>> allocations. >>>> Everytime you come for an additional allocation, you have to show >>>> utilization of your existing address blocks. This applies to equally to >>>> all requesters. >>>> >>>> The concern expressed is that there are some folks who hold large >>>> historically allocations of address space which do not come in at all >>>> for additional allocations, and hence never have to show their usage. >>>> >>>> /John >>>> >>>> John Curran >>>> President and CEO >>>> ARIN >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> > > > From pclark at paxio.com Wed Jul 22 16:58:47 2009 From: pclark at paxio.com (Phillip Clark) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:58:47 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: References: <632B9F90-58BF-4A2C-A652-0ECA49931BD6@portnetworks.com> <006e01ca0afa$55880600$800101df@kahuna> Message-ID: <4A677D87.7060301@paxio.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jul 22 17:06:39 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:06:39 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <1272A58E063C684BA7A0EA1A323B58F702E76C73@mailserver4.nyigc.globe> References: <1272A58E063C684BA7A0EA1A323B58F702E76C73@mailserver4.nyigc.globe> Message-ID: <4A677F5F.7060609@ipinc.net> Gerald Bove wrote: > I usually try to keep quite and read, but I must disagree with this. > > 1) No one runs an ISP for the fun of it, they do it to make money. Maybe making money off doing something they enjoy, but not purely for the fun of it. I didn't say that. I said if they aren't enjoying running it, they should be just as happy selling life insurance. In other words, if all running an ISP is to you is about money, then you shouldn't be in the business. Anyone who tells you different is lying. > > 2) No ISP can stop selling service and expect to survive, if even only for a couple months. A basic business rule says if your not growing, your dying. This is not true. If your not growing you MAY be dying, you also MAY be maintaining market share. Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola have not changed their market share of cola soft drinks relative to each other for at least 20 years, probably much longer. Neither has "grown" unless you count the ancillary businesses they have gotten their fingers in over the years with varying degrees of success. Yet both are profitable. You can make a profit when growing. You can also make a profit while merely maintaining market. And, you can even make a profit while shrinking. Businesses that DON'T make a profit are the ones that die. It has nothing to do with growth or lack of growth. Your basic assumption here is that new customers will ONLY take public IPv4, not private IPv4 and not IPv6. I personally think that's BS but I accepted that while making my point, which is that you can survive without new IPv4. Look up market theory. At some point markets reach saturation. The vendors in that market continue to make money - it's just that they don't get any bigger. Gas, electric and water utilities are great examples. > > Every ISP knows that when your smaller, you have to hedge your bets so to speak. You pay more for transit then you would like because you know the more clients you take on, the less the total cost works out to be. > Which merely means that it's probably no longer possible to start an ISP from nothing, in your garage. Most industries go through this. You can't start a car company anymore in your garage and grow it to the size of Toyota. Once you get big enough then costs increase as your network increases. > Any ISP that can live for any extended amount of time without taking on new clients has either stopped upgrading and improving their network (which is sure death in this day and age), or have won the Internet. > Any ISP that REFUSES to take on new clients, maybe. But your not refusing to take on new clients. Your just refusing to give out public IPv4. You are no different than the U-Haul down the street. You have 10 trucks, and as long as they are checked out and being rented, your making money. If someone returns a truck, you hand it out again. Ted > Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the "sky is falling" camp personally. Yes the transition is going to be hard, yes its going to get even harder as time goes by, but this is hardly "news", we all knew this was coming. > > Our best bet at the moment is for us all to implement IPv6 (as been mentioned by many people already), and take a real good look at our own IPv4 usage, not just the big dogs. Maybe its time for us all to start really implementing the terms on our IP Justification forms. When was the last time you took a good look at all your clients with /28's and bigger? Do you really need to give EVERY client a /29? > > All this talk about extending IPv4 is just a band-aid, not a solution. A solution would be a conversation on how to really push IPv6 implementation. > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:55 PM > To: Breault Jonathan > Cc: ARIN Discussion List > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. > > Ultimately it boils down to the following: > > Current customers of ISP's all have an IPv4 address assigned. > > There will come a point for ALL ISP's whether they are /8 holders or small ones, where they won't have any more IPv4 than what they already have handed out to existing customers. There won't be any more IPv4, either from begging ARIN or buying it from someone else, no matter how much you are willing to pay. > > At that point, NEW customers of those ISP's will be told that they either have to do IPv6 or nothing. > > For a period of time, those new customers will probably go to other ISPs that still have IPv4. > > But eventually, ALL ISP's will be out of IPv4 and those new customers will have to take IPv6 or nothing. > > So, if your a growing ISP and you have lots of unused IPv4 you will be able to grow for a longer time than a competitor who has a little amount of unused IPv4. You benefit and your competitor who has a small amount of IPv4 unused will lose out - BUT they will ONLY lose out on GROWTH. > > In other words, if your a small ISP and YOUR MAKING MONEY then the > IPv4 runout merely means that while your out-of-IPv4, your competitors will simply make more and more money than you. It doesn't mean that you will start LOSING money. You will make the same money you have always made. If your feeding yourself and your family, then you will continue to do so. > > Eventually, when there's no more ISP's that have IPv4 to give out, then customers will be forced to take IPv6 - and you will be able to pick up growing from where you left off. > > I think the problem here is that so many people in the ISP business are assuming that growth is only going to happen by stealing customers. > Meaning, that if my competitors are growing, it's because they are taking customers away from me, and I'm getting smaller. > > I humbly submit here that IPv4 depletion isn't going to work this way. > Just because you can't give IPv4 to new customers, because you have run out, doesn't mean that your going to lose any existing ones. And if you do lose an existing customer then you will be back in the game and have > IPv4 to hand out that your existing customer was using. > > Thus, I don't buy the fairness arguments I see here. ISPs need to concentrate on making their existing customers happy with their service > - that's how you keep from losing customers. And ISP's need to take the long view and realize that the period of time after they have run out of > IPv4 and while all their other competitors are still giving out IPv4 is going to be a lot shorter than they think. > > Some of these small ISP's complaining are are like a small restaurant owner located in town who has an established clientele that likes his food and is keeping him going, who wants to throw all that away so that he can grow to the size of a Burger King or McDonalds, and have a clientele who hates eating his food, and only goes there because they are forced to by their kids who are demanding Happy Meals. > > So, as an ISP owner you would rather have customers who hate you but are with you because your the only game in town with IPv4? May I ask why your even in the ISP business in the first place? Do you even LIKE the Internet? Or is it nothing more than a convenient mechanism to make money for you, and you would be just as happy selling life insurance policies or something? > > Think about it. > > Ted > > Breault Jonathan wrote: >> Basically, I think the problem is that once you hold a resource from >> arin, you only need to justify when you request new resources... I >> think there is missing a policy that would allow ARIN to ask every 3-5 >> years for justification on the resources' usage and take action on the >> blocks that have a too small Usage Ratio. >> >> The question we all need to ask is, do we really want to produce >> justification on regular basis? >> >> What should we do with weak isp's? >> >> Going after the big historical allocation might be a way to release >> some ip blocks. But it can also affect people with smaller blocks ... >> Maybe we should give an incentive to holders of /20 that use 2 C >> classes on it so they just move to a /22 ... >> >> Maybe somebody on the list has ideas on how something like that can be >> achieved without being unfair for others... >> >> >> jonathan >> >> Le 22/07/09 12:10 PM, ? John Curran ? a ?crit : >> >>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Plimpton Ben wrote: >>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> If this were the case, once a smaller ISP had met your routing >>>> criteria, shouldn't we all then be able to request IP's based on >>>> what our needs will be for the next few months and not have to >>>> justify our previous allocations. >>> Ben - ARIN doesn't have routing criteria. ARIN does have policies >>> set by the community which require an ISP to be able to justify a >>> minimum size block before being able to come directly to ARIN for an allocation. >>> Once you meet that minimum address requirement, you can come to ARIN. >>> >>>> I'm guessing that at some point, organizations with large >>>> allocations have made requests for additional space without having >>>> to justify the usage on their other blocks or else this wouldn't be >>>> an issue b/c they would have filled them up already and the rest of >>>> the community wouldn't feel that they're squatting on their previous >>>> allocations. >>> Everytime you come for an additional allocation, you have to show >>> utilization of your existing address blocks. This applies to equally >>> to all requesters. >>> >>> The concern expressed is that there are some folks who hold large >>> historically allocations of address space which do not come in at all >>> for additional allocations, and hence never have to show their usage. >>> >>> /John >>> >>> John Curran >>> President and CEO >>> ARIN >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >>> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From jmullins at nexecomp.com Wed Jul 22 17:03:19 2009 From: jmullins at nexecomp.com (John Mullins) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:03:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <4A677D87.7060301@paxio.com> References: <632B9F90-58BF-4A2C-A652-0ECA49931BD6@portnetworks.com> <006e01ca0afa$55880600$800101df@kahuna> <4A677D87.7060301@paxio.com> Message-ID: <1E39C12CB39B4E44B8F223C787533C8C@john2> unsubscribe _____ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Phillip Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:59 PM To: dsong at nexgit.com Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Unsubscribe unsubscribe David Song wrote: Unsubscribe -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of rob servis Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:29 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6 On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Carl Peterson wrote: > I was just going to post the same thing but it is only fair that we > develop a consensus as to when it is ok to blacklist a block for unfair > use of ip space. Once we have a quorum of sorts, like minded admins and > companies should act as a group. > As a basic rule I would start by saying that if a company or group is > holding a large block of ipv4 which they know they will never use, the > part that will never be used should be returned. The ip space that they > are holding only has value because the rest of us route to it. How do you propose to know the difference between space which is unused, and space which is in use on networks which are not directly routed to the portions of the Internet that you can see? Presuming you cannot see the use that people are putting space to, how would your black-holing them penalize them? Once you and your compatriots black-hole them, presuming they comply with your desires and return the space, and it gets doled out to someone else, how do you propose to get the space un-black-holed, so you don't just penalize the subsequent recipient? I see a heck of a lot more complaints from people who've recently received new space that they can't get people to stop black-holing, than I see complaints from people unable to get space. -Bill I concur --- this could end up a mess if routes started getting blackholed. Although a controlled use of a coordinated facility like the BOGON system could be okay if it is BGP based. There is a presumption here that the 'unused' space is somehow contiguous and therefore even possible to return in any meaningful size chunks. Telcos and NPA/NXX assignments had a similar problem to solve. CLECs were given entire exchanges (10,000 blocks of numbers) until NANPA realized this was not going to be sustainable with the number of new CLECs asking for numbers. They then cut assignments back to 1,000 blocks of numbers and in some cases asked CLECs to give back 9,000 phone numbers. By then the CLECs had given out numbers throughout the entire 10,000 number range (everyone wants 1111 or 2222). It caused some customer service issues and definitely a lot of time and energy to accomplish that relinquishment. Returning IPs from these big blocks may be just as problematic ... a /22 here, a /24 there. This could be a mess. Rob Servis RASER, Inc. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Jul 22 17:52:22 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:52:22 +0100 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458024924BB@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > With that said, I'd like to add that if I'd come into control > of an allocation like one Mr. Brown has, I'd be doing the > *exact* same thing he's indicated he's doing: give it back to ARIN It would be nice if you would also post to this list telling us how much money was offered and how big the block is. We have precious little data to use to predict how much IP addresses might cost if we allow them to be bought and sold. --Michael Dillon From john at citylinkfiber.com Wed Jul 22 18:00:51 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:00:51 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458024924BB@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7B2@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> The block size was a /20 the dollar amount was $185K Or $45 per IP address. Another offer was the /20 and routing it with a monthly cash pre-paid lease of $7500 a month. Minimum 3 month contract, longer if the block continued to prove to be useful. Or $1.83 per IP per month > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > michael.dillon at bt.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:52 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > > With that said, I'd like to add that if I'd come into control of an > > allocation like one Mr. Brown has, I'd be doing the > > *exact* same thing he's indicated he's doing: give it back to ARIN > > It would be nice if you would also post to this list telling > us how much money was offered and how big the block is. We > have precious little data to use to predict how much IP > addresses might cost if we allow them to be bought and sold. > > --Michael Dillon > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 22 17:57:33 2009 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:57:33 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802492072@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802492072@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <6D4F72E9-6E9A-493E-843E-CAE502C0B278@delong.com> On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:17 AM, wrote: >> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was >> no fee as part of the "contract". > > It is a principle of common law that if there is no money (or > equivalent) paid then there is no legal contract. Has this changed in > the USA? > It is a principle of common law that a contract involves an exchange of value. (labor, things, etc. == value) It is a principle of common law that without a contract, you cannot expect someone to pay a bill for a service you did not tell them you were going to charge them for, whether or not they asked for said service and whether or not you performed said service. The above use of the term "contract" probably is in quotations because, it specifically is not a contract in the legal meaning of the word, but, more the "contract" as a term of art for any form of agreement between two or more parties. > I'd like to see all these entities billed retroactively back to the > beginning of ARIN. If they complain, then we could negotiate it down > to > just the past year if they sign an RSA. > This would be an absurd waste of time and money on the part of ARIN in my humble opinion. I think it would also go a long way towards reducing the willingness to work with ARIN on the parts of several organizations with legacy space. Owen From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Wed Jul 22 18:18:31 2009 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> Message-ID: <218485.79133.qm@web63301.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the tide for many > years. How many years? Globally, about 12-13 /8s were assigned in 2008. http://www.nro.net/documents/presentations/nro-jointstats_06-30-09.pdf There are something like 40 "legacy" Class A assignments, but most of them are in use. How many do you think could be reallocated? There are, what, 44 /8s assigned as 11,000 Class Bs? Most of the Class Bs are in use. How many do you think could be reallocated? What is the threshold for utilization? Do we tell end user organizations that if they don't qualify for an additional allocation (80% utilization of current blocks (NRPM 4.3.6)) they don't qualify for their current block? Is 25% acceptable? This is important in figuring out how many allocations could be recovered. I think we could get an extra year out of IPv4 this way. Maybe +/- six months. How much should ARIN spend to do this? > It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP address space by > entity and determine how many of these organizations sit behind a NAT firewall, > and only use a small portion of their allocation. That would be interesting. Anybody want to do it? These aren't rhetorical questions, btw. I'm sincerely looking for guidance from the members as to how you want ARIN to spend its resources. Thanks, Lee From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jul 22 19:08:09 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:08:09 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <218485.79133.qm@web63301.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <218485.79133.qm@web63301.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A679BD9.2080904@ipinc.net> Lee Howard wrote: > > >> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the tide for many >> years. > > How many years? > Globally, about 12-13 /8s were assigned in 2008. > http://www.nro.net/documents/presentations/nro-jointstats_06-30-09.pdf > > There are something like 40 "legacy" Class A assignments, but most of them are > in use. How many do you think could be reallocated? > There are, what, 44 /8s assigned as 11,000 Class Bs? Most of the Class Bs > are in use. How many do you think could be reallocated? > > What is the threshold for utilization? Do we tell end user organizations that if > they don't qualify for an additional allocation (80% utilization of current blocks > (NRPM 4.3.6)) they don't qualify for their current block? Is 25% acceptable? > This is important in figuring out how many allocations could be recovered. > > I think we could get an extra year out of IPv4 this way. Maybe +/- six months. > How much should ARIN spend to do this? > >> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP address space by >> entity and determine how many of these organizations sit behind a NAT firewall, >> and only use a small portion of their allocation. > > That would be interesting. Anybody want to do it? > How? NAT's quite often disable ICMP echo replies by default so pinging IP's in a block isn't going to tell you anything. > > These aren't rhetorical questions, btw. I'm sincerely looking for guidance from > the members as to how you want ARIN to spend its resources. > It would be nice (I think I've suggested this before) if ARIN could publish a date on it's website that it expects to be able to no longer hand out IPv4. It might help give a little push to the discussion if we had a deadline. :-) Ted From rs at seastrom.com Wed Jul 22 19:49:28 2009 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:49:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: (Steve Wagner's message of "Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:06:35 -0600") References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> Message-ID: <86ab2wwa5z.fsf@seastrom.com> Steve Wagner writes: > As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of Idaho > has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit behind > two different firewalls. > ... > > In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies have, > particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is > unjustified. Having used the Internet from an Idaho Fish & Game building where we were teaching as guests, I can assure you that the entire state is not behind one enormous NAT or even several - I got a public IP address in response to my DHCP request. Do not confuse firewalls and NAT. The functionality is often found in the same box, but they are no more similar than an FM radio and a tape player (which was once upon a time, anyway, often found in the same box too). Firewalls implement policy about who can talk to whom, whilst NAT/PAT devices implement a hack that many say is contrary to the end-to-end nature of TCP/IP as it was designed. Not entirely bad, since it's what kept us from running out of IPv4 addresses in 1999... Anyway, sample size of one. I'm sure that most of the organizations who have /16s are actually using them internally rather than using 1918 space. It just makes good sense to maximize your ability to interconnect with partner organizations (or solve an M&A nightmare if you are in the private sector) by using globally unique addresses if you've got 'em. ARIN's policy is neutral on the use of NAT/PAT or any other networking technology. If you believe this ought to change, go to https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html and write it up! Cheers, -r From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 22 19:48:00 2009 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:48:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> Message-ID: On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: > As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of Idaho > has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit behind > two different firewalls. > > Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls > > And so forth into perpetuity it seems > > In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies have, > particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is > unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address space > behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a company > entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, B, C etc. > There is no technical or administrative justification I can see. > > Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. > Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. > > While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the > tide for many years. > > It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP address > space by entity and determine how many of these organizations sit > behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small portion of their > allocation. > Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal article: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html > Reclaiming Allocations > Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of the > early allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully > this article has shown that the ROI for that approach is going to be > extremely low. Discussions around the Internet community show there > is an expectation that it will take several years of substantive > negotiation (in multiple court systems around the globe) to retrieve > any /8s. Then following that effort and expense, the likelihood of > even getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following > the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation the > result is likely to be just a few months of additional resource > added to the pool?and possibly not even a whole month. All this > assumes IANA does not completely run out before getting any back, > because running out would result in pentup demand that could > immediately exhaust any returns. If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are at least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, reclamation efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to doubt that is the case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you don't even buy an additional year. Owen > > Regards, > Steve Wagner > Vice President of Operations > Syringa Networks, LLC > 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > Boise, ID 83705 > Office: 208.229.6104 > Main: 208.229.6100 > Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > Fax: 208.229.6110 > Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > Web: www.syringanetworks.net > > > > > > > "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > > Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > The information in this message is intended for the named recipients > only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, > distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the > contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or > its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by return e- > mail and delete the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > ] On Behalf Of John Osmon > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to > RETURN a /20 > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: >> >> >> John Osmon wrote: >> >>> >>> We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but >>> we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table >>> (relatively) late. >> >> Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. > > Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting > a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to > significant > difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) > > I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the > pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in > commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of > /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vaughn at swiftsystems.com Wed Jul 22 20:23:11 2009 From: vaughn at swiftsystems.com (Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:23:11 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> Message-ID: <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't you know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when others have already said it is not worth it." The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. Does a protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types or the "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the other space Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good will a few have gotten on this list by committing to return space.. You don't get what you don't ask for. Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to succeed at for a group this bright. ~Vaughn Sent from my handheld On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: > >> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of >> Idaho has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit >> behind two different firewalls. >> >> Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls >> >> And so forth into perpetuity it seems >> >> In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies >> have, particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls >> is unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address space >> behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a company >> entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, B, C >> etc. There is no technical or administrative justification I can see. >> >> Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. >> Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. >> >> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the >> tide for many years. >> >> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP >> address space by entity and determine how many of these >> organizations sit behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small >> portion of their allocation. >> > Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the > conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal article: > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html > >> Reclaiming Allocations >> Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of the >> early allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully >> this article has shown that the ROI for that approach is going to >> be extremely low. Discussions around the Internet community show >> there is an expectation that it will take several years of >> substantive negotiation (in multiple court systems around the >> globe) to retrieve any /8s. Then following that effort and expense, >> the likelihood of even getting back more than a few /8 blocks is >> very low. Following the allocation growth trend, after several >> years of litigation the result is likely to be just a few months of >> additional resource added to the pool?and possibly not even a whol >> e month. All this assumes IANA does not completely run out before >> getting any back, because running out would result in pentup deman >> d that could immediately exhaust any returns. > > > If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are > at least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, > reclamation efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to doubt > that is the case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you don't > even buy an additional year. > > Owen > >> >> Regards, >> Steve Wagner >> Vice President of Operations >> Syringa Networks, LLC >> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >> Boise, ID 83705 >> Office: 208.229.6104 >> Main: 208.229.6100 >> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >> Fax: 208.229.6110 >> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >> >> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >> The information in this message is intended for the named >> recipients only. It may contain information that is privileged, >> confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not >> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >> disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in >> reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If >> you have received this e-mail in error, do not print it or >> disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please notify the >> sender by return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >> thereafter. Thank you. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Osmon >> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like >> to RETURN a /20 >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: >>> >>> >>> John Osmon wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but >>>> we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table >>>> (relatively) late. >>> >>> Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. >> >> Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting >> a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to >> significant >> difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) >> >> I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the >> pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in >> commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of >> /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jul 22 20:33:32 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:33:32 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> Message-ID: <4A67AFDC.4030304@ipinc.net> Vaughn, ARIN is on track to implement policy proposal 2008-7, it's just waiting for BOT blessing which should happen at their next meeting. Perhaps we should wait until it plays out? Wouldn't you agree that it would be better to go after the low-hanging fruit in any reclamation effort - specifically, the abandoned resources - before bothering companies that are going concerns, who have addressing assigned to them? Put yourself in HP's shoes. Why would you be inclined to give back resources when there's stale legacy assignments out there to companies that have gone out of business years ago, that have not been reassigned? A few years ago someone did a query and discovered something like 150 netblocks with BITNET addresses on them. Do you really think those are still in use? I don't! Ted Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: > Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't you > know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when others have > already said it is not worth it." > > The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. Does a > protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types or the > "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the other space > Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good will a few have > gotten on this list by committing to return space.. > > You don't get what you don't ask for. > > Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to > succeed at for a group this bright. > > ~Vaughn > > Sent from my handheld > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >> >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: >> >>> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of Idaho >>> has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit behind >>> two different firewalls. >>> >>> Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls >>> >>> And so forth into perpetuity it seems >>> >>> In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies have, >>> particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is >>> unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address space >>> behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a company >>> entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, B, C etc. >>> There is no technical or administrative justification I can see. >>> >>> Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. >>> Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. >>> >>> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the >>> tide for many years. >>> >>> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP address >>> space by entity and determine how many of these organizations sit >>> behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small portion of their allocation. >>> >> Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the >> conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal article: >> >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html >> >>> Reclaiming Allocations >>> Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of the >>> early allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully >>> this article has shown that the ROI for that approach is going to be >>> extremely low. Discussions around the Internet community show there >>> is an expectation that it will take several years of substantive >>> negotiation (in multiple court systems around the globe) to retrieve >>> any /8s. Then following that effort and expense, the likelihood of >>> even getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following >>> the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation the >>> result is likely to be just a few months of additional resource added >>> to the pool?and possibly not even a whole month. All this assumes >>> IANA does not completely run out before getting any back, because >>> running out would result in pentup demand that could immediately >>> exhaust any returns. >> >> >> If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are at >> least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, reclamation >> efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to doubt that is the >> case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you don't even buy an >> additional year. >> >> Owen >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steve Wagner >>> Vice President of Operations >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>> Email: >>> Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>> The information in this message is intended for the named recipients >>> only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, >>> distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents >>> of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>> e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or its contents. >>> In such event, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete >>> the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [ >>> mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] >>> On Behalf Of John Osmon >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to >>> RETURN a /20 >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> John Osmon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but >>>>> we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table >>>>> (relatively) late. >>>> >>>> Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. >>> >>> Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting >>> a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to significant >>> difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) >>> >>> I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the >>> pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in >>> commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of >>> /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List ( >>> ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience >>> any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience >> any issues. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net Wed Jul 22 20:34:41 2009 From: nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net (Nathaniel B. Lyon) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:34:41 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> Message-ID: <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714F3@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> I think what some of the smaller guys are talking about is this. I know of 1 ISP right now that is in a RURAL, RURAL area. Doing a great job of providing ?cable? speeds to his customers over the air. His upstream has basically told him to f-off in terms of getting any more IPv4 addresses. He has 300+ customers, so he doesn?t qualify for a /20. He CAN?T multi-home, because there literally no other options in his area. What is he to do? Now ARIN freely handed out a /32 of IPv6 addresses to him, but that doesn?t do him any good. Should he just throw the towel in because he isn?t large enough to get more IPv4 addresses? Why can he have an IPv6 /32 but is nowhere near large enough for a /22 in the IPv6 range. Or hell even a /23, he is easily big enough for a /23. But ARIN?s minimum they will hand is a /20 if you are not multi-homed and a /22 if you are. This guy is screwed until IPv6 is knee deep. From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:23 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't you know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when others have already said it is not worth it." The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. Does a protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types or the "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the other space Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good will a few have gotten on this list by committing to return space.. You don't get what you don't ask for. Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to succeed at for a group this bright. ~Vaughn Sent from my handheld On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of Idaho has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit behind two different firewalls. Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls And so forth into perpetuity it seems In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies have, particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address space behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a company entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, B, C etc. There is no technical or administrative justification I can see. Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the tide for many years. It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP address space by entity and determine how many of these organizations sit behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small portion of their allocation. Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal article: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html Reclaiming Allocations Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of the early allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully this article has shown that the ROI for that approach is going to be extremely low. Discussions around the Internet community show there is an expectation that it will take several years of substantive negotiation (in multiple court systems around the globe) to retrieve any /8s. Then following that effort and expense, the likelihood of even getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation the result is likely to be just a few months of additional resource added to the pool?and possibly not even a whole month. All this assumes IANA does not completely run out before getting any back, because running out would result in pentup demand that could immediately exhaust any returns. If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are at least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, reclamation efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to doubt that is the case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you don't even buy an additional year. Owen Regards, Steve Wagner Vice President of Operations Syringa Networks, LLC 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 Boise, ID 83705 Office: 208.229.6104 Main: 208.229.6100 Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 Fax: 208.229.6110 Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net Web: www.syringanetworks.net "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" Privilege and Confidentiality Notice The information in this message is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Osmon Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: John Osmon wrote: We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table (relatively) late. Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to significant difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 20:42:14 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:42:14 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714F3@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714F3@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <4A67B1E6.1080904@gmail.com> If his ISP will route space he gets from another provider (or from ARIN), but won't give him space, then I know of lots of folks who will sell him a 10M Ethernet circuit in a datacenter somewhere, along with as much address space as he can justify under ARIN policies. He can then announce the space from both locations, with the datacenter circuit serving only as a backup last-resort in the event that the primary announcement (through their rural ISP) goes down. They can anycast their DNS and mail servers out of the datacenter, or simply tunnel all the packets back to their main network. -Scott Nathaniel B. Lyon wrote: > > I think what some of the smaller guys are talking about is this. I > know of 1 ISP right now that is in a RURAL, RURAL area. Doing a great > job of providing ?cable? speeds to his customers over the air. His > upstream has basically told him to f-off in terms of getting any more > IPv4 addresses. He has 300+ customers, so he doesn?t qualify for a > /20. He CAN?T multi-home, because there literally no other options in > his area. > > > > What is he to do? Now ARIN freely handed out a /32 of IPv6 addresses > to him, but that doesn?t do him any good. Should he just throw the > towel in because he isn?t large enough to get more IPv4 addresses? > > > > Why can he have an IPv6 /32 but is nowhere near large enough for a /22 > in the IPv6 range. Or hell even a /23, he is easily big enough for a > /23. But ARIN?s minimum they will hand is a /20 if you are not > multi-homed and a /22 if you are. > > > > This guy is screwed until IPv6 is knee deep. > > > > *From:* arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Vaughn Thurman - > Swift Systems > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:23 PM > *To:* arin-discuss at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to > RETURN a /20 > > > > Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't you > know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when others > have already said it is not worth it." > > > > The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. Does a > protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types or the > "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the other space > Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good will a few have > gotten on this list by committing to return space.. > > > > You don't get what you don't ask for. > > > > Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to > succeed at for a group this bright. > > > > ~Vaughn > > > Sent from my handheld > > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > > > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: > > > > As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of > Idaho has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities > sit behind two different firewalls. > > Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls > > And so forth into perpetuity it seems > > In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies > have, particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls > is unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address > space behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a > company entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, > B, C etc. There is no technical or administrative justification I > can see. > > Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. > Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. > > While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the > tide for many years. > > It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP > address space by entity and determine how many of these > organizations sit behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small > portion of their allocation. > > Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the > conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal article: > > > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html > > > > *Reclaiming Allocations* > Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some > of the early allocations to further extend the lifetime of > IPv4. Hopefully this article has shown that the ROI for that > approach is going to be extremely low. Discussions around the > Internet community show there is an expectation that it will > take several years of substantive negotiation (in multiple > court systems around the globe) to retrieve any /8s. Then > following that effort and expense, the likelihood of even > getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following > the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation > the result is likely to be just a few months of additional > resource added to the pool?and possibly not even a whole > month. All this assumes IANA does not completely run out > before getting any back, because running out would result in > pentup demand that could immediately exhaust any returns. > > > > > > If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are > at least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, > reclamation efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to > doubt that is the case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you > don't even buy an additional year. > > > > Owen > > > > > Regards, > Steve Wagner > Vice President of Operations > Syringa Networks, LLC > 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > Boise, ID 83705 > Office: 208.229.6104 > Main: 208.229.6100 > Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > Fax: 208.229.6110 > Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > > Web: www.syringanetworks.net > > > > > > > "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > > Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > The information in this message is intended for the named > recipients only. It may contain information that is privileged, > confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are > not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in > reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. > If you have received this e-mail in error, do not print it or > disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please notify the > sender by return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately > thereafter. Thank you. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Osmon > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like > to RETURN a /20 > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > > > John Osmon wrote: > > > > > > We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning > space, but > > we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to > the table > > (relatively) late. > > > > Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. > > > Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting > a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to > significant > difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) > > I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the > pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in > commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of > /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Wed Jul 22 20:44:47 2009 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:44:47 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7B2@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458024924BB@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7B2@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> Message-ID: <4607e1d50907221744q2675282el9ffa37881b301614@mail.gmail.com> The easy termination lease favoring the lessor lasts only a few months. Abusers (the typical lessees) promptly destroy the reputation of the block and it becomes worthless. Then they breech. No chance of enforcing afterwards. Best, Marty On 7/22/09, John Brown wrote: > The block size was a /20 the dollar amount was $185K > Or $45 per IP address. > > Another offer was the /20 and routing it with a monthly cash pre-paid > lease of $7500 a month. > Minimum 3 month contract, longer if the block continued to prove to be > useful. > Or $1.83 per IP per month > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of >> michael.dillon at bt.com >> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:52 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd >> like to RETURN a /20 >> >> > With that said, I'd like to add that if I'd come into control of an >> > allocation like one Mr. Brown has, I'd be doing the >> > *exact* same thing he's indicated he's doing: give it back to ARIN >> >> It would be nice if you would also post to this list telling >> us how much money was offered and how big the block is. We >> have precious little data to use to predict how much IP >> addresses might cost if we allow them to be bought and sold. >> >> --Michael Dillon >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From kreg at directcom.com Wed Jul 22 20:39:16 2009 From: kreg at directcom.com (kreg roenfeldt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:39:16 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A66953A.6050307@gmail.com> References: <4A66953A.6050307@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A67B134.2080500@directcom.com> Go outside and play. -=Kreg Scott Leibrand wrote: > Jon, > > Thanks for the constructive suggestion. > > For anyone who is interested in policy development in this area, I > would highly encourage you to subscribe to the Public Policy Mailing > List, discuss this and other policy ideas, and make a proposal through > the Policy Development Process if there appears to be support for an > idea. Myself or anyone else on the Advisory Council will be happy to > work with you to assist in the process. > > It's also worth noting that the Policy Development Process (PDP), > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), and the Public Policy Meetings are > all open to any interested party, whether or not they're an ARIN > member or Designated Member Representative. In addition, the members > of the Advisory Council (which plays a key role in the PDP) and the > Board of Trustees (which ratifies policies and sets fees, among other > things) are elected by the membership. We are currently in the > process of soliciting questions to ask of nominees for either/both > positions, so if there's an issue you feel strongly about, you should > make sure the question is asked of candidates so you can vote > accordingly. > > Thanks again, > Scott > > Jon Auer wrote: >> Who would be in favor of a policy along the lines of the following: >> >> ARIN shall not issue any IPv4 Number Resources unless the requesting >> organization has: >> 1. A IPv6 subnet properly allocated from ARIN >> 2. Said IPv6 subnet is announced in the global IPv6 routing table >> 3. Said IPv6 subnet is visible from a neutral 3rd party's looking >> glass (routeviews.org or similar) >> 4. Organization's customers or end users that would normally be >> assigned a non-RFC1918 IPv4 address are given the option of >> additionally being assigned a IPv6 subnet from said provider within 12 >> months or the IPv4 Number Resource granted under this policy shall be >> revoked. >> >> I had a IPv6 subnet allocated from ARIN and routed globally though >> HE.net's tunnel broker within 48 hours. >> Meeting a policy like that should be easy. >> Even if you are a large provider 12 months should be enough time to >> get one customer running with IPv6 to demonstrate token compliance >> with section 4... >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:42 PM, wrote: >> >>> Send ARIN-discuss mailing list submissions to >>> arin-discuss at arin.net >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> arin-discuss-request at arin.net >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> arin-discuss-owner at arin.net >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-discuss digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. (Tony Valenti) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:42:39 -0500 >>> From: Tony Valenti >>> To: John Brown >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >>> >>> I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned.I think >>> a big >>> mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly assumes that we >>> have >>> something to do with making IPV6 a reality and managing IPV4 address >>> space. >>> >>> Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and >>> asked them >>> when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After being escalated >>> all the >>> way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that they have no >>> plans to >>> implement IPV6 which means that if I put any content on an IPV6 >>> address, I >>> can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US won't have access to it. >>> >>> So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't >>> care, >>> and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address space >>> because >>> the internet is officially out, what will you do? As a webhosting >>> company, >>> we have no choice but to pay whatever the black market price for IPs >>> is or >>> go out of business/quit accepting customers. >>> >>> If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually emphasizes >>> the >>> problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything to >>> fix the >>> problem - they just make the current process harder. ARIN is a >>> doomsday >>> prophet powerless to change the fate that we all will endure. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I?ll ask the age old question again. >>>> >>>> What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If >>>> Apple got >>>> the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives >>>> ARIN the >>>> ability to enforce rules today. >>>> >>>> Its contracts law. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: >>>> >>>> I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where >>>> the big >>>> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. >>>> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small >>>> ISP >>>> that comes along asking for address space. >>>> >>>> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and >>>> also >>>> requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts >>>> because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 >>>> block >>>> and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the >>>> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure >>>> IPv6 for a long time to come. >>>> >>>> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly >>>> unused >>>> blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or >>>> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of >>>> these >>>> companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of >>>> address >>>> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >>>> blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their >>>> block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should >>>> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Chris Gotstein >>>> Sr Network Engineer >>>> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >>>> 500 N Stephenson Ave >>>> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >>>> Phone: 906-774-4847 >>>> Fax: 906-774-0335 >>>> chris at uplogon.com >>>> >>>> Kelvin Williams wrote: >>>> >>>>> Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >>>>> >>>> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL >>>> subscribers. >>>> >>>>> In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running >>>>> Linux >>>>> >>>> or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority >>>> of web >>>> destinations were running IPv6. >>>> >>>>> I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause >>>>> >>>> problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >>>> >>>>> So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what >>>>> >>>> blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will >>>> now be >>>> at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny >>>> portion of the >>>> blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >>>> >>>>> Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address >>>>> >>>> because they can go for that. >>>> >>>>> I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a >>>>> steering >>>>> >>>> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and >>>> the DoD to >>>> implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they >>>> need to pay. >>>> In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their >>>> networks >>>> aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition >>>> versus the >>>> ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >>>> >>>>> Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >>>>> >>>> responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >>>> establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of >>>> large >>>> bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >>>> >>>>> (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >>>>> >>>> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >>>> >>>>> Kw >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kelvin Williams >>>>> Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>>>> Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>>>> Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>>>> Fax: 866.895.8557 >>>>> Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>>> >>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>>>> To: John Brown >>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >>>>> some), then a transfer market will >>>>> exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >>>>> have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue >>>>> to sit >>>>> on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them >>>>> a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, >>>>> they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they >>>>> lose. >>>>> >>>>> Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >>>>> and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody >>>>> will >>>>> be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>>>> >>>>> Either way, it works the same. >>>>> >>>>> Ted >>>>> >>>>> John Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to >>>>>> assess a >>>>>> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>>>> >>>>>> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no >>>>>> fee as >>>>>> part of the "contract". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Steve Wagner >>>>>>> [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>>>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>>>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>>>>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>>>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>>>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>>>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>>>>> a NAT type firewall >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Steve Wagner >>>>>>> Vice President of Operations >>>>>>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>>>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>>>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>>>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>>>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>>>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>>>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>>>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>>>>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>>>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>>>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>>>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>>>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>>>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>>>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>>>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>>>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>>>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>>>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>>>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On >>>>>>> Behalf Of John Brown >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>>>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>>>>> the actual >>>>>>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>>>>>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> more. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>>>> higher than the >>>>>>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public >>>>>>> spot >>>>>>> light on those providers. :| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>>>> space should >>>>>>> return the space they aren't using. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>>>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>>>>> don't know. >>>>>>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>>>>> good work >>>>>>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>>>> request, I'm sure >>>>>>> it can be resolved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately >>>>>>> work >>>>>>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>>>> muster and what >>>>>>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On >>>>>>>> Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>>>> way too long. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>>>>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the >>>>>>>> pool. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>>>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>>>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>>>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>>>>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>>>>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>>>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>>>> stock offering. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: >>>>>>>> PROFIT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>>>>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>>>>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! >>>>>>>> drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>>>>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-discuss mailing list >>> ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> >>> End of ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 8 >>> ******************************************* >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From vaughn at swiftsystems.com Wed Jul 22 20:50:35 2009 From: vaughn at swiftsystems.com (Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:50:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <4A679BD9.2080904@ipinc.net> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <218485.79133.qm@web63301.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4A679BD9.2080904@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <33434B74-1F18-49AA-A089-557E4CC33A9D@swiftsystems.com> Fact check please. Those /8s were to other registrys, not orgs/isps right? Sent from my handheld On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Lee Howard wrote: >>> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the >>> tide for many years. >> How many years? >> Globally, about 12-13 /8s were assigned in 2008. >> http://www.nro.net/documents/presentations/nro- >> jointstats_06-30-09.pdf >> There are something like 40 "legacy" Class A assignments, but most >> of them are >> in use. How many do you think could be reallocated? >> There are, what, 44 /8s assigned as 11,000 Class Bs? Most of the >> Class Bs >> are in use. How many do you think could be reallocated? >> What is the threshold for utilization? Do we tell end user >> organizations that if they don't qualify for an additional >> allocation (80% utilization of current blocks >> (NRPM 4.3.6)) they don't qualify for their current block? Is 25% >> acceptable? >> This is important in figuring out how many allocations could be >> recovered. >> I think we could get an extra year out of IPv4 this way. Maybe +/- >> six months. >> How much should ARIN spend to do this? >>> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP >>> address space by entity and determine how many of these >>> organizations sit behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small >>> portion of their allocation. >> That would be interesting. Anybody want to do it? > > How? NAT's quite often disable ICMP echo replies by default so > pinging > IP's in a block isn't going to tell you anything. > >> These aren't rhetorical questions, btw. I'm sincerely looking for >> guidance from >> the members as to how you want ARIN to spend its resources. > > It would be nice (I think I've suggested this before) if ARIN could > publish a date on it's website that it expects to be able to no > longer hand out IPv4. It might help give a little push to the > discussion if we had a deadline. :-) > > Ted > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From scheesman at level365.com Wed Jul 22 20:53:08 2009 From: scheesman at level365.com (Sean Cheesman) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:53:08 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A67B134.2080500@directcom.com> References: <4A66953A.6050307@gmail.com> <4A67B134.2080500@directcom.com> Message-ID: Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I have seen 4 unsubscribe requests alone today, and who knows how many through the "regular" channels. Emails like this do NOTHING but pollute my mailbox, and obviously I'm not the only one who agrees. Can we keep it constructive or keep it off-list? Thank you... Sean -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of kreg roenfeldt Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:39 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. Go outside and play. -=Kreg Scott Leibrand wrote: > Jon, > > Thanks for the constructive suggestion. > > For anyone who is interested in policy development in this area, I > would highly encourage you to subscribe to the Public Policy Mailing > List, discuss this and other policy ideas, and make a proposal through > the Policy Development Process if there appears to be support for an > idea. Myself or anyone else on the Advisory Council will be happy to > work with you to assist in the process. > > It's also worth noting that the Policy Development Process (PDP), > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), and the Public Policy Meetings are > all open to any interested party, whether or not they're an ARIN > member or Designated Member Representative. In addition, the members > of the Advisory Council (which plays a key role in the PDP) and the > Board of Trustees (which ratifies policies and sets fees, among other > things) are elected by the membership. We are currently in the > process of soliciting questions to ask of nominees for either/both > positions, so if there's an issue you feel strongly about, you should > make sure the question is asked of candidates so you can vote > accordingly. > > Thanks again, > Scott > > Jon Auer wrote: >> Who would be in favor of a policy along the lines of the following: >> >> ARIN shall not issue any IPv4 Number Resources unless the requesting >> organization has: >> 1. A IPv6 subnet properly allocated from ARIN >> 2. Said IPv6 subnet is announced in the global IPv6 routing table >> 3. Said IPv6 subnet is visible from a neutral 3rd party's looking >> glass (routeviews.org or similar) >> 4. Organization's customers or end users that would normally be >> assigned a non-RFC1918 IPv4 address are given the option of >> additionally being assigned a IPv6 subnet from said provider within 12 >> months or the IPv4 Number Resource granted under this policy shall be >> revoked. >> >> I had a IPv6 subnet allocated from ARIN and routed globally though >> HE.net's tunnel broker within 48 hours. >> Meeting a policy like that should be easy. >> Even if you are a large provider 12 months should be enough time to >> get one customer running with IPv6 to demonstrate token compliance >> with section 4... >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:42 PM, wrote: >> >>> Send ARIN-discuss mailing list submissions to >>> arin-discuss at arin.net >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> arin-discuss-request at arin.net >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> arin-discuss-owner at arin.net >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-discuss digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. (Tony Valenti) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:42:39 -0500 >>> From: Tony Valenti >>> To: John Brown >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >>> >>> I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned.I think >>> a big >>> mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly assumes that we >>> have >>> something to do with making IPV6 a reality and managing IPV4 address >>> space. >>> >>> Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and >>> asked them >>> when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After being escalated >>> all the >>> way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that they have no >>> plans to >>> implement IPV6 which means that if I put any content on an IPV6 >>> address, I >>> can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US won't have access to it. >>> >>> So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply don't >>> care, >>> and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address space >>> because >>> the internet is officially out, what will you do? As a webhosting >>> company, >>> we have no choice but to pay whatever the black market price for IPs >>> is or >>> go out of business/quit accepting customers. >>> >>> If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually emphasizes >>> the >>> problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything to >>> fix the >>> problem - they just make the current process harder. ARIN is a >>> doomsday >>> prophet powerless to change the fate that we all will endure. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I?ll ask the age old question again. >>>> >>>> What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? If >>>> Apple got >>>> the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what gives >>>> ARIN the >>>> ability to enforce rules today. >>>> >>>> Its contracts law. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: >>>> >>>> I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where >>>> the big >>>> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a fee. >>>> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every small >>>> ISP >>>> that comes along asking for address space. >>>> >>>> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space and >>>> also >>>> requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both attempts >>>> because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an IPv6 >>>> block >>>> and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this time, the >>>> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running pure >>>> IPv6 for a long time to come. >>>> >>>> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly >>>> unused >>>> blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good start, or >>>> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each of >>>> these >>>> companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of >>>> address >>>> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >>>> blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of their >>>> block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they should >>>> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Chris Gotstein >>>> Sr Network Engineer >>>> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >>>> 500 N Stephenson Ave >>>> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >>>> Phone: 906-774-4847 >>>> Fax: 906-774-0335 >>>> chris at uplogon.com >>>> >>>> Kelvin Williams wrote: >>>> >>>>> Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of IPv4. Our >>>>> >>>> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL >>>> subscribers. >>>> >>>>> In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers running >>>>> Linux >>>>> >>>> or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the majority >>>> of web >>>> destinations were running IPv6. >>>> >>>>> I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can cause >>>>> >>>> problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >>>> >>>>> So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting what >>>>> >>>> blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, will >>>> now be >>>> at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny >>>> portion of the >>>> blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into play. >>>> >>>>> Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 address >>>>> >>>> because they can go for that. >>>> >>>>> I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be a >>>>> steering >>>>> >>>> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP and >>>> the DoD to >>>> implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they >>>> need to pay. >>>> In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their >>>> networks >>>> aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition >>>> versus the >>>> ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >>>> >>>>> Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >>>>> >>>> responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >>>> establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series of >>>> large >>>> bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >>>> >>>>> (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local brew >>>>> >>>> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >>>> >>>>> Kw >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kelvin Williams >>>>> Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>>>> Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>>>> Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>>>> Fax: 866.895.8557 >>>>> Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>>> >>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>>>> To: John Brown >>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking to have >>>>> some), then a transfer market will >>>>> exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will suddenly >>>>> have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple continue >>>>> to sit >>>>> on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging them >>>>> a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, >>>>> they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money they >>>>> lose. >>>>> >>>>> Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never forms >>>>> and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case nobody >>>>> will >>>>> be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>>>> >>>>> Either way, it works the same. >>>>> >>>>> Ted >>>>> >>>>> John Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to >>>>>> assess a >>>>>> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>>>> >>>>>> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was no >>>>>> fee as >>>>>> part of the "contract". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Steve Wagner >>>>>>> [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>>>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>>>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>>>>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>>>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>>>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>>>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>>>>> a NAT type firewall >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Steve Wagner >>>>>>> Vice President of Operations >>>>>>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>>>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>>>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>>>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>>>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>>>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>>>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>>>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>>>>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>>>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>>>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>>>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>>>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>>>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>>>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>>>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>>>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>>>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>>>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>>>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On >>>>>>> Behalf Of John Brown >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>>>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>>>>> the actual >>>>>>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space allocated or >>>>>>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't exist >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> more. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>>>> higher than the >>>>>>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. I >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a public >>>>>>> spot >>>>>>> light on those providers. :| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>>>> space should >>>>>>> return the space they aren't using. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>>>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP addresses ?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>>>>> don't know. >>>>>>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad brush. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>>>>> good work >>>>>>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>>>> request, I'm sure >>>>>>> it can be resolved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to privately >>>>>>> work >>>>>>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>>>> muster and what >>>>>>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On >>>>>>>> Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>>>> way too long. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>>>>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share the >>>>>>>> pool. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>>>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>>>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>>>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>>>>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>>>>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>>>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>>>> stock offering. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding companies: >>>>>>>> PROFIT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>>>>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>>>>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! >>>>>>>> drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>>>>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-discuss mailing list >>> ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> >>> End of ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 8 >>> ******************************************* >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From vaughn at swiftsystems.com Wed Jul 22 20:53:35 2009 From: vaughn at swiftsystems.com (Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:53:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <6D4F72E9-6E9A-493E-843E-CAE502C0B278@delong.com> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802492072@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <6D4F72E9-6E9A-493E-843E-CAE502C0B278@delong.com> Message-ID: <753CBD87-AD2E-4AAC-9F2E-2097F87FB313@swiftsystems.com> So what does ARIN have to lose... Are these orgs cooperating now? Sent from my handheld On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:17 AM, > wrote: > >>> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was >>> no fee as part of the "contract". >> >> It is a principle of common law that if there is no money (or >> equivalent) paid then there is no legal contract. Has this changed in >> the USA? >> > It is a principle of common law that a contract involves an exchange > of value. (labor, things, etc. == value) > > It is a principle of common law that without a contract, you cannot > expect > someone to pay a bill for a service you did not tell them you were > going > to charge them for, whether or not they asked for said service and > whether > or not you performed said service. > > The above use of the term "contract" probably is in quotations > because, > it specifically is not a contract in the legal meaning of the word, > but, more > the "contract" as a term of art for any form of agreement between > two or > more parties. > >> I'd like to see all these entities billed retroactively back to the >> beginning of ARIN. If they complain, then we could negotiate it >> down to >> just the past year if they sign an RSA. >> > This would be an absurd waste of time and money on the part of ARIN in > my humble opinion. I think it would also go a long way towards > reducing > the willingness to work with ARIN on the parts of several > organizations with > legacy space. > > Owen > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jul 22 20:55:20 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:55:20 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714F3@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714F3@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <4A67B4F8.10409@ipinc.net> So, your to have us believe that this 1 ISP has competitors who are using a different upstream than he is, an upstream who is willing to continue to provide them with public IPv4, so his competitors are going to be at an advantage and he is not? If there are no other options in the area then his competitors have to use the same upstream he is using, and are being told to f-off by that upstream when they ask for more numbers. Meaning that he is no worse off than his competition. He could offer a cheaper service that's privately numbered. Of course he will need to put in a good translator. A Xeon running 64 bit Linux with a lot of ram should suffice. It will handle well over 300 users. He can also raise pricing on the public numbers and offer the private stuff at what he's charging right now. (that's how the grocery stores do it when they want people to switch brands) If he has no other options, his rural customers have no other options either. If his upstream is the only game in town then all his competitors are using that upstream and are also being told to "f" off by that upstream, so they have no extra IPv4 either. In other words, he's at no more of a disadvantage than his competitors, and his customer base is captive to him - so he can pretty much do to his customers the same thing his upstream is doing to him. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing. I am saying that the claim that he is screwed is absurd. Unless, of course, he's directly competing against his upstream - that's a bit different. In which case, even if he had his own IPv4 from ARIN, do you really think this upstream will let him route it? Ted Nathaniel B. Lyon wrote: > I think what some of the smaller guys are talking about is this. I know > of 1 ISP right now that is in a RURAL, RURAL area. Doing a great job of > providing ?cable? speeds to his customers over the air. His upstream > has basically told him to f-off in terms of getting any more IPv4 > addresses. He has 300+ customers, so he doesn?t qualify for a /20. He > CAN?T multi-home, because there literally no other options in his area. > > > > What is he to do? Now ARIN freely handed out a /32 of IPv6 addresses to > him, but that doesn?t do him any good. Should he just throw the towel > in because he isn?t large enough to get more IPv4 addresses? > > > > Why can he have an IPv6 /32 but is nowhere near large enough for a /22 > in the IPv6 range. Or hell even a /23, he is easily big enough for a > /23. But ARIN?s minimum they will hand is a /20 if you are not > multi-homed and a /22 if you are. > > > > This guy is screwed until IPv6 is knee deep. > > > > *From:* arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Vaughn Thurman - > Swift Systems > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:23 PM > *To:* arin-discuss at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to > RETURN a /20 > > > > Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't you > know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when others have > already said it is not worth it." > > > > The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. Does a > protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types or the > "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the other space > Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good will a few have > gotten on this list by committing to return space.. > > > > You don't get what you don't ask for. > > > > Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to > succeed at for a group this bright. > > > > ~Vaughn > > > Sent from my handheld > > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > > > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: > > > > As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of Idaho > has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit behind > two different firewalls. > > Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls > > And so forth into perpetuity it seems > > In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies have, > particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is > unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address space > behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a company > entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, B, C etc. > There is no technical or administrative justification I can see. > > Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. > Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. > > While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the > tide for many years. > > It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP address > space by entity and determine how many of these organizations sit > behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small portion of their allocation. > > Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the > conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal article: > > > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html > > > > *Reclaiming Allocations* > Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of > the early allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. > Hopefully this article has shown that the ROI for that approach > is going to be extremely low. Discussions around the Internet > community show there is an expectation that it will take several > years of substantive negotiation (in multiple court systems > around the globe) to retrieve any /8s. Then following that > effort and expense, the likelihood of even getting back more > than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following the allocation > growth trend, after several years of litigation the result is > likely to be just a few months of additional resource added to > the pool?and possibly not even a whole month. All this assumes > IANA does not completely run out before getting any back, > because running out would result in pentup demand that could > immediately exhaust any returns. > > > > > > If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are > at least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, > reclamation efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to doubt > that is the case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you don't > even buy an additional year. > > > > Owen > > > > > Regards, > Steve Wagner > Vice President of Operations > Syringa Networks, LLC > 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > Boise, ID 83705 > Office: 208.229.6104 > Main: 208.229.6100 > Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > Fax: 208.229.6110 > Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > > Web: www.syringanetworks.net > > > > > > > "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > > Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > The information in this message is intended for the named recipients > only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, > distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the > contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or > its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by return > e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Osmon > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to > RETURN a /20 > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > > > John Osmon wrote: > > > > > > We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning > space, but > > we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the > table > > (relatively) late. > > > > Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. > > > Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting > a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to significant > difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) > > I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the > pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in > commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of > /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jul 22 21:01:46 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:01:46 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <753CBD87-AD2E-4AAC-9F2E-2097F87FB313@swiftsystems.com> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802492072@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <6D4F72E9-6E9A-493E-843E-CAE502C0B278@delong.com> <753CBD87-AD2E-4AAC-9F2E-2097F87FB313@swiftsystems.com> Message-ID: <4A67B67A.2070201@ipinc.net> I'm pretty sure that Microsoft used to have a class A and I'm pretty sure that disappeared a few years ago. Apple and HP may be in that same boat. They may have a class B now because they gave up a class A a few years ago, and they got the B under a secret agreement with ARIN This is just sheer speculation. Since I don't work for ARIN and don't know if it's true or not, I'm free to speculate. The people who actually know, well their hands are a bit more tied. Ted Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: > So what does ARIN have to lose... Are these orgs cooperating now? > > Sent from my handheld > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:17 AM, >> wrote: >> >>>> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was >>>> no fee as part of the "contract". >>> >>> It is a principle of common law that if there is no money (or >>> equivalent) paid then there is no legal contract. Has this changed in >>> the USA? >>> >> It is a principle of common law that a contract involves an exchange >> of value. (labor, things, etc. == value) >> >> It is a principle of common law that without a contract, you cannot >> expect >> someone to pay a bill for a service you did not tell them you were going >> to charge them for, whether or not they asked for said service and >> whether >> or not you performed said service. >> >> The above use of the term "contract" probably is in quotations because, >> it specifically is not a contract in the legal meaning of the word, >> but, more >> the "contract" as a term of art for any form of agreement between two or >> more parties. >> >>> I'd like to see all these entities billed retroactively back to the >>> beginning of ARIN. If they complain, then we could negotiate it down to >>> just the past year if they sign an RSA. >>> >> This would be an absurd waste of time and money on the part of ARIN in >> my humble opinion. I think it would also go a long way towards reducing >> the willingness to work with ARIN on the parts of several >> organizations with >> legacy space. >> >> Owen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From alan at peak.org Wed Jul 22 20:50:51 2009 From: alan at peak.org (Alan Batie) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:50:51 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A67B3EB.1090407@peak.org> Jon Auer wrote: > Who would be in favor of a policy along the lines of the following: > > ARIN shall not issue any IPv4 Number Resources unless the requesting > organization has: > 1. A IPv6 subnet properly allocated from ARIN > 2. Said IPv6 subnet is announced in the global IPv6 routing table > 3. Said IPv6 subnet is visible from a neutral 3rd party's looking > glass (routeviews.org or similar) I would strongly support this policy because it creates the egg the chicken can spring from, and having recently done it, can say it's not that hard to do. From vaughn at swiftsystems.com Wed Jul 22 21:24:28 2009 From: vaughn at swiftsystems.com (Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:24:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <4A67B1E6.1080904@gmail.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714F3@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> <4A67B1E6.1080904@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7A22000A-0C6A-47E5-9A6F-F0538807B574@swiftsystems.com> Um, that response is disconnected from the challenges of a rural ISP Sent from my handheld On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > If his ISP will route space he gets from another provider (or from > ARIN), but won't give him space, then I know of lots of folks who > will sell him a 10M Ethernet circuit in a datacenter somewhere, > along with as much address space as he can justify under ARIN > policies. He can then announce the space from both locations, with > the datacenter circuit serving only as a backup last-resort in the > event that the primary announcement (through their rural ISP) goes > down. They can anycast their DNS and mail servers out of the > datacenter, or simply tunnel all the packets back to their main > network. > > -Scott > > Nathaniel B. Lyon wrote: >> >> I think what some of the smaller guys are talking about is this. I >> know of 1 ISP right now that is in a RURAL, RURAL area. Doing a >> great job of providing ?cable? speeds to his customers over the >> air. His upstream has basically told him to f-off in terms of get >> ting any more IPv4 addresses. He has 300+ customers, so he doesn? >> t qualify for a /20. He CAN?T multi-home, because there literally >> no other options in his area. >> >> What is he to do? Now ARIN freely handed out a /32 of IPv6 >> addresses to him, but that doesn?t do him any good. Should he jus >> t throw the towel in because he isn?t large enough to get more IPv >> 4 addresses? >> >> Why can he have an IPv6 /32 but is nowhere near large enough for a / >> 22 in the IPv6 range. Or hell even a /23, he is easily big enough >> for a /23. But ARIN?s minimum they will hand is a /20 if you are >> not multi-homed and a /22 if you are. >> >> This guy is screwed until IPv6 is knee deep. >> >> >> *From:* arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >> bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:23 PM >> *To:* arin-discuss at arin.net >> *Subject:* Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like >> to RETURN a /20 >> >> >> Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't >> you know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when >> others have already said it is not worth it." >> >> >> The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. >> Does a protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types >> or the "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the >> other space Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good >> will a few have gotten on this list by committing to return space.. >> >> You don't get what you don't ask for. >> >> >> Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to >> succeed at for a group this bright. >> >> >> >> ~Vaughn >> >> Sent from my handheld >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong > >> wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: >> >> >> >> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of >> Idaho has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities >> sit behind two different firewalls. >> >> Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls >> >> And so forth into perpetuity it seems >> >> In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies >> have, particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls >> is unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address >> space behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a >> company entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, >> B, C etc. There is no technical or administrative justification I >> can see. >> >> Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. >> Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. >> >> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the >> tide for many years. >> >> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP >> address space by entity and determine how many of these >> organizations sit behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small >> portion of their allocation. >> >> Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the >> conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal >> article: >> >> >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html >> >> >> *Reclaiming Allocations* >> Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some >> of the early allocations to further extend the lifetime of >> IPv4. Hopefully this article has shown that the ROI for that >> approach is going to be extremely low. Discussions around the >> Internet community show there is an expectation that it will >> take several years of substantive negotiation (in multiple >> court systems around the globe) to retrieve any /8s. Then >> following that effort and expense, the likelihood of even >> getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following >> the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation >> the result is likely to be just a few months of additional >> resource added to the pool?and possibly not even a whole >> month. All this assumes IANA does not completely run out >> before getting any back, because running out would result in >> pentup demand that could immediately exhaust any returns. >> >> >> >> If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are >> at least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, >> reclamation efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to >> doubt that is the case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you >> don't even buy an additional year. >> >> >> Owen >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> Steve Wagner >> Vice President of Operations >> Syringa Networks, LLC >> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >> Boise, ID 83705 >> Office: 208.229.6104 >> Main: 208.229.6100 >> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >> Fax: 208.229.6110 >> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >> >> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >> >> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >> The information in this message is intended for the named >> recipients only. It may contain information that is privileged, >> confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are >> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >> disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in >> reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. >> If you have received this e-mail in error, do not print it or >> disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please notify the >> sender by return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >> thereafter. Thank you. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Osmon >> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like >> to RETURN a /20 >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: >> >> >> >> John Osmon wrote: >> >> >> >> We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning >> space, but >> >> we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to >> the table >> >> (relatively) late. >> >> >> Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. >> >> >> Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting >> a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to >> significant >> difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) >> >> I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the >> pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in >> commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of >> /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you >> experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you >> experience any issues. >> >> --- >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From vaughn at swiftsystems.com Wed Jul 22 21:25:09 2009 From: vaughn at swiftsystems.com (Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:25:09 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <4A67B1E6.1080904@gmail.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714F3@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> <4A67B1E6.1080904@gmail.com> Message-ID: Meant to say... With all due respect... Sent from my handheld On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > If his ISP will route space he gets from another provider (or from > ARIN), but won't give him space, then I know of lots of folks who > will sell him a 10M Ethernet circuit in a datacenter somewhere, > along with as much address space as he can justify under ARIN > policies. He can then announce the space from both locations, with > the datacenter circuit serving only as a backup last-resort in the > event that the primary announcement (through their rural ISP) goes > down. They can anycast their DNS and mail servers out of the > datacenter, or simply tunnel all the packets back to their main > network. > > -Scott > > Nathaniel B. Lyon wrote: >> >> I think what some of the smaller guys are talking about is this. I >> know of 1 ISP right now that is in a RURAL, RURAL area. Doing a >> great job of providing ?cable? speeds to his customers over the >> air. His upstream has basically told him to f-off in terms of get >> ting any more IPv4 addresses. He has 300+ customers, so he doesn? >> t qualify for a /20. He CAN?T multi-home, because there literally >> no other options in his area. >> >> What is he to do? Now ARIN freely handed out a /32 of IPv6 >> addresses to him, but that doesn?t do him any good. Should he jus >> t throw the towel in because he isn?t large enough to get more IPv >> 4 addresses? >> >> Why can he have an IPv6 /32 but is nowhere near large enough for a / >> 22 in the IPv6 range. Or hell even a /23, he is easily big enough >> for a /23. But ARIN?s minimum they will hand is a /20 if you are >> not multi-homed and a /22 if you are. >> >> This guy is screwed until IPv6 is knee deep. >> >> >> *From:* arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >> bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:23 PM >> *To:* arin-discuss at arin.net >> *Subject:* Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like >> to RETURN a /20 >> >> >> Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't >> you know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when >> others have already said it is not worth it." >> >> >> The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. >> Does a protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types >> or the "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the >> other space Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good >> will a few have gotten on this list by committing to return space.. >> >> You don't get what you don't ask for. >> >> >> Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to >> succeed at for a group this bright. >> >> >> >> ~Vaughn >> >> Sent from my handheld >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong > >> wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: >> >> >> >> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of >> Idaho has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities >> sit behind two different firewalls. >> >> Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls >> >> And so forth into perpetuity it seems >> >> In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies >> have, particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls >> is unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address >> space behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a >> company entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, >> B, C etc. There is no technical or administrative justification I >> can see. >> >> Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. >> Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. >> >> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the >> tide for many years. >> >> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP >> address space by entity and determine how many of these >> organizations sit behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small >> portion of their allocation. >> >> Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the >> conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal >> article: >> >> >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html >> >> >> *Reclaiming Allocations* >> Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some >> of the early allocations to further extend the lifetime of >> IPv4. Hopefully this article has shown that the ROI for that >> approach is going to be extremely low. Discussions around the >> Internet community show there is an expectation that it will >> take several years of substantive negotiation (in multiple >> court systems around the globe) to retrieve any /8s. Then >> following that effort and expense, the likelihood of even >> getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following >> the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation >> the result is likely to be just a few months of additional >> resource added to the pool?and possibly not even a whole >> month. All this assumes IANA does not completely run out >> before getting any back, because running out would result in >> pentup demand that could immediately exhaust any returns. >> >> >> >> If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are >> at least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, >> reclamation efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to >> doubt that is the case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you >> don't even buy an additional year. >> >> >> Owen >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> Steve Wagner >> Vice President of Operations >> Syringa Networks, LLC >> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >> Boise, ID 83705 >> Office: 208.229.6104 >> Main: 208.229.6100 >> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >> Fax: 208.229.6110 >> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >> >> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >> >> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >> The information in this message is intended for the named >> recipients only. It may contain information that is privileged, >> confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are >> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >> disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in >> reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. >> If you have received this e-mail in error, do not print it or >> disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please notify the >> sender by return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >> thereafter. Thank you. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Osmon >> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like >> to RETURN a /20 >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: >> >> >> >> John Osmon wrote: >> >> >> >> We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning >> space, but >> >> we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to >> the table >> >> (relatively) late. >> >> >> Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. >> >> >> Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting >> a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to >> significant >> difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) >> >> I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the >> pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in >> commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of >> /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you >> experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you >> experience any issues. >> >> --- >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From vaughn at swiftsystems.com Wed Jul 22 21:32:22 2009 From: vaughn at swiftsystems.com (Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:32:22 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A67B134.2080500@directcom.com> References: <4A66953A.6050307@gmail.com> <4A67B134.2080500@directcom.com> Message-ID: <852ECCB1-D1E2-4D03-84D2-A41BBA667692@swiftsystems.com> I am not in favor of the proposal below. However, I do like the idea stated below regarding a "member designated representative". Leads me to think it is time for the small ISPs to band up and hire a lobbyist. We don't typically have the time to participate on par with the big boys and so a lot of inequities get by and we get scolded for not participating enough. We are too busy saving up to pay our fees.... Sent from my handheld On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:39 PM, kreg roenfeldt wrote: > Go outside and play. > > -=Kreg > > Scott Leibrand wrote: >> Jon, >> >> Thanks for the constructive suggestion. >> >> For anyone who is interested in policy development in this area, I >> would highly encourage you to subscribe to the Public Policy >> Mailing List, discuss this and other policy ideas, and make a >> proposal through the Policy Development Process if there appears to >> be support for an idea. Myself or anyone else on the Advisory >> Council will be happy to work with you to assist in the process. >> >> It's also worth noting that the Policy Development Process (PDP), >> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), and the Public Policy Meetings >> are all open to any interested party, whether or not they're an >> ARIN member or Designated Member Representative. In addition, the >> members of the Advisory Council (which plays a key role in the PDP) >> and the Board of Trustees (which ratifies policies and sets fees, >> among other things) are elected by the membership. We are >> currently in the process of soliciting questions to ask of nominees >> for either/both positions, so if there's an issue you feel strongly >> about, you should make sure the question is asked of candidates so >> you can vote accordingly. >> >> Thanks again, >> Scott >> >> Jon Auer wrote: >>> Who would be in favor of a policy along the lines of the following: >>> >>> ARIN shall not issue any IPv4 Number Resources unless the requesting >>> organization has: >>> 1. A IPv6 subnet properly allocated from ARIN >>> 2. Said IPv6 subnet is announced in the global IPv6 routing table >>> 3. Said IPv6 subnet is visible from a neutral 3rd party's looking >>> glass (routeviews.org or similar) >>> 4. Organization's customers or end users that would normally be >>> assigned a non-RFC1918 IPv4 address are given the option of >>> additionally being assigned a IPv6 subnet from said provider >>> within 12 >>> months or the IPv4 Number Resource granted under this policy shall >>> be >>> revoked. >>> >>> I had a IPv6 subnet allocated from ARIN and routed globally though >>> HE.net's tunnel broker within 48 hours. >>> Meeting a policy like that should be easy. >>> Even if you are a large provider 12 months should be enough time to >>> get one customer running with IPv6 to demonstrate token compliance >>> with section 4... >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:42 PM, >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Send ARIN-discuss mailing list submissions to >>>> arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>> arin-discuss-request at arin.net >>>> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>> arin-discuss-owner at arin.net >>>> >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-discuss digest..." >>>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. Re: Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. (Tony Valenti) >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:42:39 -0500 >>>> From: Tony Valenti >>>> To: John Brown >>>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >>>> >>>> I'm in the same boat as one of the earlier readers mentioned.I >>>> think a big >>>> mistake that ARIN is making is that ARIN incorrectly assumes that >>>> we have >>>> something to do with making IPV6 a reality and managing IPV4 >>>> address space. >>>> >>>> Just recently I called one of our upstream providers (again) and >>>> asked them >>>> when we would be able to use IPV6 addresses. After being >>>> escalated all the >>>> way to to their Level 4 engineers, i was told that they have no >>>> plans to >>>> implement IPV6 which means that if I put any content on an IPV6 >>>> address, I >>>> can expect at a minimum, 25% of the US won't have access to it. >>>> >>>> So, assuming that the upstream providers like ours just simply >>>> don't care, >>>> and in a few years there is a black market for IPV4 address space >>>> because >>>> the internet is officially out, what will you do? As a >>>> webhosting company, >>>> we have no choice but to pay whatever the black market price for >>>> IPs is or >>>> go out of business/quit accepting customers. >>>> >>>> If I sound unhappy, it is because I am. ARIN continually >>>> emphasizes the >>>> problem of depleting IPV4 but never offers or enforces anything >>>> to fix the >>>> problem - they just make the current process harder. ARIN is a >>>> doomsday >>>> prophet powerless to change the fate that we all will endure. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM, John Brown >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I?ll ask the age old question again. >>>>> >>>>> What legal right does ARIN have to tell Apple to do anything? >>>>> If Apple got >>>>> the space pre-ARIN and the rules where different then, what >>>>> gives ARIN the >>>>> ability to enforce rules today. >>>>> >>>>> Its contracts law. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/21/09 8:14 PM, "Chris Gotstein" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I would agree. Us small guys don't want to get to a point where >>>>> the big >>>>> guys are holding available IP address space over our heads for a >>>>> fee. >>>>> Those companies aren't just going to start dealing with every >>>>> small ISP >>>>> that comes along asking for address space. >>>>> >>>>> We've gone through the process of getting our initial IP space >>>>> and also >>>>> requesting additional IP space. We were successful on both >>>>> attempts >>>>> because we could prove we needed the space. We also have an >>>>> IPv6 block >>>>> and already have it implemented on our routers. But at this >>>>> time, the >>>>> only way you can run IPv6 is dual stack, i don't see us running >>>>> pure >>>>> IPv6 for a long time to come. >>>>> >>>>> ARIN needs to step in and start dealing with these large, mostly >>>>> unused >>>>> blocks of IP address space. A working group would be a good >>>>> start, or >>>>> maybe it's just a matter of asking for justification from each >>>>> of these >>>>> companies. ARIN has the right to poll current block holders of >>>>> address >>>>> space on justification, why can't they do the same on these large >>>>> blocks? If HP and Apple can show they are using 80% or more of >>>>> their >>>>> block, then they can keep it and we move on. If not, then they >>>>> should >>>>> break up their blocks, and return the un-used space to ARIN. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Chris Gotstein >>>>> Sr Network Engineer >>>>> UP Logon/Computer Connection UP >>>>> 500 N Stephenson Ave >>>>> Iron Mountain, MI 49801 >>>>> Phone: 906-774-4847 >>>>> Fax: 906-774-0335 >>>>> chris at uplogon.com >>>>> >>>>> Kelvin Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Whoa, whoa, whoa. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sure I represent several others facing the depletion of >>>>>> IPv4. Our >>>>>> >>>>> Broadband division services residential and SMB DOCSIS and DSL >>>>> subscribers. >>>>> >>>>>> In a perfect world we would be servicing savvy subscribers >>>>>> running Linux >>>>>> >>>>> or current versions of Windows that support IPv6, and the >>>>> majority of web >>>>> destinations were running IPv6. >>>>> >>>>>> I can't implement NAT for our subscribers given that NAT can >>>>>> cause >>>>>> >>>>> problems for some of the services (VoIP, VPNs, etc) in use today. >>>>> >>>>>> So, if I'm reading this right, folks like me who are protecting >>>>>> what >>>>>> >>>>> blocks we manage from excess waste and paying for every block, >>>>> will now be >>>>> at the mercy of these /8 holders who may be utilizing a tiny >>>>> portion of the >>>>> blocks they are assigned when the "transfer market" comes into >>>>> play. >>>>> >>>>>> Lovely, I can't wait until I'm paying $100 a year per IPv4 >>>>>> address >>>>>> >>>>> because they can go for that. >>>>> >>>>>> I think instead of talking on these lists that there should be >>>>>> a steering >>>>>> >>>>> group developed to address the real issues. Forcing Apple, HP >>>>> and the DoD to >>>>> implement IPv6 NOW freeing up those blocks. If they can't, they >>>>> need to pay. >>>>> In my opinion, especially when looking at the DoD most of their >>>>> networks >>>>> aren't accessed by the general public, so they can transition >>>>> versus the >>>>> ISPs of the world dealing with users still running Windows 98. >>>>> >>>>>> Additionally the group could reallocate those big blocks to the >>>>>> >>>>> responsible little guy with the aforementioned issues without the >>>>> establishment of a transfer market, and work to create a series >>>>> of large >>>>> bandwidth IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. >>>>> >>>>>> (All of the above was written after too many beers at the local >>>>>> brew >>>>>> >>>>> pub--if it doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to us) >>>>> >>>>>> Kw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kelvin Williams >>>>>> Altus Communications Group, Inc. >>>>>> Office Direct: 678.369.5968 >>>>>> Office Main: 678.369.5970 >>>>>> Fax: 866.895.8557 >>>>>> Mobile: 678.852.4173 >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>>>> >>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:58:01 >>>>>> To: John Brown >>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >>>>>> accountability. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If people NEED IPv4 after runout (as opposed to merely liking >>>>>> to have >>>>>> some), then a transfer market will >>>>>> exist, and those unused IPv4 numbers of HP and Apple will >>>>>> suddenly >>>>>> have a transferable value - and as long as HP and Apple >>>>>> continue to sit >>>>>> on them, they lose that money. It's no different than charging >>>>>> them >>>>>> a fee to where they then lose money paying the fee. Either way, >>>>>> they lose money. The only difference is who gets the money >>>>>> they lose. >>>>>> >>>>>> Apple and HP only DON'T lose money if a transfer market never >>>>>> forms >>>>>> and that block of numbers never gains value. In which case >>>>>> nobody will >>>>>> be bugging ARIN to start charging them a fee. >>>>>> >>>>>> Either way, it works the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ted >>>>>> >>>>>> John Brown wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> So the challenge for ARIN, is what legal right do they have to >>>>>>> assess a >>>>>>> fee on Apple or HP (to use them as an example here)?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was >>>>>>> no fee as >>>>>>> part of the "contract". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Steve Wagner [mailto:stwagner at syringanetworks.net] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:38 PM >>>>>>>> To: John Brown; Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >>>>>>>> accountability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If either Apple or HP corporate network sits behind a NAT >>>>>>>> firewall, they do not need the address space you speak about, >>>>>>>> i.e. 40 million. In this regard may charging those type of >>>>>>>> entities for the address space they use, may result in them >>>>>>>> returning this address space to the allocation pool. This >>>>>>>> would be true for any other end user entity as well that uses >>>>>>>> a NAT type firewall >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Steve Wagner >>>>>>>> Vice President of Operations >>>>>>>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>>>>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>>>>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>>>>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>>>>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>>>>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>>>>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>>>>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>>>>>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>>>>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>>>>>> recipients only. It may contain information that is >>>>>>>> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from >>>>>>>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>>>>>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, >>>>>>>> or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of >>>>>>>> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>>>>> this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or >>>>>>>> its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by >>>>>>>> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>>>>>>> thereafter. Thank you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]>>>>>>> bounces at arin.net]>On Behalf Of John Brown >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:18 PM >>>>>>>> To: Mike Horwath; Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >>>>>>>> accountability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that the other ARIN RIR's do a better job of managing >>>>>>>> the actual >>>>>>>> usage ratios. Lots of US service providers have space >>>>>>>> allocated or >>>>>>>> assigned to downstream customers and those customers don't >>>>>>>> exist any >>>>>>>> more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The cost for provider X to tightly manage their space is >>>>>>>> higher than the >>>>>>>> cost of them just getting new space. So it doesn't happen. >>>>>>>> I could >>>>>>>> give multiple specific examples, at the risk of putting a >>>>>>>> public spot >>>>>>>> light on those providers. :| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe that the early end user entities that got gobs of >>>>>>>> space should >>>>>>>> return the space they aren't using. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does Apple Computer really need a /8 ??? >>>>>>>> Does HP really need a /8 ?? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do both of those entities really need 40 million+ IP >>>>>>>> addresses ?? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the specific issue of why Mr. Horwath can't get space, I >>>>>>>> don't know. >>>>>>>> He fails to articulate specifics and only talks with a broad >>>>>>>> brush. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do know the ARIN staff and they are reasonable people doing >>>>>>>> good work >>>>>>>> under the guidelines they have. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there is some injustice on Mr. Horwath's allocation >>>>>>>> request, I'm sure >>>>>>>> it can be resolved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So to that end I'll offer a few minutes of my time to >>>>>>>> privately work >>>>>>>> with him on his allocation request and see if it passes >>>>>>>> muster and what >>>>>>>> may need to be done to help it float. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>>>>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]>>>>>>>> bounces at arin.net]>On Behalf Of Mike Horwath >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:48 PM >>>>>>>>> To: Nathaniel B. Lyon >>>>>>>>> Cc: ARIN Discussion List >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 >>>>>>>>> accountability. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This issue and scare of IPv4 going away, running out of >>>>>>>>> space, I hear rice cakes are tasty - has been going on for >>>>>>>>> way too long. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I started my first ISP in 1993 and was told then that I >>>>>>>>> needed to be stingy with my allocation. 16 years later, same >>>>>>>>> mantra, same boys with their toys who don't want to share >>>>>>>>> the pool. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The issues of accountability go back to the mid/late-1990s >>>>>>>>> when it was posed that companies/institutions/government be >>>>>>>>> held to the same standards as joe schmoe consumer of >>>>>>>>> netblocks. Search the mailing list archives, I am sure you >>>>>>>>> will find commentary in regular spats. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This isn't going to change, unfortunately. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The old boys club is just that: a club of old boys who have >>>>>>>>> benefits for themselves. They even have a sign on their >>>>>>>>> clubhouse that states 'No Girlz'. (the rest of us are the >>>>>>>>> girlz if that wasn't obvious) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BUT: you too can join the club: just rewind time by about 20 >>>>>>>>> years, get in on the ground floor 'IP Address Give Away' >>>>>>>>> stock offering. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or do what others do, buy larger netblock holding >>>>>>>>> companies: PROFIT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I sound a little bitter, I apologize. The playing field >>>>>>>>> should be level when it comes to this resource. It never has >>>>>>>>> been. I don't think it ever will be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I said it, you read it, I can't take it back. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net >>>>>>>>> The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is >>>>>>>>> that surrounds universes. - Berkely Fortune >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>> URL: >>> > >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-discuss mailing list >>>> ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> >>>> End of ARIN-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 8 >>>> ******************************************* >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From vaughn at swiftsystems.com Wed Jul 22 21:33:47 2009 From: vaughn at swiftsystems.com (Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:33:47 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A67B67A.2070201@ipinc.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802492072@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <6D4F72E9-6E9A-493E-843E-CAE502C0B278@delong.com> <753CBD87-AD2E-4AAC-9F2E-2097F87FB313@swiftsystems.com> <4A67B67A.2070201@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <70135E4C-3A75-4222-9147-6737742F57D2@swiftsystems.com> Speak up!? Sent from my handheld On Jul 22, 2009, at 9:01 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > I'm pretty sure that Microsoft used to have a class A and I'm pretty > sure that disappeared a few years ago. > > Apple and HP may be in that same boat. They may have a class B now > because they gave up a class A a few years ago, and they got the B > under a secret agreement with ARIN > > This is just sheer speculation. Since I don't work for ARIN and > don't know if it's true or not, I'm free to speculate. The people > who actually know, well their hands are a bit more tied. > > Ted > > Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: >> So what does ARIN have to lose... Are these orgs cooperating now? >> Sent from my handheld >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:17 AM, >> > wrote: >>> >>>>> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was >>>>> no fee as part of the "contract". >>>> >>>> It is a principle of common law that if there is no money (or >>>> equivalent) paid then there is no legal contract. Has this >>>> changed in >>>> the USA? >>>> >>> It is a principle of common law that a contract involves an exchange >>> of value. (labor, things, etc. == value) >>> >>> It is a principle of common law that without a contract, you >>> cannot expect >>> someone to pay a bill for a service you did not tell them you were >>> going >>> to charge them for, whether or not they asked for said service and >>> whether >>> or not you performed said service. >>> >>> The above use of the term "contract" probably is in quotations >>> because, >>> it specifically is not a contract in the legal meaning of the >>> word, but, more >>> the "contract" as a term of art for any form of agreement between >>> two or >>> more parties. >>> >>>> I'd like to see all these entities billed retroactively back to the >>>> beginning of ARIN. If they complain, then we could negotiate it >>>> down to >>>> just the past year if they sign an RSA. >>>> >>> This would be an absurd waste of time and money on the part of >>> ARIN in >>> my humble opinion. I think it would also go a long way towards >>> reducing >>> the willingness to work with ARIN on the parts of several >>> organizations with >>> legacy space. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 21:36:38 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:36:38 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <7A22000A-0C6A-47E5-9A6F-F0538807B574@swiftsystems.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E6B5714F3@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> <4A67B1E6.1080904@gmail.com> <7A22000A-0C6A-47E5-9A6F-F0538807B574@swiftsystems.com> Message-ID: <4A67BEA6.2090709@gmail.com> Undoubtedly it is, as I am advocating using an "urban" datacenter solution to work around those challenges. When you get back to your PC, could you elaborate on which challenges would make this workaround difficult? And in case it wasn't clear from my detailed how-to, essentially what I'm describing is getting PA space from someone other than the upstream that provides your primary IP connectivity, and then getting your ISP to route that space the same way they would space from ARIN. -Scott Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: > Meant to say... With all due respect... > > Sent from my handheld > Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: > Um, that response is disconnected from the challenges of a rural ISP > > Sent from my handheld > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Scott Leibrand > wrote: > >> If his ISP will route space he gets from another provider (or from >> ARIN), but won't give him space, then I know of lots of folks who >> will sell him a 10M Ethernet circuit in a datacenter somewhere, along >> with as much address space as he can justify under ARIN policies. He >> can then announce the space from both locations, with the datacenter >> circuit serving only as a backup last-resort in the event that the >> primary announcement (through their rural ISP) goes down. They can >> anycast their DNS and mail servers out of the datacenter, or simply >> tunnel all the packets back to their main network. >> >> -Scott >> >> Nathaniel B. Lyon wrote: >>> >>> I think what some of the smaller guys are talking about is this. I >>> know of 1 ISP right now that is in a RURAL, RURAL area. Doing a >>> great job of providing ?cable? speeds to his customers over the >>> air. His upstream has basically told him to f-off in terms of >>> getting any more IPv4 addresses. He has 300+ customers, so he >>> doesn?t qualify for a /20. He CAN?T multi-home, because there >>> literally no other options in his area. >>> >>> What is he to do? Now ARIN freely handed out a /32 of IPv6 >>> addresses to him, but that doesn?t do him any good. Should he just >>> throw the towel in because he isn?t large enough to get more IPv4 >>> addresses? >>> >>> Why can he have an IPv6 /32 but is nowhere near large enough for a >>> /22 in the IPv6 range. Or hell even a /23, he is easily big enough >>> for a /23. But ARIN?s minimum they will hand is a /20 if you are >>> not multi-homed and a /22 if you are. >>> >>> This guy is screwed until IPv6 is knee deep. >>> >>> >>> *From:* arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Vaughn Thurman >>> - Swift Systems >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:23 PM >>> *To:* arin-discuss at arin.net >>> *Subject:* Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like >>> to RETURN a /20 >>> >>> >>> Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't >>> you know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when >>> others have already said it is not worth it." >>> >>> >>> The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. Does >>> a protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types or the >>> "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the other >>> space Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good will a few >>> have gotten on this list by committing to return space.. >>> >>> You don't get what you don't ask for. >>> >>> >>> Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to >>> succeed at for a group this bright. >>> >>> >>> >>> ~Vaughn >>> >>> Sent from my handheld >>> >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of >>> Idaho has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities >>> sit behind two different firewalls. >>> >>> Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls >>> >>> And so forth into perpetuity it seems >>> >>> In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies >>> have, particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls >>> is unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address >>> space behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a >>> company entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, >>> B, C etc. There is no technical or administrative justification I >>> can see. >>> >>> Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. >>> Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. >>> >>> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the >>> tide for many years. >>> >>> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP >>> address space by entity and determine how many of these >>> organizations sit behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small >>> portion of their allocation. >>> >>> Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the >>> conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal >>> article: >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html >>> >>> >>> >>> *Reclaiming Allocations* >>> Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some >>> of the early allocations to further extend the lifetime of >>> IPv4. Hopefully this article has shown that the ROI for that >>> approach is going to be extremely low. Discussions around the >>> Internet community show there is an expectation that it will >>> take several years of substantive negotiation (in multiple >>> court systems around the globe) to retrieve any /8s. Then >>> following that effort and expense, the likelihood of even >>> getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following >>> the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation >>> the result is likely to be just a few months of additional >>> resource added to the pool?and possibly not even a whole >>> month. All this assumes IANA does not completely run out >>> before getting any back, because running out would result in >>> pentup demand that could immediately exhaust any returns. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are >>> at least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, >>> reclamation efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to >>> doubt that is the case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you >>> don't even buy an additional year. >>> >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steve Wagner >>> Vice President of Operations >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>> Email: Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>> recipients only. It may contain information that is privileged, >>> confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are >>> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >>> disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in >>> reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. >>> If you have received this e-mail in error, do not print it or >>> disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please notify the >>> sender by return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately >>> thereafter. Thank you. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Osmon >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like >>> to RETURN a /20 >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> John Osmon wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning >>> space, but >>> >>> we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to >>> the table >>> >>> (relatively) late. >>> >>> >>> Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. >>> >>> >>> Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting >>> a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to >>> significant >>> difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) >>> >>> I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the >>> pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in >>> commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of >>> /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you >>> experience any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you >>> experience any issues. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From RUNDERWOOD at indigonetworks.com Thu Jul 23 08:25:19 2009 From: RUNDERWOOD at indigonetworks.com (Racardo Underwood) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:25:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7B2@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> Message-ID: <61721233708E4348BA5210086ED920AFE3141A@mail.srg.com.bs> unsubscribe -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:01 PM To: michael.dillon at bt.com; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to RETURN a /20 The block size was a /20 the dollar amount was $185K Or $45 per IP address. Another offer was the /20 and routing it with a monthly cash pre-paid lease of $7500 a month. Minimum 3 month contract, longer if the block continued to prove to be useful. Or $1.83 per IP per month > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > michael.dillon at bt.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:52 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > > With that said, I'd like to add that if I'd come into control of an > > allocation like one Mr. Brown has, I'd be doing the > > *exact* same thing he's indicated he's doing: give it back to ARIN > > It would be nice if you would also post to this list telling > us how much money was offered and how big the block is. We > have precious little data to use to predict how much IP > addresses might cost if we allow them to be bought and sold. > > --Michael Dillon > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From sweeny at indiana.edu Thu Jul 23 11:08:49 2009 From: sweeny at indiana.edu (Brent Sweeny) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:08:49 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> Message-ID: <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> the fact that someone has already "studied the issue" (precisely as you suggest be done) and the data behind the facts of the study disagree with your assumption doesn't make them a "naysayer"; it makes them much more convincing, and the name-calling doesn't change the facts nor their inevitable conclusions. If you assert that ARIN needs to expend resources to try to disprove Tony's (and Geoff's) pretty careful analysis, it'd be necessary to have more than that you don't like the conclusions as a reason: you'd have to have some factual basis for convincing us their analysis is flawed and must be redone. Absent that, we have to be grownups, accept the facts, and try to use "a group this bright" to do the best we can with the facts -- and move forward, not backwards. On 7/22/2009 8:23 PM, Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: > Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't you > know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when others have > already said it is not worth it." > > The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. Does a > protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types or the > "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the other space > Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good will a few have > gotten on this list by committing to return space.. > > You don't get what you don't ask for. > > Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to > succeed at for a group this bright. > > ~Vaughn > > Sent from my handheld > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >> >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: >> >>> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of Idaho >>> has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit behind >>> two different firewalls. >>> >>> Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls >>> >>> And so forth into perpetuity it seems >>> >>> In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies have, >>> particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is >>> unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address space >>> behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a company >>> entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, B, C etc. >>> There is no technical or administrative justification I can see. >>> >>> Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. >>> Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. >>> >>> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the >>> tide for many years. >>> >>> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP address >>> space by entity and determine how many of these organizations sit >>> behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small portion of their allocation. >>> >> Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the >> conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal article: >> >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html >> >>> Reclaiming Allocations >>> Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of the >>> early allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully >>> this article has shown that the ROI for that approach is going to be >>> extremely low. Discussions around the Internet community show there >>> is an expectation that it will take several years of substantive >>> negotiation (in multiple court systems around the globe) to retrieve >>> any /8s. Then following that effort and expense, the likelihood of >>> even getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following >>> the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation the >>> result is likely to be just a few months of additional resource added >>> to the pool?and possibly not even a whole month. All this assumes >>> IANA does not completely run out before getting any back, because >>> running out would result in pentup demand that could immediately >>> exhaust any returns. >> >> >> If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are at >> least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, reclamation >> efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to doubt that is the >> case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you don't even buy an >> additional year. >> >> Owen >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steve Wagner >>> Vice President of Operations >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>> Email: >>> Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>> The information in this message is intended for the named recipients >>> only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, >>> distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents >>> of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>> e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or its contents. >>> In such event, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete >>> the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [ >>> mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] >>> On Behalf Of John Osmon >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to >>> RETURN a /20 >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> John Osmon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but >>>>> we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table >>>>> (relatively) late. >>>> >>>> Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. >>> >>> Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting >>> a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to significant >>> difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) >>> >>> I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the >>> pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in >>> commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of >>> /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List ( >>> ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience >>> any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience >> any issues. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com Thu Jul 23 11:52:33 2009 From: Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com (VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:52:33 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> Message-ID: <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> Brent, Sorry if I came across as name calling - that's good feedback. Let me tone it down a bit, be a bit more constructive, and go more at the root of the issue, i.e. my concern regarding throwing our hands up too easily. I am stating that, in my humble opinion, the previous study is not based wholly on verified facts, but rather on supposition and speculation layered upon partially verified data. Further, it included sources who had an interest in moving the world forward towards IPv6 at a faster pace (sell new hardware/software/services, etc.). This is not (on it's own) a valid basis for current decisions about how to smooth an impending rough transition. The stakes have been raised and it's time to do our job as a membership and work in the interest of the larger community - our eco-system as it were. There is ample corroborated testimony (to indicate the existence of substantial reclamation opportunities) within the postings on this list (over just the last 72 hours) to serve as evidence warranting a grand jury. I qualify that statement with: provided people would swear to their recent statements, etc. So, it seems we should be as inquisitive as the law would when our own interests are at stake. This is especially true for the smaller operators that need some headroom while this inevitable transition occurs. I can quote a recent study by a conservative think tank and another from a liberal think tank - both on a current hot topic (never mind the issue, don't want to bunny trail here). Each offers a diametrically opposed viewpoint of the same data. Each effectively presents a favorable subset of the data without exposing the weakness of certain suppositions used to arrive at the seemingly data based results. In fact, both will assume their viewpoint upon the same data and it has to color the result. Data is objective, analysis is subjective. It sounds to me like there is a lot of unanalyzed data yet to be given the "Colombo"... "The /8's are too hard to get back without fragmentation and everyone would fight to the death to keep their unused space. So let's look at the remaining data" Colombo: "Yes, but Sir, I have just one more question..." which is how we get at the missed opportunity for solutions. That's all I want us to do. Hope that more politely expands upon my point: We are not in a situation where inaction is acceptable unless it is based upon aggressively verified data... in other words I suggest that ARIN *should* contact the holders of large blocks of unused space *anew* and see what their feeling is about being good corporate Internet citizens in the face of a crisis headed towards public attention. Offer press releases praising them for their good deeds, and honorable mention at various events, and you might be quite surprised what a well placed call from senior resources could accomplish. I'm an optimist. Of course, a stick should be behind the back that wears that friendly smile. I believe it should have written on it: "The power of the press". In my opinion, ARIN can reach that stick faster than small operators can on our own, but we can band up and reach it if ARIN feels bound or otherwise unable to do so. That stick is the data verifier we need. I am not suggesting we fight bears, but rather that we be brave enough to make sure they are not just wooly caterpillars in an oversized (allocation) bear suit before we checkmark those caves as being off limits. Best regards, ~Vaughn -----Original Message----- From: Brent Sweeny [mailto:sweeny at indiana.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:09 AM To: Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 the fact that someone has already "studied the issue" (precisely as you suggest be done) and the data behind the facts of the study disagree with your assumption doesn't make them a "naysayer"; it makes them much more convincing, and the name-calling doesn't change the facts nor their inevitable conclusions. If you assert that ARIN needs to expend resources to try to disprove Tony's (and Geoff's) pretty careful analysis, it'd be necessary to have more than that you don't like the conclusions as a reason: you'd have to have some factual basis for convincing us their analysis is flawed and must be redone. Absent that, we have to be grownups, accept the facts, and try to use "a group this bright" to do the best we can with the facts -- and move forward, not backwards. On 7/22/2009 8:23 PM, Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: > Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't you > know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when others have > already said it is not worth it." > > The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. Does a > protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types or the > "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the other space > Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good will a few have > gotten on this list by committing to return space.. > > You don't get what you don't ask for. > > Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to > succeed at for a group this bright. > > ~Vaughn > > Sent from my handheld > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >> >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: >> >>> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of Idaho >>> has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit behind >>> two different firewalls. >>> >>> Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls >>> >>> And so forth into perpetuity it seems >>> >>> In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies have, >>> particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is >>> unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address space >>> behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a company >>> entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, B, C etc. >>> There is no technical or administrative justification I can see. >>> >>> Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. >>> Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. >>> >>> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the >>> tide for many years. >>> >>> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP address >>> space by entity and determine how many of these organizations sit >>> behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small portion of their allocation. >>> >> Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the >> conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal article: >> >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html >> >>> Reclaiming Allocations >>> Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of the >>> early allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully >>> this article has shown that the ROI for that approach is going to be >>> extremely low. Discussions around the Internet community show there >>> is an expectation that it will take several years of substantive >>> negotiation (in multiple court systems around the globe) to retrieve >>> any /8s. Then following that effort and expense, the likelihood of >>> even getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following >>> the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation the >>> result is likely to be just a few months of additional resource added >>> to the pool?and possibly not even a whole month. All this assumes >>> IANA does not completely run out before getting any back, because >>> running out would result in pentup demand that could immediately >>> exhaust any returns. >> >> >> If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are at >> least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, reclamation >> efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to doubt that is the >> case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you don't even buy an >> additional year. >> >> Owen >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steve Wagner >>> Vice President of Operations >>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>> Boise, ID 83705 >>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>> Email: >>> Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>> The information in this message is intended for the named recipients >>> only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, >>> distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents >>> of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>> e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or its contents. >>> In such event, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete >>> the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [ >>> mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] >>> On Behalf Of John Osmon >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to >>> RETURN a /20 >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> John Osmon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but >>>>> we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table >>>>> (relatively) late. >>>> >>>> Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. >>> >>> Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting >>> a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to significant >>> difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) >>> >>> I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the >>> pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in >>> commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of >>> /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List ( >>> ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience >>> any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience >> any issues. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com Thu Jul 23 12:30:38 2009 From: Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com (VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:30:38 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> Message-ID: <013c01ca0bb2$e9a37b90$bcea72b0$@com> Here you go... A Pragmatic Report on IPv4 Address Space Consumption by Tony Hain, Cisco Systems When I interact with people from all around the world discussing IPv6, there continue to be questions about the projected lifetime for IPv4. This article presents consumption rate and lifetime projections based on publicly available Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) data. In addition, there is discussion about why the widely quoted alternative projection may be flawed, thus leading everyone to believe we have much more time than we might. Figure 1: IANA /8 Allocations http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/images/ipj/ipj_8-3/83_ipv4_figure_01_sm.jpg Allocations The chart in Figure 1 shows the distribution of all 256 IANA /8 allocation units in IPv4 [1] as of July 1, 2005. The Central registry represents the allocations made prior to the formation of the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). ARIN (North America) [2], RIPE NCC (Europe) [3], APNIC (Asia/Pacific) [4], LACNIC (Latin America) [5], and AfriNIC (Africa) [6] are the organizations managing registrations for each of their respective regions. RFC 3330 [7] discusses the state of the Defined and Multicast address blocks. The Experimental block (also known as Class E?RFC 1700 [8]) was reserved, and many widely deployed IPv4 stacks considered its use to be a configuration error. The bottom bar shows the remaining useful global IPv4 pool. To be clear, when the IANA pool is exhausted there will still be space in each of the RIR pools, but by current policy [9] that space is expected to be only enough to last each RIR between 12 and 18 months. The projection published at http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4 [10] is often quoted as the definitive reference for IPv4 consumption. This report presents a viewpoint consistent with that author's long-standing position that we do not need to change from IPv4 to IPv6 anytime soon, thus showing an extended lifetime for IPv4. The approach used in the potaroo report is to take the simple exponential fit to the allocation data since 1995. As discussed later in this article, this approach includes the effects of the policy shift to Classless Interdomain Routing (CIDR) and subsequent digestion of prior allocations, the lull in IANA allocations to the RIRs for two full years, as well as the fact that the model used does not generate a particularly close fit to the actual run rate over the 10-year period. Although this author agrees that over very long timeframes (20?50 years) there will be substantial variations in the consumption rate for any number of reasons, the opportunity for events that would reduce the recent rate in the timeframe of the remaining IANA IPv4 pool is not evident. That said, there are numerous things that could increase the consumption rate and exhaust the pool even sooner than this projection. Figure 2: IANA Allocations to RIRs ?Raw /8 Allocations per Month http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/images/ipj/ipj_8-3/83_ipv4_figure_02_sm.jpg The graph in Figure 2 shows the raw per-month IANA allocations since 1995. In raw form it is difficult to discern the trend, or develop an expectation about the overall lifetime of the remaining pool. Taking a closer look at Figure 3, smoothing the data with a 24-month sliding window (averaging over 12 months back and 12 months forward) exposes the underlying reality that the combined rate and quantity of /8 allocations has been steadily accelerating since 2000 (the graphs for 12-, 18-, and 24-month sliding windows show the same fundamental trend). Though a few of the allocations may arguably have been "one-time" events, those are lost as statistically insignificant in the extended and continuing overall growth rate. Figure 3: IANA Allocations to RIRs ?Sliding-Window 24-Month Average http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/images/ipj/ipj_8-3/83_ipv4_figure_03_sm.jpg Taken by itself, the most recent allocation rate (22 /8s over the 18 months leading up to July 1, 2005) suggests that the remaining pool of 64 /8s will be exhausted in about 5 years, even if growth abruptly flattens out to hold around 1 /8 per month. Unfortunately at this point there is no reason to believe the allocation rates will slow or that they will turn downward again. All the gain of CIDR absorbing the pre-1995 allocations has already been incorporated, and there is no obvious economic bubble that might burst to lower demand within the time window of the remaining pool. To the contrary, the following URL shows potential demand (to bring developing countries up to just 20-percent connectivity, which is half of what the existing Internet world enjoys today) that will swamp the remaining pool, even in the face of much stricter allocation policies. http://www.nav6tf.org/documents/e-Nations-data.pdf So this view of the sustained trend in allocation growth rate suggests that the lifetime of the remaining central IPv4 pool is 4 years +/-1. Projections Differing from recent articles and section 5 of the report at http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4 that hint at linearity in growth, Figure 4 shows that the raw data after 1995 is clearly nonlinear. It starts with a decelerating rate through mid-1998 as the pre-1995 allocations were absorbed (precipitated by the allocation policy shift from class-based to CIDR), followed by a 2-year lull (only 1 /8 per year), then a return to accelerating growth from mid-2000 onward. Figure 4: IPv4 Lifetime Projection ?Non-Linear Nature of Raw Data http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/images/ipj/ipj_8-3/83_ipv4_figure_04_sm.jpg This suggests that using the past 10-year IANA data is likely to skew the projection toward a much longer period than the recent allocation data would support. Although a longer lifetime projection helps to avoid short-term panic, it can mislead people into believing there is substantial time to worry about this later, resulting in a much bigger problem when reality blindsides everyone sooner than they expected. Figure 5: IPv4 Lifetime Projections ?Order-N Polynomials, Post-2000 History Basis http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/images/ipj/ipj_8-3/83_ipv4_figure_05_sm.jpg Figure 6: IPv4 Lifetime Projections ?Polynomials and Exponentials http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/images/ipj/ipj_8-3/83_ipv4_figure_06_sm.jpg As in any statistical endeavor there are many ways to evaluate the data. The various projections in Figures 5 and 6 show different mathematical models applied to the same raw data. Depending on the model chosen, the nonlinear historical trends in Figure 6 covering the last 5- and 10-year data show that the remaining 64 /8s will be allocated somewhere between 2009 and 2016, with no change in policy or demand (though as discussed previously there are already reasons to err toward 5-yearbased nonlinear models). Adding to that, policy is continually changing. ARIN, for example, has recently clarified its policy allowing organizations that demonstrate they have exceeded the capacity of the private space defined in RFC 1918 to acquire IPv4 address blocks from the remaining public pool, even when it is clear these allocations will never be announced to the global Internet. The other regions already have similar policies or are likely to follow suit because the most vocal members of the RIR community have adamantly commented against expanding the private IPv4 range. This policy approach coupled with persistent demand means the actual run rate is going to continue increasing as the large organizations begin consuming public space where they had been using private to support their network growth. For example, one large enterprise has steady growth over 1 percent per month, which currently requires an efficiently managed /12 per year for its expanding network. The enterprise is less than a year from exhausting all the space provided in RFC 1918, so it was very interested in the ARIN policy that allows the enterprise to continue growing through public space. Additionally, multiple commercial service providers expect to reach the capacity of the 1918 space within 12 to 18 months, just supporting management addresses on their existing devices. This does not take into consideration their pending deployment of new services, which they expect will use several new IPv4 addresses per device with marketing targets measured in multiple millions of units. Figure 7: IPv4 Lifetime Projection ?5-Year History Basis http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/images/ipj/ipj_8-3/83_ipv4_figure_07_sm.jpg The graph in Figure 7 hints at the likely outcome as word spreads about the perception of policy liberalization and the demonstrable exhaustion of the remaining global IPv4 pool landing within the return-on-investment (ROI) period for new equipment. It is based on the same raw historical data as the frequently quoted long-term projection on potaroo's Figure 2.4, but the more aggressive fit on the most recent data set describes a significantly higher consumption rate and shorter lifetime for the remaining pool. Figure 8: IPv4 /8 Pool ?5-Year History-Based Projection http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/images/ipj/ipj_8-3/83_ipv4_figure_08_sm.jpg The graph in Figure 8 provides the exhaustion perspective, showing the entire address pool from the publication of IP Version 4 [11] (note that data prior to 1995 is accurate as to where it was allocated, but with very coarse granularity as to exactly when). The projection curve is based on the IANA allocations from January 2000 onward. Only time will tell which projection is correct, but it will already take a fairly significant stalling event to slow consumption and put the actual allocation curve back on the extended track in potaroo's Figure 2.4. Reserved Space There are occasionally arguments that the 16 /8s reserved in the experimental space could be used. Although this is likely to be possible for some IP stack implementations, for others it is not. At a minimum, some quick tests show that Windows 95 through Windows 2003 Server systems consider that block to be a configuration error and refuse to accept it. The operational ability to restrict the space to a select stack implementation is limited, and the amount of space there does not really help even if deployment and operations were trivial. Assuming the sustained growth trend in allocations continues, by the time the remaining 64 /8s in the IANA pool are finished the rate would be approaching 3 /8 allocations per month, so the entirety of the old Class E space would amount to about 6 months of run rate. Reclaiming Allocations Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of the early allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully this article has shown that the ROI for that approach is going to be extremely low. Discussions around the Internet community show there is an expectation that it will take several years of substantive negotiation (in multiple court systems around the globe) to retrieve any /8s. Then following that effort and expense, the likelihood of even getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation the result is likely to be just a few months of additional resource added to the pool?and possibly not even a whole month. All this assumes IANA does not completely run out before getting any back, because running out would result in pentup demand that could immediately exhaust any returns. Summary Network Address Translation (NAT) and CIDR did their jobs and bought the 10 years needed to get IPv6 standards and products developed. Now is the time to recognize the end to sustainable growth of the IPv4-based Internet has arrived and that it is time to move on. IPv6 is ready as the successor, so the gating issue is attitude. When CIOs make firm decisions to deploy IPv6, the process is fairly straightforward. Staff will need to be trained, management tools will need to be enhanced, routers and operating systems will need to be updated, and IPv6-enabled versions of applications will need to be deployed. All these steps will take time?in many cases multiple years. The point of this article has been to show that the recent consumption rates of IPv4 will not be sustainable from the central pool beyond this decade, so organizations would be wise to start the process of planning for an IPv6 deployment now. Those who delay may find that the IANA pool for IPv4 has run dry before they have completed their move to IPv6. Although that may not be a problem for most, organizations that need to acquire additional IPv4 space to continue growing during the transition could be out of luck. References [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space [2] http://www.arin.net/ [3] http://www.ripe.net/ [4] http://www.apnic.net/ [5] http://www.lacnic.net/ [6] http://www.afrinic.net/ [7] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt [8] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1700.txt [9] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2050.txt [10] http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4 [11] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc791.txt [12] Geoff Huston, "The Myth of IPv6," The Internet Protocol Journal, Volume 6, No. 2, June 2003. [13] Geoff Huston, "IPv4: How long do we have?," The Internet Protocol Journal, Volume 6, No. 4, December 2003. Another Perspective Ed.: We asked Geoff Huston to provide some feedback on this article and he responded with the following: Dear Editor, There are, of course, many ways to undertake predictions, and over the millennia humanity has explored a wide diversity of them. In every case the challenge is to make predictions that end up being closely correlated to the unfolding story, and of course hindsight is always the harshest judge of such predictions. Tony's work takes a different base point for making the projection from earlier work that I did in this area. Tony looks at the rate of allocation from the IANA to the RIRs, and bases his predictions on the trends visible in that time series of data. By contrast, I used the assumption that assigned addresses are destined for use in the public IPv4 Internet, and I used the trends visible in the amount of advertised address space as the basis for the predictions of consumption. One of the more interesting data artifacts is the first-order differential of the rate at which the span of addresses announced in the IPv4 public Internet has increased over time. (Figure 4.4 of http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4/) One interpretation of this data is that there are two phases of recent activity: prior to March 2003 and post-March 2003. Prior to March 2003 the longer-term address growth rate was the equivalent of some 3.5 /8 blocks per year. Post-March 2003 we see a different consumption growth rate, fluctuating between 5 and 8 /8s per year, with a mean value of some 7.5 /8s per year. There is no strongly obvious longer-term compound growth rate visible in this view of the data. Given some 64 /8s remaining in the IANA pool as of July 2005 and a base consumption rate of a mean of 7.5 /8s per year, the simple division yields 8.5 years, or 2014 as the time of forecast exhaustion of the IANA address pool. At that point the RIRs will be holding about 25 /8 blocks in their unallocated pools, and a further two years of allocations could be made from these pools. So I would offer the view that the post-2003 data offers a perspective of exhaustion of the unallocated address pools in 2016, with the caveat that such a prediction assumes that the current address demand levels will continue, the actions of industry players are invariant, and the current address allocation policies will continue as they are at present. Of course these three caveats represent relatively major assumptions about the future?and are perhaps unlikely to happen. It is likely that there will be changes in all these factors in the coming years, and these will obviously impact these predictive models. To summarize, I observe that these different predictive approaches yield slightly different outcomes, but not beyond any reasonable error margin for predictions of this nature. Sometime in the forthcoming 5 to 10 years the current address distribution policy framework for IPv4 will no longer be sustainable for the current industry address consumption model because of effective exhaustion of the unallocated address pool. When looking at this prediction from the perspective of the service provider enterprise, the prediction can be re-expressed as a problem relating to investment lifecycles. The ISP industry and the enterprise sector have already made considerable investments in IPv4-based infrastructure in equipment, infrastructure, and operational capability, and we are seeing some considerable reluctance to add to this with additional investment into IPv6 capability at this time. The direction of the use of various forms of NAT-based approaches and increasing use of application layer gateways in the public and enterprise environments can be seen as an effort to extend the lifetime of the existing infrastructure investment. In a volume-based market with relatively low revenue margins, this position certainly has some sound rationale from a business management perspective. But I agree with Tony here that such business approaches are ultimately short-term in nature, because they do not allow IPv4 to encompass indefinite further decades of Internet growth in a silicon-dense world. However, in terms of understanding the next few years of a process of industry transition of protocol infrastructure into IPv6 deployment, perhaps the real issues here are more centered on competitive business factors and sector investment profiles than they are about detailed introspection of trends within various number series. The numbers all indicate that this is not a matter that can be deferred indefinitely. Tony's call for some timely attention to the need to commence investment in IPv6-based service infrastructure is one that I hope the industry is listening to attentively. ?Geoff Huston gih at apnic.net A Virtual Roundtable Ole: Let's open this discussion on the point of measurement methods. We invited John Klensin and Fred Baker to join Geoff and Tony in the discussion at our virtual round table. (We often all see each other at IETF meetings, but there is seldom enough time to gather everyone around a real table, hence this discussion took place with a few rounds of e-mail). Geoff: As I said in my response letter, Tony's work takes a different base point for making the projection from the earlier work that I did in this area. My work has focused on the trends from the addresses used in the public IPv4 Internet, and then deriving projections on consumption based on this data. It assumes that the influencing factor for address consumption is the use of addresses in the public IPv4 Internet. Tony: As Geoff noted, he and I have discussed over time that we are looking at different parts of the data set and coming to different conclusions. One specific point that distorts the approaches is the time delay between IANA allocation to the RIRs and the appearance of that space for public use. In particular, his comment about 5 to 8 /8s per year is based on the delayed public use data that will eventually catch up with the fact that IANA has allocated 13 /8s just since the beginning of 2005. If the allocation rates had close to linear growth, the delay would not be a big factor. Another point of distortion is the potential for some of the allocations to never show up as publicly routed. Ole: So when do we actually run out? Geoff: There are many specific milestones that will pass in sequence. The unallocated address pool held by IANA will exhaust first, and then the RIR pools of unallocated data will drain. At that point there is no stream of "new" addresses to fuel further growth, and that is probably a reasonable point in time to say that we have "run out." Assuming that the current business influential factors and allocation policies remain in place, then the projection models from recent data indicate that this "run-out" date is around 2016, or some 11 years from now. Of course these are unlikely assumptions as the prospect of exhaustion draws nearer, and there may be a "last-minute rush" of address allocation requests from the service provider industry that could draw in that projected "run-out" date. Such additional consumption pressures are difficult to factor in to trend-based predictive models, of course. It is also conceivable that the industry could shift its attention almost entirely to IPv6-based protocol infrastructure in the coming years, in which case the "run-out" projection for IPv4 would extend out further in time simply because of the translation of the consumption activity to the IPv6 address pool. Tony: As I noted early on in my article, there will still be pool available at each of the RIRs when the IANA pool that I focused on is exhausted. In the past I have said we would never completely run out because nobody could afford that last address, but in light of the accelerating consumption of IPv4 coupled with the less-than-aggressive deployment of IPv6, I can see how the pool might actually run dry. John: In practical terms, the point at which one has "run out" of address space is not tied to being the last applicant to the RIRs for an address pool. I have suggested that point will never arise: the RIRs (and, to the extent to which the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [ICANN] can make decisions, the IANA), will continually recalibrate policies to prevent "running out." Of course the inevitable consequence of those recalibrations is that, although one does not need to worry about approaching an RIR and being told "no space left," the combination of monetary, justification, and general aggravation costs is such that one does not even want to contemplate being the applicant for the next-to-last available block. That reasoning says that looking at the date on which near exhaustion is reached is relatively uninteresting. The more important question is when one enters the end game for IPv4 space because, as soon as the end game begins, the space is essentially exhausted. I suggest that the criterion for entrance into the end game is not measured statistically but by looking at the point at which one needs to start designing networks and subnets, not in a way that is optimal from a network architecture or network management and growth standpoint, but in order to conserve address space and/or to avoid extended discussions with applicable RIRs (or one's ISP that deals with the RIR). From that point of view, we have already run out, and probably ran out a couple of years ago. Every time someone who has multiple machines is pointed to private address space because of a presumed shortage, it is an indication that we have already run out of space. Every time China manages to make a successful political point?regardless of the country's actual internal dynamics and economics?about its inability to get addresses for its population, it is an indication that we have already run out of address space. Every time an ISP decides to use private space to manage its backbone, it is an indication that we have already run out of address space. Fred: I have made the same point, from a point of view of economics. In essence, when a commodity is common and demand is low, there are calls to squander it because it costs nothing?something one hears a lot of in the IPv6 community. When supply and demand are comparable, a market develops, and I need to tell you that I certainly pay for the IPv4 addresses at my house. When demand outstrips supply, we enter a regulated market of some kind, and our current allocation policies certainly reflect a regulated market. The step after a regulated market is a black market, and it is not too hard to find that either. John: Actually, in our present situation, there is an intermediate step before things deteriorate completely into a black market. Although it is unlikely that any significant fraction of the early IPv4 academic, research, or commercial allocations could be recovered and reused, there are governmental allocations that might be recovered under significant political pressures. Unfortunately, in addition to politicizing the allocation process much more than we have seen so far, such moves might push the present users of those allocations toward NATs in ways that would make the ultimate transition to IPv6 more difficult while not gaining very much additional time for the IPv4 space. Tony: Political pressure or not, simple logistics argues against this. Given the rate of growth in consumption, any reclaimed government space would be consumed in substantially less time than it would take to rebuild their network and release it. Even a small network sitting on a /16 would take at least a year to release that much space, and at the current spot on the escalating curve that /16 represents around 2 hours of IANA run rate. Getting back a whole /8 would logistically take several years, and then at that point on the curve the result would be about a week of run rate. If several of these government organizations have a mesh of direct interactions and head down the same path, the resulting overlap in the private address space would require creating a complex NAT system worthy of a Nobel Prize. Reclamation is a nice bar-room debate topic, but the return on investment is extremely low. If an organization were to consider rebuilding its network to release an IPv4 allocation, it would make much more sense for that organization to rebuild it as IPv6 than to move publicly addressed nodes behind a NAT. Geoff: It would be strongly preferred by all, I would suggest, that the "black market" option be avoided. If the consequence of the exhaustion of the unallocated pool of IPv4 addresses is the trading of alreadyallocated IPv4 addresses, then a responsible way for the industry to support that scenario is to encourage such a market to operate with the support of some form of "clear title" that could legitimate trading transactions. Without structure and stability in a trading market, the value of the trade is meaningless, and in this case the potential for chaos in the network itself is undeniable. Fred: We are in fact starting to see networks designed to be IPv6-only or IPv6-dominant (the latter being a network that might use IPv4 internally but offer only IPv6 services to some or all of its customers) in China, Japan, and other places. The economic argument is the one these operators are primarily giving?they state that they see a roadmap to the number of addresses that they need in IPv6, while in IPv4 they are significantly constrained. This sounds to me a lot like John's comments about network design, but the other way?rather than designing their networks to what they perceive as IPv4 addressing policy limitations, they are choosing a path that they perceive as giving them options. We also see evidence of networks designing themselves to the limits of address allocation in IPv4, usually using multiple layers of NATs. For quite a while, for example, China Unicom used multiple layers of NAT in order to work around what the company felt was a deficiency in its ability to get IPv4 addresses from its national registry. As I understand it, the company has changed its strategy to include getting IPv4 address allocations directly from APNIC, and at the same time to deploy an IPv6 network in parallel to move away from IPv4 dependence. John: There is another factor at work in this. Transitions are never free. If we are going to design and build out a substantially new network, we are rapidly reaching the point?some would say that we have reached it already?at which it is cheaper to design and build that network for IPv6, making whatever arrangements are needed at its interconnection points with IPv4 networks, than to build in IPv4 and face a transition later. As those decisions are increasingly made, it may both reduce pressure on new IPv4 allocations and create free pools of IPv4 space that could be recovered and reused. For example, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has announced a fairly aggressive schedule for moving to IPv6. If they meet that schedule and were then willing to free up the IPv4 space that they would presumably no longer be using, it would free up the equivalent of several /8s. While I agree with Tony that this hypothetical case would be unlikely to make any significant difference in the long run, it illustrates another difficulty with trying to make assertions about what is happening by statistical projections alone. Ole: It is frequently stated that North America is immune to the address exhaustion problem. Tony: Well despite persistent rumors and press statements to that effect, ARIN continues to consume about 30 percent of the annual allocation from IANA. If the past allocations were sufficient to stave off global exhaustion, why the continued consumption? In any case, when the central pool is exhausted the North American region will be in the same situation as everyone else?unable to expand or acquire new IPv4 addresses. Geoff: We are seeing growth in Internet-based services in all regions of the industry, including North America. And network growth needs to be fueled by network addresses. We are seeing a combination of a continued demand for further addresses, and the use of various forms of network configurations that attempt to make the most efficient use of already-allocated addresses. There is little data to suggest that any region, including that of North America, is in a position of immunity from these growth-related factors. Ole: There is widespread opinion that NAT will solve the problems for a long time to come. Geoff: The ISP industry certainly has made considerable investments there, and many millions of end users today use the Internet behind NAT devices. Given the size of this investment and the factors of inertia in large-scale service markets, it is reasonable to predict that NATs will be around for quite some time. But NATs add cost to network services. If we are talking about a network that is restricted to servicing the communications needs of people, then this is a relatively high-value activity, and the additional costs of the deployment of NATs are being absorbed within the cost base of the network service economy. And for such human activity-based services this may well continue for some time, given the existing levels of industry investment in service infrastructure that includes the use of NATs. Certainly any new application that is adopted by the Internet user population needs to work across a wide variety of NAT configurations. From this perspective it is likely that IPv4 and NATs will continue to be part of the Internet landscape for a long time to come. But although this approach has the potential to service a portfolio of service markets for some time to come, it cannot service all forms of service markets?not in the future nor even today. It does not solve all the "problems" and certainly does not encompass all the opportunities that the Internet offers. The potential of IPv6 is one that includes an address span designed to match the full potential of the volume-driven silicon industry, both now and in a future that extends out for many decades to come. One likely scenario for IPv6 is in servicing a truly massive device-dense environment. This scenario encompasses far more than services that are primarily directed at human end users. And the associated service market will be more akin to that of a relatively undifferentiated commodity market, where simplicity and low cost are the dominant service provider discriminants. Because of their additional complexity and associated incremental cost, NATs are marginalized in such commodity markets directed at servicing device density, and it is there that the true leverage of the IPv6 address span becomes a major influential factor. Tony: As Geoff notes, NAT has been widely available and deployed globally over the same timeframe as the recent consumption. Yet the accelerating growth trend continues, consuming to the point where only 25 percent of the total IPv4 space remains available. Although NAT does slow the rate of public address consumption from what it might otherwise be, it creates more problems than it solves. Geoff also raises the economic investment in NAT to date, which is an interesting contrast to many complaints I hear about the cost of deploying IPv6. Most people who look at what it will take to deploy IPv6 in their network are very quick to dismiss this investment in the array of costs associated with NAT. Often they insist on a demonstration of value for the IPv6 investment while at the same time they refuse to allow consideration of removing their development, and ongoing operational support costs for IPv4 NAT. Although I agree that in the interim overlap period the costs are additive, in the long term staying on the IPv4/NAT path those costs only compound, whereas on the IPv6 path they disappear. The duration of that overlap is somewhat self-controlled as a direct trade-off between the costs for running both protocols in parallel versus the costs associated with aggressively moving the end systems and applications to IPv6. Ole: Another area frequently discussed on various lists is that the U.S. DoD and Federal Government mandates for service availability in 2008 are just another instance of the Government OSI Profile (GOSIP) and that they too will disappear. Tony: What these discussions miss is that the situation is entirely different now. In the early 1990s the U.S. GOSIP effort was directed by a strong desire to consolidate the array of protocols in use at that time toward a common one. Other governments had similar efforts that led them collectively toward a suite that was developed with international governmental input. IPv4 was an alternative to the mandate with applications already supporting it, while the OSI protocols existed in some router products but did not have many applications available. At this point the existing government networks are already consolidated, and there is no alternative. Yes, IPv6 still has fledgling application support, but the IPv4 pool is no longer a sustainable resource to draw on, and there is no other option. So the government networks either stop growing or, as the U.S. DoD and Government agencies have announced, they will move to IPv6. This implies preparing the application community to meet the impending reality. Geoff: Although the strategic directions of one single?but relatively large?market player does have some bearing on the direction of the global market in Internet-based service provision, I do not see evidence that this will be sufficient to influence the entire market in any particular direction. This was certainly evident in the case of GOSIP some years ago, and continues to be an aspect of the market today. The global communications sector carries the impetus and burden of massive investment in infrastructure, process, technology, services, and consumer product portfolios. The sector has already undergone a revolutionary change with the advent of the Internet over the past decade. Doubtless there is considerable reluctance on the part of many sector players to continue to invest in further change in the protocol infrastructure of Internet-based services. On the other hand, the upheavals in the service provider sector have also eliminated much historical complacency about the stability of these markets and the adequacy of the associated service portfolio. It is reasonable to suggest that this sector is now very attentive to the prospect of expanded markets and new service opportunities that can take advantage of the existing infrastructure to create new revenue streams. So I think it is the current dynamics of the service provider sector and the potential for new service markets that would be the most persuasive factor for service providers to invest in an IPv6 protocol infrastructure. Ole: Closing thoughts? Tony: As I said at the end of my article, now is the time to recognize that we have reached the end of sustainable growth in IPv4. For most existing organizations that can foretell they have as much space as they will need for the next decade, this is not really an internal problem. Where these organizations will have a concern is when they deal with newcomers or others that have been forced into IPv6 because of exhaustion of the pool. Those organizations that foresee expansion and growth should evaluate Geoff's analysis as well as mine and weigh their plans against the risks of either or both of us being wrong. In any case it only makes sense to start IPv6 capability discussions with the product vendors now. Product development cycles can be lengthy, and the only way for the vendor community to mesh with an organization's deployment plans is to have sufficient notice about those plans and timeframes. It would also be wise for the organization's network architects to start thinking about the impacts of an IPv6 deployment. Both protocol versions are packet-based and the names start with IP, but there are enough differences in the details that it is worth taking a fresh look to see what might be easier or cheaper than just blindly deploying IPv6 identically to the IPv4 deployment. Geoff: The Internet continues to present challenges to the communications sector, and I would suggest that the underlying influential factor is the combination of the silicon and software industries that continue to fuel the demand side with fascinating, innovative, and compelling uses of communications that continue to surprise us with their continual restatement of the size of the domain in which we operate. We appear to be moving beyond servicing devices that are activated and influenced primarily by direct human activity, such as e-mail and Web use, and we are now looking at various command, control, and monitoring functions that embed themselves deeply in other devices and in other elements of our infrastructure. This encompasses larger concepts such as "smart buildings" and "smart traffic control," and they reach all the way down to the level of embedding into consumer devices and even identification tags. This is not a world that can readily be serviced by an IPv4 protocol infrastructure, and we are already seeing various levels of network indirection in both NATs and various forms of overlay networks to attempt to compress this new scale of basic network addressing demands into the IPv4 environment. This appears to be a complex, and therefore costly task. But the expectation here is that the service industry is heading toward a commodity utility function, where the essential attributes of the underlying network are simplicity and efficiency. These factors suggest that the market characteristics that arise from the propulsion of the silicon and software industries are inexorably tugging the communications service industry to embrace simple, scalable, and efficient networking technologies. It is in this space that the essential attribute of IPv6, that of the size of the address pool, has its most effective leverage. Here the "run out" of IPv4 will inevitably focus our common attention on how best to engage with future needs and roles. And in this perspective the IPv6 technology has a critical and central role. John: Tony, I think we need to assume that, when it comes down to translating the projections into an answer to the "when do we need to get serious about IPv6?" question, both you and Geoff are, to a considerable extent, wrong. Geoff's articles and projections have been interpreted by some people as containing a "there is no problem, we can continue with IPv4 until we all retire" message. Viewed from that direction, yours can be seen as "we cannot be quite that complacent." Instead, I think we should all be looking at going directly to IPv6 in newer network installations rather than concentrating on whether we can get enough IPv4 space for them. We also need to be examining?now, not a few years in some projected future?the applications and services for end networks and end users, not just backbone and ISP services and operations. One of my particular concerns is that we have enterprise and customer support people and protocols all over the world who are used to thinking about things in an IPv4 world, including the support advantages of "all NAT-based end networks look the same" architectures. The need to retrain them to think about things differently, and to design and build new tools for their use, may suggest a more time-consuming and expensive transition than changing over the networks themselves. Fred: What is clear to me from this discussion, Geoff's prior analysis, and Tony's analysis here, is that there is a timeline. We are not debating whether IPv4 address availability is limited or whether it can be "saved" by address allocation policy, nor are we debating the economic or technical impacts of more or less draconian allocation policies. We are debating what constitutes the end game, when and why that end game will become important, and whether perhaps we are already seeing the first steps of it. We are also not debating whether perhaps some new architecture would be preferred over the one in IPv6; if we had an alternative on the table today we could discuss that, but experience tells us that the proposals being considered by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and others are sufficiently "researchy" to not be ready for wide-scale deployment in the necessary timeframe. As such, from my perspective, there is a present call to action. What U.S. DoD and recent congressional hearings have recommended is in keeping with the IETF's recommendation and with the IPv6 address allocation strategies of the RIRs. The simplest transition strategy involves presently procuring equipment, operating systems, and applications that are IPv6-capable in preference to systems that are limited to IPv4. At some point in the future, perhaps in the 2008?2010 timeframe, we should plan to turn on IPv6 networking capabilities throughout our networks, and this means gaining experience with IPv6 on a smaller scale in 2005?2007 in our networks, in server applications, and in user systems. Turning down IPv4 capabilities, which is the endpoint of such a transition, is a business decision that does not need to be made hastily; we should presume that coexistence will be important for a decade, and probably more. Ole: Thank you, gentlemen! TONY HAIN is currently the Senior Technical Leader, IPv6 technologies, with Cisco Systems. In addition to providing guidance to the various internal product teams, he was also co-chair of the IETF working group developing IPv6 transition tools. His IETF participation since 1987 includes a term on the Internet Architecture Board from 1997 to 2001. Named an IPv6 Forum Fellow in 2004, he is currently serving as Technology Director on the forum's North American IPv6 Task Force steering committee. Prior to joining Cisco in 2001, he spent 5 years at Microsoft, where his roles included Program Manager for IPv6 as well as Network Analyst for the CIO's office. Prior to Microsoft, he was the Associate Network Manager for the U.S. Department of Energy's Internet effort, ESnet. With this range of roles, spanning the space between the implementation technologists and senior management, he brings a real-world viewpoint to the deployment decision process. E-mail: ahain at cisco.com GEOFF HUSTON holds a B.Sc. and a M.Sc. from the Australian National University. He has been closely involved with the development of the Internet for the past decade, particularly within Australia, where he was responsible for the initial build of the Internet within the Australian academic and research sector, and has served his time with Telstra, where he was the Chief Scientist in the company's Internet area. Geoff is currently the Internet Research Scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC). He served as a member of the Internet Architecture Board from 1999 until 2005, and currently co-chairs the Site Multi-homing and Routing Operations IETF Working Groups. He is author of The ISP Survival Guide, ISBN 0-471-31499-4, Internet Performance Survival Guide: QoS Strategies for Multiservice Networks, ISBN 0471-378089, and co-author of Quality of Service: Delivering QoS on the Internet and in Corporate Networks, ISBN 0-471-24358-2, a collaboration with Paul Ferguson. All three books are published by John Wiley & Sons. E-mail: gih at apnic.net JOHN KLENSIN is an independent consultant based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He has been involved in the design, development, and deployment of ARPANET and Internet applications, and occasionally lower-layer technologies, since the late 1960s and early 1970s. He has also been intermittently involved with Internet administrative and policy issues since the early 1980s. His current work primarily focuses on internationalization of the Internet on both technical and policy dimensions. E-mail: klensin at jck.com FRED BAKER has worked in the data communications industry, building network elements such as switches and routers, since 1978. His involvement with Internet technology started in 1986, and with the IETF in 1989. He has contributed to the development of OSPF, QoS, PPP, SNMP MIBs, and a variety of other technologies. He has also held a variety of management positions, including chairing various working groups, participating in the IAB, and chairing the IETF. He currently serves on the Technical Advisory Board of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission and as the Chairman of ISOC's Board of Trustees. E-mail: fred at cisco.com -----Original Message----- From: Piche, Dennis [mailto:piched at anx.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:25 PM To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC Cc: Brent Sweeny; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to RETURN a /20 I need a user ID to access this report! Sent from my iPhone On 2009-07-23, at 11:56 AM, "VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC" wrote: > Brent, > > Sorry if I came across as name calling - that's good feedback. Let > me tone it down a bit, be a bit more constructive, and go more at > the root of the issue, i.e. my concern regarding throwing our hands > up too easily. > > I am stating that, in my humble opinion, the previous study is not > based wholly on verified facts, but rather on supposition and > speculation layered upon partially verified data. Further, it > included sources who had an interest in moving the world forward > towards IPv6 at a faster pace (sell new hardware/software/services, > etc.). This is not (on it's own) a valid basis for current > decisions about how to smooth an impending rough transition. The > stakes have been raised and it's time to do our job as a membership > and work in the interest of the larger community - our eco-system as > it were. > > There is ample corroborated testimony (to indicate the existence of > substantial reclamation opportunities) within the postings on this > list (over just the last 72 hours) to serve as evidence warranting a > grand jury. I qualify that statement with: provided people would > swear to their recent statements, etc. So, it seems we should be as > inquisitive as the law would when our own interests are at stake. > This is especially true for the smaller operators that need some > headroom while this inevitable transition occurs. > > I can quote a recent study by a conservative think tank and another > from a liberal think tank - both on a current hot topic (never mind > the issue, don't want to bunny trail here). Each offers a > diametrically opposed viewpoint of the same data. Each effectively > presents a favorable subset of the data without exposing the > weakness of certain suppositions used to arrive at the seemingly > data based results. In fact, both will assume their viewpoint upon > the same data and it has to color the result. > > Data is objective, analysis is subjective. > > It sounds to me like there is a lot of unanalyzed data yet to be > given the "Colombo"... > > "The /8's are too hard to get back without fragmentation and > everyone would fight to the death to keep their unused space. So > let's look at the remaining data" > > Colombo: "Yes, but Sir, I have just one more question..." which is > how we get at the missed opportunity for solutions. That's all I > want us to do. > > Hope that more politely expands upon my point: We are not in a > situation where inaction is acceptable unless it is based upon > aggressively verified data... in other words I suggest that ARIN > *should* contact the holders of large blocks of unused space *anew* > and see what their feeling is about being good corporate Internet > citizens in the face of a crisis headed towards public attention. > Offer press releases praising them for their good deeds, and > honorable mention at various events, and you might be quite > surprised what a well placed call from senior resources could > accomplish. I'm an optimist. > > Of course, a stick should be behind the back that wears that > friendly smile. I believe it should have written on it: "The power > of the press". > > In my opinion, ARIN can reach that stick faster than small operators > can on our own, but we can band up and reach it if ARIN feels bound > or otherwise unable to do so. That stick is the data verifier we > need. I am not suggesting we fight bears, but rather that we be > brave enough to make sure they are not just wooly caterpillars in an > oversized (allocation) bear suit before we checkmark those caves as > being off limits. > > Best regards, > ~Vaughn > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Sweeny [mailto:sweeny at indiana.edu] > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:09 AM > To: Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to > RETURN a /20 > > the fact that someone has already "studied the issue" (precisely as > you > suggest be done) and the data behind the facts of the study disagree > with > your assumption doesn't make them a "naysayer"; it makes them much > more > convincing, and the name-calling doesn't change the facts nor their > inevitable conclusions. If you assert that ARIN needs to expend > resources to > try to disprove Tony's (and Geoff's) pretty careful analysis, it'd be > necessary to have more than that you don't like the conclusions as a > reason: > you'd have to have some factual basis for convincing us their > analysis is > flawed and must be redone. Absent that, we have to be grownups, > accept the > facts, and try to use "a group this bright" to do the best we can > with the > facts -- and move forward, not backwards. > > On 7/22/2009 8:23 PM, Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: >> Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't >> you >> know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when others >> have >> already said it is not worth it." >> >> The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. >> Does a >> protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types or the >> "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the other space >> Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good will a few have >> gotten on this list by committing to return space.. >> >> You don't get what you don't ask for. >> >> Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to >> succeed at for a group this bright. >> >> ~Vaughn >> >> Sent from my handheld >> >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong > > wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: >>> >>>> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of >>>> Idaho >>>> has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit >>>> behind >>>> two different firewalls. >>>> >>>> Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls >>>> >>>> And so forth into perpetuity it seems >>>> >>>> In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies >>>> have, >>>> particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is >>>> unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address space >>>> behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a company >>>> entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, B, C >>>> etc. >>>> There is no technical or administrative justification I can see. >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. >>>> Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. >>>> >>>> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the >>>> tide for many years. >>>> >>>> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP >>>> address >>>> space by entity and determine how many of these organizations sit >>>> behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small portion of their >>>> allocation. >>>> >>> Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the >>> conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal >>> article: >>> >>> >> >http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html >>> >>>> Reclaiming Allocations >>>> Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of the >>>> early allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully >>>> this article has shown that the ROI for that approach is going to >>>> be >>>> extremely low. Discussions around the Internet community show there >>>> is an expectation that it will take several years of substantive >>>> negotiation (in multiple court systems around the globe) to >>>> retrieve >>>> any /8s. Then following that effort and expense, the likelihood of >>>> even getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following >>>> the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation the >>>> result is likely to be just a few months of additional resource >>>> added >>>> to the pool?and possibly not even a whole month. All this assumes >>>> IANA does not completely run out before getting any back, because >>>> running out would result in pentup demand that could immediately >>>> exhaust any returns. >>> >>> >>> If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are >>> at >>> least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, reclamation >>> efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to doubt that is the >>> case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you don't even buy an >>> additional year. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Steve Wagner >>>> Vice President of Operations >>>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>> Email: >>>> Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>> >>>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" >>>> >>>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>> The information in this message is intended for the named >>>> recipients >>>> only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential >>>> or >>>> otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended >>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, >>>> distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the >>>> contents >>>> of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>>> e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or its contents. >>>> In such event, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete >>>> the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>> [ >>>> mailto:arin-discuss- >>>> bounces at arin.net] >>>> On Behalf Of John Osmon >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM >>>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like >>>> to >>>> RETURN a /20 >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John Osmon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but >>>>>> we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the >>>>>> table >>>>>> (relatively) late. >>>>> >>>>> Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. >>>> >>>> Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting >>>> a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to >>>> significant >>>> difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) >>>> >>>> I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the >>>> pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in >>>> commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of >>>> /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List ( >>>> ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>> ). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you >>>> experience >>>> any issues. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>> ). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you >>> experience >>> any issues. >> >> --- >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 38851 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 39998 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 45793 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 32967 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 31672 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 46248 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27679 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 38920 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 23 15:10:53 2009 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:10:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A67B67A.2070201@ipinc.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802492072@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <6D4F72E9-6E9A-493E-843E-CAE502C0B278@delong.com> <753CBD87-AD2E-4AAC-9F2E-2097F87FB313@swiftsystems.com> <4A67B67A.2070201@ipinc.net> Message-ID: A quick trip through whois reveals: owen-delongs-macbook-pro:owen (265) ~ % whois -h whois.arin.net '>MSFT' OrgName: Microsoft Corp OrgID: MSFT Address: One Microsoft Way City: Redmond StateProv: WA PostalCode: 98052 Country: US Comment: RegDate: 1998-07-10 Updated: 2008-08-25 AbuseHandle: ABUSE231-ARIN AbuseName: Abuse AbusePhone: +1-425-882-8080 AbuseEmail: abuse at msn.com AbuseHandle: HOTMA-ARIN AbuseName: Hotmail Abuse AbusePhone: +1-425-882-8080 AbuseEmail: abuse at hotmail.com AbuseHandle: MSNAB-ARIN AbuseName: MSN ABUSE AbusePhone: +1-425-882-8080 AbuseEmail: abuse at msn.com AdminHandle: MSFTP-ARIN AdminName: MSFT-POC AdminPhone: +1-425-882-8080 AdminEmail: iprrms at microsoft.com NOCHandle: ZM23-ARIN NOCName: Microsoft Corporation NOCPhone: +1-425-882-8080 NOCEmail: noc at microsoft.com TechHandle: MSFTP-ARIN TechName: MSFT-POC TechPhone: +1-425-882-8080 TechEmail: iprrms at microsoft.com Resources Used By Organization: Microsoft Corp (AS20046) MICROSOFT-BOS 20046 Microsoft Corp (AS8068) MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS-BLOCK 8068 - 8075 Microsoft Corp (AS13811) MSLI 13811 Microsoft Corp (AS14719) MICROSOFT-CORP-BCENTRAL 14719 Microsoft Corp (AS13399) MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS-2 13399 Microsoft Corp (AS3598) MICROSOFT-CORP-AS 3598 Microsoft Corp (AS5761) MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS---SATURN 5761 Microsoft Corp (AS6182) MICROSOFT-CORP--MSN-AS-4 6182 Microsoft Corp (AS6194) MICROSOFT-CORP--MSN-AS-3 6194 Microsoft Corp (AS6291) MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS 6291 Microsoft Corp (AS23468) MICROSOFT-CORP-XBOX-ONLINE 23468 Microsoft Corp LVLT-MSFT-8-6-176 (NET-8-6-176-0-1) 8.6.176.0 - 8.6.176.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOF33-108-0 (NET-12-28-108-0-1) 12.28.108.0 - 12.28.108.127 Microsoft Corp MICROSOF81-163-0 (NET-12-178-163-0-1) 12.178.163.0 - 12.178.163.31 Microsoft Corp Q0523-63-148-123-240 (NET-63-148-123-240-1) 63.148.123.240 - 63.148.123.247 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-151-87-64 (NET-63-151-87-64-1) 63.151.87.64 - 63.151.87.71 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-3FA132-6 (NET-63-161-50-0-1) 63.161.50.0 - 63.161.50.127 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-3FA132 (NET-63-161-50-128-1) 63.161.50.128 - 63.161.50.255 Microsoft Corp SPRINTLINK (NET-63-173-42-128-1) 63.173.42.128 - 63.173.42.255 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-170-64 (NET-63-236-170-64-1) 63.236.170.64 - 63.236.170.71 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-186-64 (NET-63-236-186-64-1) 63.236.186.64 - 63.236.186.71 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-187-104 (NET-63-236-187-104-1) 63.236.187.104 - 63.236.187.111 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-187-128 (NET-63-236-187-128-1) 63.236.187.128 - 63.236.187.135 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-187-160 (NET-63-236-187-160-1) 63.236.187.160 - 63.236.187.167 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-198-64 (NET-63-236-198-64-1) 63.236.198.64 - 63.236.198.71 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-198-152 (NET-63-236-198-152-1) 63.236.198.152 - 63.236.198.159 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233050-4 (NET-64-15-170-192-1) 64.15.170.192 - 64.15.170.199 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233050-5 (NET-64-15-177-0-1) 64.15.177.0 - 64.15.177.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233050-6 (NET-64-15-178-0-1) 64.15.178.0 - 64.15.178.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-15 (NET-64-15-229-96-1) 64.15.229.96 - 64.15.229.127 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-1 (NET-64-41-193-0-1) 64.41.193.0 - 64.41.193.255 Microsoft Corp HP-64-77-82-96 (NET-64-77-82-96-1) 64.77.82.96 - 64.77.82.103 Microsoft Corp HP-64-77-93-80 (NET-64-77-93-80-1) 64.77.93.80 - 64.77.93.95 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-1 (NET-64-85-70-32-1) 64.85.70.32 - 64.85.70.47 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-2 (NET-64-85-81-96-1) 64.85.81.96 - 64.85.81.103 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-3 (NET-64-85-81-104-1) 64.85.81.104 - 64.85.81.111 Microsoft Corp WLCO-TWC1057147-MICROSOFT (NET-64-200-211-16-1) 64.200.211.16 - 64.200.211.31 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-1BLK (NET-65-52-0-0-1) 65.52.0.0 - 65.55.255.255 Microsoft Corp Q0112-65-114-175-128 (NET-65-114-175-128-1) 65.114.175.128 - 65.114.175.159 Microsoft Corp SPRINTLINK (NET-65-170-29-0-1) 65.170.29.0 - 65.170.29.7 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S232995-1 (NET-66-35-208-48-1) 66.35.208.48 - 66.35.208.63 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S232995-2 (NET-66-35-209-120-1) 66.35.209.120 - 66.35.209.127 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S232995-3 (NET-66-35-211-128-1) 66.35.211.128 - 66.35.211.191 Microsoft Corp Q0903-67-132-133-96 (NET-67-132-133-96-1) 67.132.133.96 - 67.132.133.103 Microsoft Corp WLCO-TWC1057147-MICROSOFT-1 (NET-69-44-126-80-1) 69.44.126.80 - 69.44.126.95 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT (NET-131-107-0-0-1) 131.107.0.0 - 131.107.255.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-BBLK (NET-157-54-0-0-1) 157.54.0.0 - 157.60.255.255 Microsoft Corp ERMS-6799349 (NET-165-121-253-232-1) 165.121.253.232 - 165.121.253.239 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-VEXCEL (NET-192-92-90-0-1) 192.92.90.0 - 192.92.90.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-2 (NET-192-197-157-0-1) 192.197.157.0 - 192.197.157.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT18 (NET-192-237-67-0-1) 192.237.67.0 - 192.237.67.255 Microsoft Corp NETBLK-MSOFT-NET (NET-198-105-232-0-1) 198.105.232.0 - 198.105.235.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT19 (NET-198-137-97-0-1) 198.137.97.0 - 198.137.97.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT2 (NET-198-180-74-0-1) 198.180.74.0 - 198.180.75.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT3 (NET-198-180-95-0-1) 198.180.95.0 - 198.180.97.255 Microsoft Corp FON-3338832128690 (NET-199-2-137-0-1) 199.2.137.0 - 199.2.137.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT17 (NET-199-6-92-0-1) 199.6.92.0 - 199.6.94.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-1 (NET-199-60-28-0-1) 199.60.28.0 - 199.60.28.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-1 (NET-199-103-90-0-1) 199.103.90.0 - 199.103.91.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-3 (NET-199-103-122-0-1) 199.103.122.0 - 199.103.122.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-IPV6-BLK (NET6-2001-4898-1) 2001:4898:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:4898:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-2 (NET-204-79-7-0-1) 204.79.7.0 - 204.79.7.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-NET1 (NET-204-79-27-0-1) 204.79.27.0 - 204.79.27.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT8 (NET-204-79-101-0-1) 204.79.101.0 - 204.79.101.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-HK (NET-204-79-135-0-1) 204.79.135.0 - 204.79.135.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-PLACEWARE-1 (NET-204-79-179-0-1) 204.79.179.0 - 204.79.179.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT11 (NET-204-79-180-0-1) 204.79.180.0 - 204.79.181.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-PLACEWARE-2 (NET-204-79-188-0-1) 204.79.188.0 - 204.79.188.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT13 (NET-204-79-195-0-1) 204.79.195.0 - 204.79.197.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-PLACEWARE-2 (NET-204-79-252-0-1) 204.79.252.0 - 204.79.252.255 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CC5F6F (NET-204-95-96-0-1) 204.95.96.0 - 204.95.111.255 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CC5F95-8 (NET-204-95-149-0-1) 204.95.149.0 - 204.95.149.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFTDENVER (NET-204-133-231-0-1) 204.133.231.0 - 204.133.231.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT15 (NET-204-140-77-0-1) 204.140.77.0 - 204.140.77.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT16 (NET-204-140-80-0-1) 204.140.80.0 - 204.140.83.255 Microsoft Corp FON-343451648081865 (NET-204-182-144-0-1) 204.182.144.0 - 204.182.159.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT19-NET58 (NET-204-231-58-0-1) 204.231.58.0 - 204.231.58.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT20 (NET-204-231-76-0-1) 204.231.76.0 - 204.231.76.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT26 (NET-204-231-192-0-1) 204.231.192.0 - 204.231.192.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT27 (NET-204-231-194-0-1) 204.231.194.0 - 204.231.223.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT28 (NET-204-231-236-0-1) 204.231.236.0 - 204.231.236.255 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CDA33E (NET-205-163-62-0-1) 205.163.62.0 - 205.163.62.255 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CDA33F (NET-205-163-63-0-1) 205.163.63.0 - 205.163.63.255 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CDA39F (NET-205-163-144-0-1) 205.163.144.0 - 205.163.159.255 Microsoft Corp FON-34550983681918 (NET-205-240-158-0-1) 205.240.158.0 - 205.240.159.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT29 (NET-205-248-10-0-1) 205.248.10.0 - 205.248.15.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT30 (NET-205-248-41-0-1) 205.248.41.0 - 205.248.43.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT31 (NET-205-248-50-0-1) 205.248.50.0 - 205.248.51.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT32 (NET-205-248-61-0-1) 205.248.61.0 - 205.248.63.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT34 (NET-205-248-72-0-1) 205.248.72.0 - 205.248.72.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT33 (NET-205-248-80-0-1) 205.248.80.0 - 205.248.129.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT35 (NET-205-248-212-0-1) 205.248.212.0 - 205.248.215.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT36 (NET-205-248-228-0-1) 205.248.228.0 - 205.248.228.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT37 (NET-205-248-235-0-1) 205.248.235.0 - 205.248.235.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT44 (NET-205-248-243-0-1) 205.248.243.0 - 205.248.244.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT58 (NET-206-73-31-0-1) 206.73.31.0 - 206.73.31.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT59 (NET-206-73-67-0-1) 206.73.67.0 - 206.73.67.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT56 (NET-206-73-118-0-1) 206.73.118.0 - 206.73.118.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT57 (NET-206-73-203-0-1) 206.73.203.0 - 206.73.203.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-6 (NET-206-79-74-32-1) 206.79.74.32 - 206.79.74.47 Microsoft Corp FON-346312755281299 (NET-206-107-34-0-1) 206.107.34.0 - 206.107.34.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT61 (NET-206-182-69-0-1) 206.182.69.0 - 206.182.69.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT62 (NET-206-182-236-0-1) 206.182.236.0 - 206.182.236.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT63 (NET-206-182-240-0-1) 206.182.240.0 - 206.182.240.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT64 (NET-206-182-241-0-1) 206.182.241.0 - 206.182.241.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT65 (NET-206-182-247-0-1) 206.182.247.0 - 206.182.247.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT66 (NET-206-182-251-0-1) 206.182.251.0 - 206.182.251.255 Microsoft Corp UU-207-18-117 (NET-207-18-117-0-1) 207.18.117.0 - 207.18.117.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-GLOBAL-NET (NET-207-46-0-0-1) 207.46.0.0 - 207.46.255.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-BLK (NET-207-68-128-0-1) 207.68.128.0 - 207.68.207.255 Microsoft Corp SOCRATIC (NET-207-78-80-0-1) 207.78.80.0 - 207.78.80.255 Microsoft Corp DAVELADD (NET-207-78-81-0-1) 207.78.81.0 - 207.78.81.255 Microsoft Corp RSEGAL (NET-207-78-82-0-1) 207.78.82.0 - 207.78.82.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT48 (NET-207-117-3-0-1) 207.117.3.0 - 207.117.3.255 Microsoft Corp CYBR-LCCLAB (NET-207-158-93-192-1) 207.158.93.192 - 207.158.93.223 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT50 (NET-207-209-68-0-1) 207.209.68.0 - 207.209.68.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-8-18 (NET-207-240-8-224-1) 207.240.8.224 - 207.240.8.239 Microsoft Corp MSBPN-2 (NET-207-240-123-192-1) 207.240.123.192 - 207.240.123.223 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-D01ACD (NET-208-26-205-0-1) 208.26.205.0 - 208.26.205.255 Microsoft Corp QWEST-208-45-54-8 (NET-208-45-54-8-1) 208.45.54.8 - 208.45.54.15 Microsoft Corp QWEST-208-45-54-16 (NET-208-45-54-16-1) 208.45.54.16 - 208.45.54.23 Microsoft Corp QWEST-208-45-89-248A (NET-208-45-89-248-1) 208.45.89.248 - 208.45.89.255 Microsoft Corp CW-208-139-27-B (NET-208-139-27-0-1) 208.139.27.0 - 208.139.27.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-2 (NET-209-1-15-0-1) 209.1.15.0 - 209.1.15.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-4 (NET-209-1-112-0-1) 209.1.112.0 - 209.1.112.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-5 (NET-209-1-113-0-1) 209.1.113.0 - 209.1.113.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT55 (NET-209-28-213-0-1) 209.28.213.0 - 209.28.213.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233050-2 (NET-209-143-238-0-1) 209.143.238.0 - 209.143.238.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-14 (NET-209-185-128-0-1) 209.185.128.0 - 209.185.131.255 Microsoft Corp NET-CSAMSI (NET-209-192-213-72-1) 209.192.213.72 - 209.192.213.79 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-7 (NET-216-32-168-224-1) 216.32.168.224 - 216.32.168.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-8 (NET-216-32-175-224-1) 216.32.175.224 - 216.32.175.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-9 (NET-216-32-180-0-1) 216.32.180.0 - 216.32.183.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-10 (NET-216-32-240-0-1) 216.32.240.0 - 216.32.243.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-16 (NET-216-33-148-0-1) 216.33.148.0 - 216.33.151.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-11 (NET-216-33-229-224-1) 216.33.229.224 - 216.33.229.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-12 (NET-216-33-236-0-1) 216.33.236.0 - 216.33.239.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-13 (NET-216-33-240-0-1) 216.33.240.0 - 216.33.243.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-3 (NET-216-34-51-0-1) 216.34.51.0 - 216.34.51.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-4 (NET-216-34-53-176-1) 216.34.53.176 - 216.34.53.191 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-5 (NET-216-35-8-224-1) 216.35.8.224 - 216.35.8.239 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFTG1-COM (NET-216-72-96-0-1) 216.72.96.0 - 216.72.99.255 Microsoft Corp CUST-86-24614 (NET-216-222-104-224-1) 216.222.104.224 - 216.222.104.239 Looking at the networks contained therein, that looks like: 939400 addresses and no /8s. The largest block is Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-BBLK (NET-157-54-0-0-1) 157.54.0.0 - 157.60.255.255 which doesn't appear to be bit-aligned, but, looks like: 157.54.0.0/15 157.56.0.0/14 They also have a couple of /16s and a /14. There are a couple of other large non-aligned ranges, and the rest appear to be smaller blocks. The block Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-IPV6-BLK (NET6-2001-4898-1) 2001:4898:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:4898:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF is specifically not included in the calculations above, but, is a /32 of IPv6 space. HP has a large number of Org IDs: Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-5) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-6) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-1) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-13) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-16) HEWLETT PACKARD (HEWLET-21) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-24) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-27) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-28) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-29) hewlett packard (HEWLET-31) HEWLETT PACKARD (HEWLET-33) HEWLETT PACKARD (HEWLE-10) Hewlett Packard (HEWLE-16) HEWLETT PACKARD - BRS (HPB-6) Hewlett Packard / COMPAQ (HEWLE-25) Hewlett Packard Co. (HEWLET-3) Hewlett Packard Company (HEWLET-25) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY (HEWLE-13) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY (HEWLE-15) Hewlett Packard OKI Printed Circuit (HPOPC) HEWLETT PACKARD-VERIFONE (HEWLET-32) Hewlett packard/Danzas AEI (HPA-6) Hewlett Packard Company (AI2-ORG-ARIN) ipaddr at hp.com +1-800-524-7638 Which makes it a bit more challenging to indentify all of their space. However, looking through all of the blocks which are returned from whois -h whois.arin.net 'hewlett', I do not see any /8s listed. Trying to look at Apple is even worse... Apple Computer (APPLEC-13) Apple Computer (APPLEC-16) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-6) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-7) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-152) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-12) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-43) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-46) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-47) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-48) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-49) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-50) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-51) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-56) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-57) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-59) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-60) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-69) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-62) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-71) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-72) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-73) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-74) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-75) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-76) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-77) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-78) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-79) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-83) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-84) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-80) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-81) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-82) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-85) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-146) Apple Computer, Inc (APPLEC-14) Apple Computer, Inc. (APPLEC-3) Apple Computer, Inc. (APPLEC-2) Apple Computer, Inc. (APPLEC-4) However, looking at the blocks returned by whois -h whois.arin.net 'apple', I also do not see a single /8 listed. Owen On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > I'm pretty sure that Microsoft used to have a class A and I'm pretty > sure that disappeared a few years ago. > > Apple and HP may be in that same boat. They may have a class B now > because they gave up a class A a few years ago, and they got the B > under a secret agreement with ARIN > > This is just sheer speculation. Since I don't work for ARIN and > don't know if it's true or not, I'm free to speculate. The people > who actually know, well their hands are a bit more tied. > > Ted > > Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: >> So what does ARIN have to lose... Are these orgs cooperating now? >> Sent from my handheld >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:17 AM, >> > wrote: >>> >>>>> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was >>>>> no fee as part of the "contract". >>>> >>>> It is a principle of common law that if there is no money (or >>>> equivalent) paid then there is no legal contract. Has this >>>> changed in >>>> the USA? >>>> >>> It is a principle of common law that a contract involves an exchange >>> of value. (labor, things, etc. == value) >>> >>> It is a principle of common law that without a contract, you >>> cannot expect >>> someone to pay a bill for a service you did not tell them you were >>> going >>> to charge them for, whether or not they asked for said service and >>> whether >>> or not you performed said service. >>> >>> The above use of the term "contract" probably is in quotations >>> because, >>> it specifically is not a contract in the legal meaning of the >>> word, but, more >>> the "contract" as a term of art for any form of agreement between >>> two or >>> more parties. >>> >>>> I'd like to see all these entities billed retroactively back to the >>>> beginning of ARIN. If they complain, then we could negotiate it >>>> down to >>>> just the past year if they sign an RSA. >>>> >>> This would be an absurd waste of time and money on the part of >>> ARIN in >>> my humble opinion. I think it would also go a long way towards >>> reducing >>> the willingness to work with ARIN on the parts of several >>> organizations with >>> legacy space. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From mksmith at adhost.com Thu Jul 23 15:23:40 2009 From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:23:40 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802492072@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <6D4F72E9-6E9A-493E-843E-CAE502C0B278@delong.com><753CBD87-AD2E-4AAC-9F2E-2097F87FB313@swiftsystems.com><4A67B67A.2070201@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160676B19C@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> Must have missed one. [mksmith at ad-bsd01 ~]$ whois -a 17.0.0.0 OrgName: Apple Computer, Inc. OrgID: APPLEC-3 Address: 20740 Valley Green Drive, MS32E City: Cupertino StateProv: CA PostalCode: 95014 Country: US NetRange: 17.0.0.0 - 17.255.255.255 CIDR: 17.0.0.0/8 NetName: APPLE-WWNET NetHandle: NET-17-0-0-0-1 Parent: NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: NSERVER.APPLE.COM NameServer: NSERVER2.APPLE.COM NameServer: NSERVER.EURO.APPLE.COM NameServer: NSERVER.ASIA.APPLE.COM Comment: RegDate: 1990-04-16 Updated: 2000-05-23 RTechHandle: ZA42-ARIN RTechName: Apple Computer, Inc. RTechPhone: +1-408-974-7777 RTechEmail: Apple-NOC at apple.com -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:11 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. A quick trip through whois reveals: owen-delongs-macbook-pro:owen (265) ~ % whois -h whois.arin.net '>MSFT' OrgName: Microsoft Corp OrgID: MSFT Address: One Microsoft Way City: Redmond StateProv: WA PostalCode: 98052 Country: US Comment: RegDate: 1998-07-10 Updated: 2008-08-25 AbuseHandle: ABUSE231-ARIN AbuseName: Abuse AbusePhone: +1-425-882-8080 AbuseEmail: abuse at msn.com AbuseHandle: HOTMA-ARIN AbuseName: Hotmail Abuse AbusePhone: +1-425-882-8080 AbuseEmail: abuse at hotmail.com AbuseHandle: MSNAB-ARIN AbuseName: MSN ABUSE AbusePhone: +1-425-882-8080 AbuseEmail: abuse at msn.com AdminHandle: MSFTP-ARIN AdminName: MSFT-POC AdminPhone: +1-425-882-8080 AdminEmail: iprrms at microsoft.com NOCHandle: ZM23-ARIN NOCName: Microsoft Corporation NOCPhone: +1-425-882-8080 NOCEmail: noc at microsoft.com TechHandle: MSFTP-ARIN TechName: MSFT-POC TechPhone: +1-425-882-8080 TechEmail: iprrms at microsoft.com Resources Used By Organization: Microsoft Corp (AS20046) MICROSOFT-BOS 20046 Microsoft Corp (AS8068) MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS-BLOCK 8068 - 8075 Microsoft Corp (AS13811) MSLI 13811 Microsoft Corp (AS14719) MICROSOFT-CORP-BCENTRAL 14719 Microsoft Corp (AS13399) MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS-2 13399 Microsoft Corp (AS3598) MICROSOFT-CORP-AS 3598 Microsoft Corp (AS5761) MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS---SATURN 5761 Microsoft Corp (AS6182) MICROSOFT-CORP--MSN-AS-4 6182 Microsoft Corp (AS6194) MICROSOFT-CORP--MSN-AS-3 6194 Microsoft Corp (AS6291) MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS 6291 Microsoft Corp (AS23468) MICROSOFT-CORP-XBOX-ONLINE 23468 Microsoft Corp LVLT-MSFT-8-6-176 (NET-8-6-176-0-1) 8.6.176.0 - 8.6.176.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOF33-108-0 (NET-12-28-108-0-1) 12.28.108.0 - 12.28.108.127 Microsoft Corp MICROSOF81-163-0 (NET-12-178-163-0-1) 12.178.163.0 - 12.178.163.31 Microsoft Corp Q0523-63-148-123-240 (NET-63-148-123-240-1) 63.148.123.240 - 63.148.123.247 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-151-87-64 (NET-63-151-87-64-1) 63.151.87.64 - 63.151.87.71 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-3FA132-6 (NET-63-161-50-0-1) 63.161.50.0 - 63.161.50.127 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-3FA132 (NET-63-161-50-128-1) 63.161.50.128 - 63.161.50.255 Microsoft Corp SPRINTLINK (NET-63-173-42-128-1) 63.173.42.128 - 63.173.42.255 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-170-64 (NET-63-236-170-64-1) 63.236.170.64 - 63.236.170.71 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-186-64 (NET-63-236-186-64-1) 63.236.186.64 - 63.236.186.71 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-187-104 (NET-63-236-187-104-1) 63.236.187.104 - 63.236.187.111 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-187-128 (NET-63-236-187-128-1) 63.236.187.128 - 63.236.187.135 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-187-160 (NET-63-236-187-160-1) 63.236.187.160 - 63.236.187.167 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-198-64 (NET-63-236-198-64-1) 63.236.198.64 - 63.236.198.71 Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-198-152 (NET-63-236-198-152-1) 63.236.198.152 - 63.236.198.159 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233050-4 (NET-64-15-170-192-1) 64.15.170.192 - 64.15.170.199 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233050-5 (NET-64-15-177-0-1) 64.15.177.0 - 64.15.177.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233050-6 (NET-64-15-178-0-1) 64.15.178.0 - 64.15.178.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-15 (NET-64-15-229-96-1) 64.15.229.96 - 64.15.229.127 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-1 (NET-64-41-193-0-1) 64.41.193.0 - 64.41.193.255 Microsoft Corp HP-64-77-82-96 (NET-64-77-82-96-1) 64.77.82.96 - 64.77.82.103 Microsoft Corp HP-64-77-93-80 (NET-64-77-93-80-1) 64.77.93.80 - 64.77.93.95 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-1 (NET-64-85-70-32-1) 64.85.70.32 - 64.85.70.47 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-2 (NET-64-85-81-96-1) 64.85.81.96 - 64.85.81.103 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-3 (NET-64-85-81-104-1) 64.85.81.104 - 64.85.81.111 Microsoft Corp WLCO-TWC1057147-MICROSOFT (NET-64-200-211-16-1) 64.200.211.16 - 64.200.211.31 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-1BLK (NET-65-52-0-0-1) 65.52.0.0 - 65.55.255.255 Microsoft Corp Q0112-65-114-175-128 (NET-65-114-175-128-1) 65.114.175.128 - 65.114.175.159 Microsoft Corp SPRINTLINK (NET-65-170-29-0-1) 65.170.29.0 - 65.170.29.7 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S232995-1 (NET-66-35-208-48-1) 66.35.208.48 - 66.35.208.63 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S232995-2 (NET-66-35-209-120-1) 66.35.209.120 - 66.35.209.127 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S232995-3 (NET-66-35-211-128-1) 66.35.211.128 - 66.35.211.191 Microsoft Corp Q0903-67-132-133-96 (NET-67-132-133-96-1) 67.132.133.96 - 67.132.133.103 Microsoft Corp WLCO-TWC1057147-MICROSOFT-1 (NET-69-44-126-80-1) 69.44.126.80 - 69.44.126.95 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT (NET-131-107-0-0-1) 131.107.0.0 - 131.107.255.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-BBLK (NET-157-54-0-0-1) 157.54.0.0 - 157.60.255.255 Microsoft Corp ERMS-6799349 (NET-165-121-253-232-1) 165.121.253.232 - 165.121.253.239 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-VEXCEL (NET-192-92-90-0-1) 192.92.90.0 - 192.92.90.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-2 (NET-192-197-157-0-1) 192.197.157.0 - 192.197.157.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT18 (NET-192-237-67-0-1) 192.237.67.0 - 192.237.67.255 Microsoft Corp NETBLK-MSOFT-NET (NET-198-105-232-0-1) 198.105.232.0 - 198.105.235.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT19 (NET-198-137-97-0-1) 198.137.97.0 - 198.137.97.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT2 (NET-198-180-74-0-1) 198.180.74.0 - 198.180.75.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT3 (NET-198-180-95-0-1) 198.180.95.0 - 198.180.97.255 Microsoft Corp FON-3338832128690 (NET-199-2-137-0-1) 199.2.137.0 - 199.2.137.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT17 (NET-199-6-92-0-1) 199.6.92.0 - 199.6.94.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-1 (NET-199-60-28-0-1) 199.60.28.0 - 199.60.28.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-1 (NET-199-103-90-0-1) 199.103.90.0 - 199.103.91.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-3 (NET-199-103-122-0-1) 199.103.122.0 - 199.103.122.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-IPV6-BLK (NET6-2001-4898-1) 2001:4898:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:4898:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-2 (NET-204-79-7-0-1) 204.79.7.0 - 204.79.7.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-NET1 (NET-204-79-27-0-1) 204.79.27.0 - 204.79.27.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT8 (NET-204-79-101-0-1) 204.79.101.0 - 204.79.101.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-HK (NET-204-79-135-0-1) 204.79.135.0 - 204.79.135.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-PLACEWARE-1 (NET-204-79-179-0-1) 204.79.179.0 - 204.79.179.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT11 (NET-204-79-180-0-1) 204.79.180.0 - 204.79.181.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-PLACEWARE-2 (NET-204-79-188-0-1) 204.79.188.0 - 204.79.188.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT13 (NET-204-79-195-0-1) 204.79.195.0 - 204.79.197.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-PLACEWARE-2 (NET-204-79-252-0-1) 204.79.252.0 - 204.79.252.255 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CC5F6F (NET-204-95-96-0-1) 204.95.96.0 - 204.95.111.255 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CC5F95-8 (NET-204-95-149-0-1) 204.95.149.0 - 204.95.149.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFTDENVER (NET-204-133-231-0-1) 204.133.231.0 - 204.133.231.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT15 (NET-204-140-77-0-1) 204.140.77.0 - 204.140.77.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT16 (NET-204-140-80-0-1) 204.140.80.0 - 204.140.83.255 Microsoft Corp FON-343451648081865 (NET-204-182-144-0-1) 204.182.144.0 - 204.182.159.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT19-NET58 (NET-204-231-58-0-1) 204.231.58.0 - 204.231.58.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT20 (NET-204-231-76-0-1) 204.231.76.0 - 204.231.76.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT26 (NET-204-231-192-0-1) 204.231.192.0 - 204.231.192.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT27 (NET-204-231-194-0-1) 204.231.194.0 - 204.231.223.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT28 (NET-204-231-236-0-1) 204.231.236.0 - 204.231.236.255 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CDA33E (NET-205-163-62-0-1) 205.163.62.0 - 205.163.62.255 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CDA33F (NET-205-163-63-0-1) 205.163.63.0 - 205.163.63.255 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CDA39F (NET-205-163-144-0-1) 205.163.144.0 - 205.163.159.255 Microsoft Corp FON-34550983681918 (NET-205-240-158-0-1) 205.240.158.0 - 205.240.159.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT29 (NET-205-248-10-0-1) 205.248.10.0 - 205.248.15.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT30 (NET-205-248-41-0-1) 205.248.41.0 - 205.248.43.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT31 (NET-205-248-50-0-1) 205.248.50.0 - 205.248.51.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT32 (NET-205-248-61-0-1) 205.248.61.0 - 205.248.63.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT34 (NET-205-248-72-0-1) 205.248.72.0 - 205.248.72.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT33 (NET-205-248-80-0-1) 205.248.80.0 - 205.248.129.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT35 (NET-205-248-212-0-1) 205.248.212.0 - 205.248.215.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT36 (NET-205-248-228-0-1) 205.248.228.0 - 205.248.228.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT37 (NET-205-248-235-0-1) 205.248.235.0 - 205.248.235.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT44 (NET-205-248-243-0-1) 205.248.243.0 - 205.248.244.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT58 (NET-206-73-31-0-1) 206.73.31.0 - 206.73.31.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT59 (NET-206-73-67-0-1) 206.73.67.0 - 206.73.67.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT56 (NET-206-73-118-0-1) 206.73.118.0 - 206.73.118.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT57 (NET-206-73-203-0-1) 206.73.203.0 - 206.73.203.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-6 (NET-206-79-74-32-1) 206.79.74.32 - 206.79.74.47 Microsoft Corp FON-346312755281299 (NET-206-107-34-0-1) 206.107.34.0 - 206.107.34.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT61 (NET-206-182-69-0-1) 206.182.69.0 - 206.182.69.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT62 (NET-206-182-236-0-1) 206.182.236.0 - 206.182.236.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT63 (NET-206-182-240-0-1) 206.182.240.0 - 206.182.240.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT64 (NET-206-182-241-0-1) 206.182.241.0 - 206.182.241.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT65 (NET-206-182-247-0-1) 206.182.247.0 - 206.182.247.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT66 (NET-206-182-251-0-1) 206.182.251.0 - 206.182.251.255 Microsoft Corp UU-207-18-117 (NET-207-18-117-0-1) 207.18.117.0 - 207.18.117.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-GLOBAL-NET (NET-207-46-0-0-1) 207.46.0.0 - 207.46.255.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-BLK (NET-207-68-128-0-1) 207.68.128.0 - 207.68.207.255 Microsoft Corp SOCRATIC (NET-207-78-80-0-1) 207.78.80.0 - 207.78.80.255 Microsoft Corp DAVELADD (NET-207-78-81-0-1) 207.78.81.0 - 207.78.81.255 Microsoft Corp RSEGAL (NET-207-78-82-0-1) 207.78.82.0 - 207.78.82.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT48 (NET-207-117-3-0-1) 207.117.3.0 - 207.117.3.255 Microsoft Corp CYBR-LCCLAB (NET-207-158-93-192-1) 207.158.93.192 - 207.158.93.223 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT50 (NET-207-209-68-0-1) 207.209.68.0 - 207.209.68.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-8-18 (NET-207-240-8-224-1) 207.240.8.224 - 207.240.8.239 Microsoft Corp MSBPN-2 (NET-207-240-123-192-1) 207.240.123.192 - 207.240.123.223 Microsoft Corp SPRINT-D01ACD (NET-208-26-205-0-1) 208.26.205.0 - 208.26.205.255 Microsoft Corp QWEST-208-45-54-8 (NET-208-45-54-8-1) 208.45.54.8 - 208.45.54.15 Microsoft Corp QWEST-208-45-54-16 (NET-208-45-54-16-1) 208.45.54.16 - 208.45.54.23 Microsoft Corp QWEST-208-45-89-248A (NET-208-45-89-248-1) 208.45.89.248 - 208.45.89.255 Microsoft Corp CW-208-139-27-B (NET-208-139-27-0-1) 208.139.27.0 - 208.139.27.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-2 (NET-209-1-15-0-1) 209.1.15.0 - 209.1.15.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-4 (NET-209-1-112-0-1) 209.1.112.0 - 209.1.112.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-5 (NET-209-1-113-0-1) 209.1.113.0 - 209.1.113.255 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT55 (NET-209-28-213-0-1) 209.28.213.0 - 209.28.213.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233050-2 (NET-209-143-238-0-1) 209.143.238.0 - 209.143.238.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-14 (NET-209-185-128-0-1) 209.185.128.0 - 209.185.131.255 Microsoft Corp NET-CSAMSI (NET-209-192-213-72-1) 209.192.213.72 - 209.192.213.79 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-7 (NET-216-32-168-224-1) 216.32.168.224 - 216.32.168.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-8 (NET-216-32-175-224-1) 216.32.175.224 - 216.32.175.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-9 (NET-216-32-180-0-1) 216.32.180.0 - 216.32.183.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-10 (NET-216-32-240-0-1) 216.32.240.0 - 216.32.243.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-16 (NET-216-33-148-0-1) 216.33.148.0 - 216.33.151.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-11 (NET-216-33-229-224-1) 216.33.229.224 - 216.33.229.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-12 (NET-216-33-236-0-1) 216.33.236.0 - 216.33.239.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-13 (NET-216-33-240-0-1) 216.33.240.0 - 216.33.243.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-3 (NET-216-34-51-0-1) 216.34.51.0 - 216.34.51.255 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-4 (NET-216-34-53-176-1) 216.34.53.176 - 216.34.53.191 Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-5 (NET-216-35-8-224-1) 216.35.8.224 - 216.35.8.239 Microsoft Corp MICROSOFTG1-COM (NET-216-72-96-0-1) 216.72.96.0 - 216.72.99.255 Microsoft Corp CUST-86-24614 (NET-216-222-104-224-1) 216.222.104.224 - 216.222.104.239 Looking at the networks contained therein, that looks like: 939400 addresses and no /8s. The largest block is Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-BBLK (NET-157-54-0-0-1) 157.54.0.0 - 157.60.255.255 which doesn't appear to be bit-aligned, but, looks like: 157.54.0.0/15 157.56.0.0/14 They also have a couple of /16s and a /14. There are a couple of other large non-aligned ranges, and the rest appear to be smaller blocks. The block Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-IPV6-BLK (NET6-2001-4898-1) 2001:4898:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:4898:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF is specifically not included in the calculations above, but, is a /32 of IPv6 space. HP has a large number of Org IDs: Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-5) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-6) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-1) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-13) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-16) HEWLETT PACKARD (HEWLET-21) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-24) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-27) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-28) Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-29) hewlett packard (HEWLET-31) HEWLETT PACKARD (HEWLET-33) HEWLETT PACKARD (HEWLE-10) Hewlett Packard (HEWLE-16) HEWLETT PACKARD - BRS (HPB-6) Hewlett Packard / COMPAQ (HEWLE-25) Hewlett Packard Co. (HEWLET-3) Hewlett Packard Company (HEWLET-25) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY (HEWLE-13) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY (HEWLE-15) Hewlett Packard OKI Printed Circuit (HPOPC) HEWLETT PACKARD-VERIFONE (HEWLET-32) Hewlett packard/Danzas AEI (HPA-6) Hewlett Packard Company (AI2-ORG-ARIN) ipaddr at hp.com +1-800-524-7638 Which makes it a bit more challenging to indentify all of their space. However, looking through all of the blocks which are returned from whois -h whois.arin.net 'hewlett', I do not see any /8s listed. Trying to look at Apple is even worse... Apple Computer (APPLEC-13) Apple Computer (APPLEC-16) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-6) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-7) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-152) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-12) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-43) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-46) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-47) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-48) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-49) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-50) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-51) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-56) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-57) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-59) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-60) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-69) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-62) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-71) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-72) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-73) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-74) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-75) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-76) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-77) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-78) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-79) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-83) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-84) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-80) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-81) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-82) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-85) APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-146) Apple Computer, Inc (APPLEC-14) Apple Computer, Inc. (APPLEC-3) Apple Computer, Inc. (APPLEC-2) Apple Computer, Inc. (APPLEC-4) However, looking at the blocks returned by whois -h whois.arin.net 'apple', I also do not see a single /8 listed. Owen On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > I'm pretty sure that Microsoft used to have a class A and I'm pretty > sure that disappeared a few years ago. > > Apple and HP may be in that same boat. They may have a class B now > because they gave up a class A a few years ago, and they got the B > under a secret agreement with ARIN > > This is just sheer speculation. Since I don't work for ARIN and > don't know if it's true or not, I'm free to speculate. The people > who actually know, well their hands are a bit more tied. > > Ted > > Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: >> So what does ARIN have to lose... Are these orgs cooperating now? >> Sent from my handheld >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:17 AM, >> > wrote: >>> >>>>> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was >>>>> no fee as part of the "contract". >>>> >>>> It is a principle of common law that if there is no money (or >>>> equivalent) paid then there is no legal contract. Has this >>>> changed in >>>> the USA? >>>> >>> It is a principle of common law that a contract involves an exchange >>> of value. (labor, things, etc. == value) >>> >>> It is a principle of common law that without a contract, you >>> cannot expect >>> someone to pay a bill for a service you did not tell them you were >>> going >>> to charge them for, whether or not they asked for said service and >>> whether >>> or not you performed said service. >>> >>> The above use of the term "contract" probably is in quotations >>> because, >>> it specifically is not a contract in the legal meaning of the >>> word, but, more >>> the "contract" as a term of art for any form of agreement between >>> two or >>> more parties. >>> >>>> I'd like to see all these entities billed retroactively back to the >>>> beginning of ARIN. If they complain, then we could negotiate it >>>> down to >>>> just the past year if they sign an RSA. >>>> >>> This would be an absurd waste of time and money on the part of >>> ARIN in >>> my humble opinion. I think it would also go a long way towards >>> reducing >>> the willingness to work with ARIN on the parts of several >>> organizations with >>> legacy space. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Thu Jul 23 15:20:53 2009 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <013c01ca0bb2$e9a37b90$bcea72b0$@com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <013c01ca0bb2$e9a37b90$bcea72b0$@com> Message-ID: <625657.21632.qm@web63304.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Thanks for pointing this report out again. Tony has been maintaining a graph at http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/ipv4-pool-combined-view.pdf Geoff Huston's report is at http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html As time has passed, and Tony and Geoff have refined their models and added new data, their models have tended to converge: both now expect IANA to allocate the last new /8 around the middle of 2011, and RIRs to run out sometime in 2012. You can also see NRO stats at http://www.nro.net/documents/presentations/nro-jointstats_06-30-09.pdf Using those resources, you can calculate your own believed rate of future IPv4 allocation. Add the number of /8s you think can be reclaimed, and you can figure out how much more time could be squeezed. All of that assumes current trends. We could certainly change policy to alter the allocation rate; see PPML, and Jean Camp's presentation from ARIN XXIII https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXIII/pdf/monday/ipv4_last_eights.pdf For those of you too busy to follow all of the above links, the summary is: Current policies and allocation rates extrapolate to show IANA allocating the last IPv4 /8 mid-2011. What, if anything, should be changed? Be specific. Lee From: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:30:38 PM >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 > > > > > >Here you go... > >A Pragmatic Report on IPv4 Address Space Consumption >by Tony Hain, Cisco Systems > >>When I interact with people from all around the world discussing IPv6, there >continue to be questions about the projected lifetime for IPv4. This article >presents consumption rate and lifetime projections based on publicly available Internet Assigned Numbers Authority >(IANA) data. In addition, there is discussion about why the widely quoted >alternative projection may be flawed, thus leading everyone to believe we have >much more time than we might. > >Figure 1: IANA /8 Allocations > > > >Allocations >>The chart in Figure 1 shows the distribution of all 256 IANA /8 allocation >units in IPv4 [1] as of July 1, 2005. The Central registry represents the >allocations made prior to the formation of the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). ARIN >(North America) [2], RIPE NCC (Europe) [3], APNIC (Asia/Pacific) [4], LACNIC >(Latin America) [5], and AfriNIC (Africa) [6] are the organizations managing >registrations for each of their respective regions. RFC 3330 [7] discusses the >state of the Defined and Multicast address blocks. The Experimental block (also >known as Class E?RFC >1700 [8]) was reserved, and many widely deployed IPv4 stacks considered its use >to be a configuration error. The bottom bar shows the remaining useful global >IPv4 pool. To be clear, when the IANA pool is exhausted there will still be >space in each of the RIR pools, but by current policy [9] that space is >expected to be only enough to last each RIR between 12 and 18 months. > >>The projection published at http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4 [10] is often quoted as the >definitive reference for IPv4 consumption. This report presents a viewpoint >consistent with that author's long-standing position that we do not need to >change from IPv4 to IPv6 anytime soon, thus showing an extended lifetime for >IPv4. > >>The approach used in the potaroo report is to take the simple exponential fit >to the allocation data since 1995. As discussed later in this article, this >approach includes the effects of the policy shift to Classless Interdomain Routing >(CIDR) and subsequent digestion of prior allocations, the lull in IANA >allocations to the RIRs for two full years, as well as the fact that the model >used does not generate a particularly close fit to the actual run rate over the >10-year period. > >>Although this author agrees that over very long timeframes (20?50 years) there >will be substantial variations in the consumption rate for any number of >reasons, the opportunity for events that would reduce the recent rate in the timeframe >of the remaining IANA IPv4 pool is not evident. That said, there are numerous >things that could increase the consumption rate and exhaust the pool even >sooner than this projection. > >Figure 2: IANA Allocations to RIRs ?Raw /8 Allocations per >Month > > > >>The graph in Figure 2 shows the raw per-month IANA allocations since 1995. In >raw form it is difficult to discern the trend, or develop an expectation about >the overall lifetime of the remaining pool. > >>Taking a closer look at Figure 3, smoothing the data with a 24-month sliding >window (averaging over 12 months back and 12 months forward) exposes the >underlying reality that the combined rate and quantity of /8 allocations has >been steadily accelerating since 2000 (the graphs for 12-, 18-, and 24-month >sliding windows show the same fundamental trend). Though a few of the >allocations may arguably have been "one-time" events, those are lost >as statistically insignificant in the extended and continuing overall growth >rate. > >Figure 3: IANA Allocations to RIRs ?Sliding-Window 24-Month >Average > > > >>Taken by itself, the most recent allocation rate (22 /8s over the 18 months >leading up to July 1, 2005) suggests that the remaining pool of 64 /8s will be >exhausted in about 5 years, even if growth abruptly flattens out to hold around >1 /8 per month. Unfortunately at this point there is no reason to believe the >allocation rates will slow or that they will turn downward again. All the gain >of CIDR absorbing the pre-1995 allocations has already been incorporated, and >there is no obvious economic bubble that might burst to lower demand within the >time window of the remaining pool. > >>To the contrary, the following URL shows potential demand (to bring developing >countries up to just 20-percent connectivity, which is half of what the >existing Internet world enjoys today) that will swamp the remaining pool, even >in the face of much stricter allocation policies. http://www.nav6tf.org/documents/e-Nations-data.pdf > >>So this view of the sustained trend in allocation growth rate suggests that the >lifetime of the remaining central IPv4 pool is 4 years +/-1. > >Projections >>Differing from recent articles and section 5 of the report at http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4 >that hint at linearity in growth, Figure 4 shows that the raw data after 1995 >is clearly nonlinear. It starts with a decelerating rate through mid-1998 as >the pre-1995 allocations were absorbed (precipitated by the allocation policy >shift from class-based to CIDR), followed by a 2-year lull (only 1 /8 per >year), then a return to accelerating growth from mid-2000 onward. > >Figure 4: IPv4 Lifetime Projection ?Non-Linear Nature of Raw >Data > > > >>This suggests that using the past 10-year IANA data is likely to skew the >projection toward a much longer period than the recent allocation data would >support. Although a longer lifetime projection helps to avoid short-term panic, >it can mislead people into believing there is substantial time to worry about >this later, resulting in a much bigger problem when reality blindsides everyone >sooner than they expected. > >Figure 5: IPv4 Lifetime Projections ?Order-N Polynomials, >Post-2000 History Basis > > > >Figure 6: IPv4 Lifetime Projections ?Polynomials and >Exponentials > > > >>As in any statistical endeavor there are many ways to evaluate the data. The >various projections in Figures 5 and 6 show different mathematical models >applied to the same raw data. Depending on the model chosen, the nonlinear >historical trends in Figure 6 covering the last 5- and 10-year data show that >the remaining 64 /8s will be allocated somewhere between 2009 and 2016, with no >change in policy or demand (though as discussed previously there are already >reasons to err toward 5-yearbased nonlinear models). > >>Adding to that, policy is continually changing. ARIN, for example, has recently >clarified its policy allowing organizations that demonstrate they have exceeded >the capacity of the private space defined in RFC 1918 to acquire IPv4 address >blocks from the remaining public pool, even when it is clear these allocations >will never be announced to the global Internet. The other regions already have >similar policies or are likely to follow suit because the most vocal members of >the RIR community have adamantly commented against expanding the private IPv4 >range. This policy approach coupled with persistent demand means the actual run >rate is going to continue increasing as the large organizations begin consuming >public space where they had been using private to support their network growth. >For example, one large enterprise has steady growth over 1 percent per month, >which currently requires an efficiently managed /12 per year for its expanding >network. The enterprise is less than a year from exhausting all the space >provided in RFC 1918, so it was very interested in the ARIN policy that allows >the enterprise to continue growing through public space. Additionally, multiple >commercial service providers expect to reach the capacity of the 1918 space >within 12 to 18 months, just supporting management addresses on their existing >devices. This does not take into consideration their pending deployment of new >services, which they expect will use several new IPv4 addresses per device with >marketing targets measured in multiple millions of units. > >Figure 7: IPv4 Lifetime Projection ?5-Year History Basis > > > >>The graph in Figure 7 hints at the likely outcome as word spreads about the >perception of policy liberalization and the demonstrable exhaustion of the >remaining global IPv4 pool landing within the return-on-investment (ROI) period for new >equipment.. It is based on the same raw historical data as the frequently quoted >long-term projection on potaroo's Figure 2.4, but the more aggressive fit on >the most recent data set describes a significantly higher consumption rate and >shorter lifetime for the remaining pool. > >Figure 8: IPv4 /8 Pool ?5-Year History-Based Projection > > > >>The graph in Figure 8 provides the exhaustion perspective, showing the entire >address pool from the publication of IP Version 4 [11] (note that data prior to >1995 is accurate as to where it was allocated, but with very coarse granularity >as to exactly when). The projection curve is based on the IANA allocations from >January 2000 onward. > >>Only time will tell which projection is correct, but it will already take a >fairly significant stalling event to slow consumption and put the actual >allocation curve back on the extended track in potaroo's Figure 2.4. > >Reserved Space >>There are occasionally arguments that the 16 /8s reserved in the experimental >space could be used. Although this is likely to be possible for some IP stack >implementations, for others it is not. At a minimum, some quick tests show that >Windows 95 through Windows 2003 Server systems consider that block to be a >configuration error and refuse to accept it. The operational ability to >restrict the space to a select stack implementation is limited, and the amount >of space there does not really help even if deployment and operations were >trivial. Assuming the sustained growth trend in allocations continues, by the >time the remaining 64 /8s in the IANA pool are finished the rate would be >approaching 3 /8 allocations per month, so the entirety of the old Class E >space would amount to about 6 months of run rate. > >Reclaiming Allocations >>Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of the early >allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully this article has >shown that the ROI for that approach is going to be extremely low. Discussions >around the Internet community show there is an expectation that it will take >several years of substantive negotiation (in multiple court systems around the >globe) to retrieve any /8s. Then following that effort and expense, the >likelihood of even getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. >Following the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation the >result is likely to be just a few months of additional resource added to the >pool?and possibly not even a whole month. All this assumes IANA does not >completely run out before getting any back, because running out would result in >pentup demand that could immediately exhaust any returns. > >Summary >Network Address >Translation (NAT) and CIDR did their jobs and bought the 10 years >needed to get IPv6 standards and products developed. Now is the time to >recognize the end to sustainable growth of the IPv4-based Internet has arrived >and that it is time to move on. IPv6 is ready as the successor, so the gating >issue is attitude.. When CIOs make firm decisions to deploy IPv6, the process is >fairly straightforward. Staff will need to be trained, management tools will >need to be enhanced, routers and operating systems will need to be updated, and >IPv6-enabled versions of applications will need to be deployed. All these steps >will take time?in many cases multiple years. The point of this article has been >to show that the recent consumption rates of IPv4 will not be sustainable from >the central pool beyond this decade, so organizations would be wise to start the >process of planning for an IPv6 deployment now. Those who delay may find that >the IANA pool for IPv4 has run dry before they have completed their move to >IPv6. Although that may not be a problem for most, organizations that need to >acquire additional IPv4 space to continue growing during the transition could >be out of luck. > >References >>[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > >>[2] http://www.arin.net/ > >>[3] http://www.ripe.net/ > >>[4] http://www.apnic.net/ > >>[5] http://www.lacnic.net/ > >>[6] http://www.afrinic.net/ > >>[7] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt > >>[8] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1700.txt > >>[9] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2050.txt > >>[10] http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4 > >>[11] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc791.txt > >>[12] Geoff Huston, "The >Myth of IPv6," The >Internet Protocol Journal, Volume 6, No. 2, June 2003. > >>[13] Geoff Huston, "IPv4: >How long do we have?," The >Internet Protocol Journal, Volume 6, No. 4, December 2003. > >Another Perspective >Ed.: We asked Geoff Huston >to provide some feedback on this article and he responded with the following: > >>Dear Editor, > >>There are, of course, many ways to undertake predictions, and over the >millennia humanity has explored a wide diversity of them.. In every case the >challenge is to make predictions that end up being closely correlated to the >unfolding story, and of course hindsight is always the harshest judge of such >predictions. > >>Tony's work takes a different base point for making the projection from earlier >work that I did in this area. Tony looks at the rate of allocation from the >IANA to the RIRs, and bases his predictions on the trends visible in that time >series of data. By contrast, I used the assumption that assigned addresses are >destined for use in the public IPv4 Internet, and I used the trends visible in >the amount of advertised address space as the basis for the predictions of >consumption. > >>One of the more interesting data artifacts is the first-order differential of >the rate at which the span of addresses announced in the IPv4 public Internet >has increased over time. (Figure 4.4 of http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4/) > >>One interpretation of this data is that there are two phases of recent >activity: prior to March 2003 and post-March 2003. Prior to March 2003 the >longer-term address growth rate was the equivalent of some 3.5 /8 blocks per >year. > >>Post-March 2003 we see a different consumption growth rate, fluctuating between >5 and 8 /8s per year, with a mean value of some 7.5 /8s per year. There is no >strongly obvious longer-term compound growth rate visible in this view of the >data. Given some 64 /8s remaining in the IANA pool as of July 2005 and a base >consumption rate of a mean of 7.5 /8s per year, the simple division yields 8.5 >years, or 2014 as the time of forecast exhaustion of the IANA address pool. At >that point the RIRs will be holding about 25 /8 blocks in their unallocated >pools, and a further two years of allocations could be made from these pools. > >>So I would offer the view that the post-2003 data offers a perspective of >exhaustion of the unallocated address pools in 2016, with the caveat that such >a prediction assumes that the current address demand levels will continue, the >actions of industry players are invariant, and the current address allocation >policies will continue as they are at present. > >>Of course these three caveats represent relatively major assumptions about the >future?and are perhaps unlikely to happen. It is likely that there will be >changes in all these factors in the coming years, and these will obviously >impact these predictive models. > >>To summarize, I observe that these different predictive approaches yield >slightly different outcomes, but not beyond any reasonable error margin for >predictions of this nature.. Sometime in the forthcoming 5 to 10 years the >current address distribution policy framework for IPv4 will no longer be >sustainable for the current industry address consumption model because of >effective exhaustion of the unallocated address pool. > >>When looking at this prediction from the perspective of the service provider >enterprise, the prediction can be re-expressed as a problem relating to >investment lifecycles. The ISP industry and the enterprise sector have already >made considerable investments in IPv4-based infrastructure in equipment, >infrastructure, and operational capability, and we are seeing some considerable >reluctance to add to this with additional investment into IPv6 capability at >this time. The direction of the use of various forms of NAT-based approaches >and increasing use of application layer gateways in the public and enterprise >environments can be seen as an effort to extend the lifetime of the existing >infrastructure investment. In a volume-based market with relatively low revenue >margins, this position certainly has some sound rationale from a business >management perspective. But I agree with Tony here that such business >approaches are ultimately short-term in nature, because they do not allow IPv4 >to encompass indefinite further decades of Internet growth in a silicon-dense >world. > >>However, in terms of understanding the next few years of a process of industry >transition of protocol infrastructure into IPv6 deployment, perhaps the real >issues here are more centered on competitive business factors and sector >investment profiles than they are about detailed introspection of trends within >various number series. > >>The numbers all indicate that this is not a matter that can be deferred >indefinitely. Tony's call for some timely attention to the need to commence >investment in IPv6-based service infrastructure is one that I hope the industry >is listening to attentively. >?Geoff Huston >gih at apnic.net > >A Virtual Roundtable >Ole: Let's >open this discussion on the point of measurement methods. We invited John >Klensin and Fred Baker to join Geoff and Tony in the discussion at our virtual >round table. (We often all see each other at IETF meetings, but there is seldom >enough time to gather everyone around a real table, hence this discussion took >place with a few rounds of e-mail). > >Geoff: As I >said in my response letter, Tony's work takes a different base point for making >the projection from the earlier work that I did in this area. My work has >focused on the trends from the addresses used in the public IPv4 Internet, and >then deriving projections on consumption based on this data. It assumes that >the influencing factor for address consumption is the use of addresses in the >public IPv4 Internet. > >Tony: As Geoff >noted, he and I have discussed over time that we are looking at different parts >of the data set and coming to different conclusions. One specific point that >distorts the approaches is the time delay between IANA allocation to the RIRs >and the appearance of that space for public use.. In particular, his comment >about 5 to 8 /8s per year is based on the delayed public use data that will >eventually catch up with the fact that IANA has allocated 13 /8s just since the >beginning of 2005. If the allocation rates had close to linear growth, the >delay would not be a big factor. Another point of distortion is the potential >for some of the allocations to never show up as publicly routed. > >Ole: So when >do we actually run out? > >Geoff: There >are many specific milestones that will pass in sequence. The unallocated >address pool held by IANA will exhaust first, and then the RIR pools of >unallocated data will drain. At that point there is no stream of >"new" addresses to fuel further growth, and that is probably a >reasonable point in time to say that we have "run out." Assuming that >the current business influential factors and allocation policies remain in >place, then the projection models from recent data indicate that this >"run-out" date is around 2016, or some 11 years from now. Of course >these are unlikely assumptions as the prospect of exhaustion draws nearer, and >there may be a "last-minute rush" of address allocation requests from >the service provider industry that could draw in that projected >"run-out" date. Such additional consumption pressures are difficult >to factor in to trend-based predictive models, of course. It is also >conceivable that the industry could shift its attention almost entirely to >IPv6-based protocol infrastructure in the coming years, in which case the >"run-out" projection for IPv4 would extend out further in time simply >because of the translation of the consumption activity to the IPv6 address pool. > >Tony: As I >noted early on in my article, there will still be pool available at each of the >RIRs when the IANA pool that I focused on is exhausted. In the past I have said >we would never completely run out because nobody could afford that last address, >but in light of the accelerating consumption of IPv4 coupled with the >less-than-aggressive deployment of IPv6, I can see how the pool might actually >run dry.. > >John: In >practical terms, the point at which one has "run out" of address >space is not tied to being the last applicant to the RIRs for an address pool. >I have suggested that point will never arise: the RIRs (and, to the extent to >which the Internet >Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [ICANN] can make >decisions, the IANA), will continually recalibrate policies to prevent >"running out." Of course the inevitable consequence of those >recalibrations is that, although one does not need to worry about approaching >an RIR and being told "no space left," the combination of monetary, >justification, and general aggravation costs is such that one does not even >want to contemplate being the applicant for the next-to-last available block. >That reasoning says that looking at the date on which near exhaustion is >reached is relatively uninteresting. The more important question is when one >enters the end game for IPv4 space because, as soon as the end game begins, the >space is essentially exhausted. > >>I suggest that the criterion for entrance into the end game is not measured >statistically but by looking at the point at which one needs to start designing >networks and subnets, not in a way that is optimal from a network architecture >or network management and growth standpoint, but in order to conserve address >space and/or to avoid extended discussions with applicable RIRs (or one's ISP >that deals with the RIR). From that point of view, we have already run out, and >probably ran out a couple of years ago. Every time someone who has multiple >machines is pointed to private address space because of a presumed shortage, it >is an indication that we have already run out of space. Every time China >manages to make a successful political point?regardless of the country's actual >internal dynamics and economics?about its inability to get addresses for its >population, it is an indication that we have already run out of address space. >Every time an ISP decides to use private space to manage its backbone, it is an >indication that we have already run out of address space. > >Fred: I have >made the same point, from a point of view of economics. In essence, when a >commodity is common and demand is low, there are calls to squander it because >it costs nothing?something one hears a lot of in the IPv6 community. When >supply and demand are comparable, a market develops, and I need to tell you that >I certainly pay for the IPv4 addresses at my >house. When demand outstrips supply, we enter a regulated market of some kind, >and our current allocation policies certainly reflect a regulated market. The >step after a regulated market is a black market, and it is not too hard to find >that either.. > >John: >Actually, in our present situation, there is an intermediate step before things >deteriorate completely into a black market. Although it is unlikely that any >significant fraction of the early IPv4 academic, research, or commercial >allocations could be recovered and reused, there are governmental allocations >that might be recovered under significant political pressures. Unfortunately, >in addition to politicizing the allocation process much more than we have seen >so far, such moves might push the present users of those allocations toward >NATs in ways that would make the ultimate transition to IPv6 more difficult >while not gaining very much additional time for the IPv4 space. > >Tony: >Political pressure or not, simple logistics argues against this. Given the rate >of growth in consumption, any reclaimed government space would be consumed in >substantially less time than it would take to rebuild their network and release >it. Even a small network sitting on a /16 would take at least a year to release >that much space, and at the current spot on the escalating curve that /16 >represents around 2 hours of IANA run rate. Getting back a whole /8 would >logistically take several years, and then at that point on the curve the result >would be about a week of run rate. If several of these government organizations >have a mesh of direct interactions and head down the same path, the resulting >overlap in the private address space would require creating a complex NAT >system worthy of a Nobel Prize. Reclamation is a nice bar-room debate topic, >but the return on investment is extremely low. If an organization were to >consider rebuilding its network to release an IPv4 allocation, it would make >much more sense for that organization to rebuild it as IPv6 than to move >publicly addressed nodes behind a NAT. > >Geoff: It >would be strongly preferred by all, I would suggest, that the "black >market" option be avoided. If the consequence of the exhaustion of the >unallocated pool of IPv4 addresses is the trading of alreadyallocated IPv4 >addresses, then a responsible way for the industry to support that scenario is >to encourage such a market to operate with the support of some form of >"clear title" that could legitimate trading transactions. Without >structure and stability in a trading market, the value of the trade is >meaningless, and in this case the potential for chaos in the network itself is >undeniable. > >Fred: We are >in fact starting to see networks designed to be IPv6-only or IPv6-dominant (the >latter being a network that might use IPv4 internally but offer only IPv6 >services to some or all of its customers) in China, Japan, and other places. >The economic argument is the one these operators are primarily giving?they >state that they see a roadmap to the number of addresses that they need in >IPv6, while in IPv4 they are significantly constrained. This sounds to me a lot >like John's comments about network design, but the other way?rather than >designing their networks to what they perceive as IPv4 addressing policy >limitations, they are choosing a path that they perceive as giving them >options. > >>We also see evidence of networks designing themselves to the limits of address >allocation in IPv4, usually using multiple layers of NATs. For quite a while, >for example, China Unicom used multiple layers of NAT in order to work around >what the company felt was a deficiency in its ability to get IPv4 addresses >from its national registry. As I understand it, the company has changed its >strategy to include getting IPv4 address allocations directly from APNIC, and >at the same time to deploy an IPv6 network in parallel to move away from IPv4 >dependence. > >John: There is >another factor at work in this. Transitions are never free. If we are going to >design and build out a substantially new network, we are rapidly reaching the >point?some would say that we have reached it already?at which it is cheaper to >design and build that network for IPv6, making whatever arrangements are needed >at its interconnection points with IPv4 networks, than to build in IPv4 and >face a transition later. As those decisions are increasingly made, it may both >reduce pressure on new IPv4 allocations and create free pools of IPv4 space >that could be recovered and reused. For example, the U.S. Department of Defense >(DoD) has announced a fairly aggressive schedule for moving to IPv6. If they >meet that schedule and were then willing to free up the IPv4 space that they >would presumably no longer be using, it would free up the equivalent of several >/8s. While I agree with Tony that this hypothetical case would be unlikely to >make any significant difference in the long run, it illustrates another >difficulty with trying to make assertions about what is happening by >statistical projections alone. > >Ole: It is >frequently stated that North America is immune to the address exhaustion >problem.. > >Tony: Well >despite persistent rumors and press statements to that effect, ARIN continues >to consume about 30 percent of the annual allocation from IANA. If the past >allocations were sufficient to stave off global exhaustion, why the continued >consumption? In any case, when the central pool is exhausted the North American >region will be in the same situation as everyone else?unable to expand or >acquire new IPv4 addresses. > >Geoff: We are >seeing growth in Internet-based services in all regions of the industry, >including North America. And network growth needs to be fueled by network >addresses. We are seeing a combination of a continued demand for further >addresses, and the use of various forms of network configurations that attempt >to make the most efficient use of already-allocated addresses. There is little >data to suggest that any region, including that of North America, is in a >position of immunity from these growth-related factors. > >>Ole: There is widespread opinion that NAT will solve the problems for a long >time to come. > >Geoff: The ISP >industry certainly has made considerable investments there, and many millions >of end users today use the Internet behind NAT devices. Given the size of this >investment and the factors of inertia in large-scale service markets, it is >reasonable to predict that NATs will be around for quite some time. But NATs >add cost to network services. If we are talking about a network that is >restricted to servicing the communications needs of people, then this is a >relatively high-value activity, and the additional costs of the deployment of >NATs are being absorbed within the cost base of the network service economy. >And for such human activity-based services this may well continue for some >time, given the existing levels of industry investment in service >infrastructure that includes the use of NATs. Certainly any new application >that is adopted by the Internet user population needs to work across a wide >variety of NAT configurations. From this perspective it is likely that IPv4 and >NATs will continue to be part of the Internet landscape for a long time to >come. > >>But although this approach has the potential to service a portfolio of service >markets for some time to come, it cannot service all forms of service >markets?not in the future nor even today. It does not solve all the >"problems" and certainly does not encompass all the opportunities >that the Internet offers. The potential of IPv6 is one that includes an address >span designed to match the full potential of the volume-driven silicon >industry, both now and in a future that extends out for many decades to come. >One likely scenario for IPv6 is in servicing a truly massive device-dense >environment. This scenario encompasses far more than services that are >primarily directed at human end users. And the associated service market will >be more akin to that of a relatively undifferentiated commodity market, where >simplicity and low cost are the dominant service provider discriminants. >Because of their additional complexity and associated incremental cost, NATs >are marginalized in such commodity markets directed at servicing device >density, and it is there that the true leverage of the IPv6 address span >becomes a major influential factor.. > >Tony: As Geoff >notes, NAT has been widely available and deployed globally over the same >timeframe as the recent consumption. Yet the accelerating growth trend >continues, consuming to the point where only 25 percent of the total IPv4 space >remains available. Although NAT does slow the rate of public address >consumption from what it might otherwise be, it creates more problems than it >solves. Geoff also raises the economic investment in NAT to date, which is an >interesting contrast to many complaints I hear about the cost of deploying >IPv6. Most people who look at what it will take to deploy IPv6 in their network >are very quick to dismiss this investment in the array of costs associated with >NAT. Often they insist on a demonstration of value for the IPv6 investment >while at the same time they refuse to allow consideration of removing their >development, and ongoing operational support costs for IPv4 NAT. > >>Although I agree that in the interim overlap period the costs are additive, in >the long term staying on the IPv4/NAT path those costs only compound, whereas >on the IPv6 path they disappear. The duration of that overlap is somewhat >self-controlled as a direct trade-off between the costs for running both >protocols in parallel versus the costs associated with aggressively moving the >end systems and applications to IPv6. > >Ole: Another >area frequently discussed on various lists is that the U.S. DoD and Federal >Government mandates for service availability in 2008 are just another instance >of the Government OSI >Profile (GOSIP) and that they too will disappear. > >Tony: What >these discussions miss is that the situation is entirely different now. In the >early 1990s the U.S. GOSIP effort was directed by a strong desire to >consolidate the array of protocols in use at that time toward a common one. >Other governments had similar efforts that led them collectively toward a suite >that was developed with international governmental input. IPv4 was an >alternative to the mandate with applications already supporting it, while the >OSI protocols existed in some router products but did not have many >applications available. > >>At this point the existing government networks are already consolidated, and >there is no alternative. Yes, IPv6 still has fledgling application support, but >the IPv4 pool is no longer a sustainable resource to draw on, and there is no >other option. So the government networks either stop growing or, as the U.S. >DoD and Government agencies have announced, they will move to IPv6. This >implies preparing the application community to meet the impending reality. > >Geoff: >Although the strategic directions of one single?but relatively large?market >player does have some bearing on the direction of the global market in >Internet-based service provision, I do not see evidence that this will be >sufficient to influence the entire market in any particular direction. This was >certainly evident in the case of GOSIP some years ago, and continues to be an >aspect of the market today. The global communications sector carries the impetus >and burden of massive investment in infrastructure, process, technology, >services, and consumer product portfolios. The sector has already undergone a >revolutionary change with the advent of the Internet over the past decade. >Doubtless there is considerable reluctance on the part of many sector players >to continue to invest in further change in the protocol infrastructure of >Internet-based services. On the other hand, the upheavals in the service >provider sector have also eliminated much historical complacency about the >stability of these markets and the adequacy of the associated service >portfolio. It is reasonable to suggest that this sector is now very attentive >to the prospect of expanded markets and new service opportunities that can take >advantage of the existing infrastructure to create new revenue streams. So I >think it is the current dynamics of the service provider sector and the >potential for new service markets that would be the most persuasive factor for >service providers to invest in an IPv6 protocol infrastructure. > >Ole: Closing >thoughts? > >Tony: As I >said at the end of my article, now is the time to recognize that we have >reached the end of sustainable growth in IPv4. For most existing organizations >that can foretell they have as much space as they will need for the next >decade, this is not really an internal problem. Where these organizations will >have a concern is when they deal with newcomers or others that have been forced >into IPv6 because of exhaustion of the pool. Those organizations that foresee >expansion and growth should evaluate Geoff's analysis as well as mine and weigh >their plans against the risks of either or both of us being wrong. > >>In any case it only makes sense to start IPv6 capability discussions with the >product vendors now. Product development cycles can be lengthy, and the only >way for the vendor community to mesh with an organization's deployment plans is >to have sufficient notice about those plans and timeframes.. It would also be >wise for the organization's network architects to start thinking about the >impacts of an IPv6 deployment. Both protocol versions are packet-based and the >names start with IP, but there are enough differences in the details that it is >worth taking a fresh look to see what might be easier or cheaper than just >blindly deploying IPv6 identically to the IPv4 deployment. > >Geoff: The >Internet continues to present challenges to the communications sector, and I >would suggest that the underlying influential factor is the combination of the >silicon and software industries that continue to fuel the demand side with >fascinating, innovative, and compelling uses of communications that continue to >surprise us with their continual restatement of the size of the domain in which >we operate. We appear to be moving beyond servicing devices that are activated >and influenced primarily by direct human activity, such as e-mail and Web use, >and we are now looking at various command, control, and monitoring functions >that embed themselves deeply in other devices and in other elements of our >infrastructure. This encompasses larger concepts such as "smart >buildings" and "smart traffic control," and they reach all the >way down to the level of embedding into consumer devices and even >identification tags. This is not a world that can readily be serviced by an >IPv4 protocol infrastructure, and we are already seeing various levels of >network indirection in both NATs and various forms of overlay networks to >attempt to compress this new scale of basic network addressing demands into the >IPv4 environment. This appears to be a complex, and therefore costly task. But >the expectation here is that the service industry is heading toward a commodity >utility function, where the essential attributes of the underlying network are >simplicity and efficiency. These factors suggest that the market >characteristics that arise from the propulsion of the silicon and software >industries are inexorably tugging the communications service industry to >embrace simple, scalable, and efficient networking technologies. It is in this >space that the essential attribute of IPv6, that of the size of the address >pool, has its most effective leverage. Here the "run out" of IPv4 >will inevitably focus our common attention on how best to engage with future >needs and roles. And in this perspective the IPv6 technology has a critical and >central role. > >John: Tony, I >think we need to assume that, when it comes down to translating the projections >into an answer to the "when do we need to get serious about IPv6?" >question, both you and Geoff are, to a considerable extent, wrong. Geoff's >articles and projections have been interpreted by some people as containing a >"there is no problem, we can continue with IPv4 until we all retire" >message. Viewed from that direction, yours can be seen as "we cannot be >quite that >complacent." Instead, I think we should all be looking at going directly >to IPv6 in newer network installations rather than concentrating on whether we >can get enough IPv4 space for them. We also need to be examining?now, not a few >years in some projected future?the applications and services for end networks >and end users, not just backbone and ISP services and operations. One of my >particular concerns is that we have enterprise and customer support people and >protocols all over the world who are used to thinking about things in an IPv4 >world, including the support advantages of "all NAT-based end networks >look the same" architectures. The need to retrain them to think about >things differently, and to design and build new tools for their use, may >suggest a more time-consuming and expensive transition than changing over the >networks themselves. > >Fred: What is >clear to me from this discussion, Geoff's prior analysis, and Tony's analysis >here, is that there is a timeline. We are not >debating whether IPv4 address availability is limited or whether it can be >"saved" by address allocation policy, nor are we debating the >economic or technical impacts of more or less draconian allocation policies. We >are debating >what constitutes the end game, when and why that end game will become >important, and whether perhaps we are already seeing the first steps of it. We >are also not debating whether perhaps some new architecture would be preferred >over the one in IPv6; if we had an alternative on the table today we could >discuss that, but experience tells us that the proposals being considered by >the National Science >Foundation (NSF) and others are sufficiently "researchy" >to not be ready for wide-scale deployment in the necessary timeframe. > >>As such, from my perspective, there is a present call to action. > >>What U.S. DoD and recent congressional hearings have recommended is in keeping >with the IETF's recommendation and with the IPv6 address allocation strategies >of the RIRs. The simplest transition strategy involves presently procuring >equipment, operating systems, and applications that are IPv6-capable in >preference to systems that are limited to IPv4. At some point in the future, >perhaps in the 2008?2010 timeframe, we should plan to turn on IPv6 networking >capabilities throughout our networks, and this means gaining experience with >IPv6 on a smaller scale in 2005?2007 in our networks, in server applications, >and in user systems. Turning down IPv4 capabilities, which is the endpoint of >such a transition, is a business decision that does not need to be made >hastily; we should presume that coexistence will be important for a decade, and >probably more. > >Ole: Thank >you, gentlemen! > >>TONY HAIN is currently the Senior Technical Leader, IPv6 technologies, with >Cisco Systems. In addition to providing guidance to the various internal >product teams, he was also co-chair of the IETF working group developing IPv6 >transition tools. His IETF participation since 1987 includes a term on the Internet >Architecture Board from 1997 to 2001. Named an IPv6 Forum Fellow in 2004, he is currently >serving as Technology Director on the forum's North American IPv6 Task Force >steering committee. Prior to joining Cisco in 2001, he spent 5 years at >Microsoft, where his roles included Program Manager for IPv6 as well as Network >Analyst for the CIO's office. Prior to Microsoft, he was the Associate Network >Manager for the U.S. Department of Energy's Internet effort, ESnet. With this >range of roles, spanning the space between the implementation technologists and >senior management, he brings a real-world viewpoint to the deployment decision >process. E-mail: ahain at cisco.com > >>GEOFF HUSTON holds a B..Sc. and a M.Sc. from the Australian National University. >He has been closely involved with the development of the Internet for the past >decade, particularly within Australia, where he was responsible for the initial >build of the Internet within the Australian academic and research sector, and >has served his time with Telstra, where he was the Chief Scientist in the >company's Internet area. Geoff is currently the Internet Research Scientist at >the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC). He served as a member of >the Internet Architecture Board from 1999 until 2005, and currently co-chairs >the Site Multi-homing and Routing Operations IETF Working Groups. He is author >of The ISP Survival Guide, >ISBN 0-471-31499-4, Internet >Performance Survival Guide: QoS Strategies for Multiservice Networks, >ISBN 0471-378089, and co-author of Quality >of Service: Delivering QoS on the Internet and in Corporate Networks, >ISBN 0-471-24358-2, a collaboration with Paul Ferguson. All three books are >published by John Wiley & Sons. E-mail: gih at apnic.net > >>JOHN KLENSIN is an independent consultant based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He >has been involved in the design, development, and deployment of ARPANET and >Internet applications, and occasionally lower-layer technologies, since the >late 1960s and early 1970s. He has also been intermittently involved with >Internet administrative and policy issues since the early 1980s. His current >work primarily focuses on internationalization of the Internet on both >technical and policy dimensions. E-mail: klensin at jck.com > >>FRED BAKER has worked in the data communications industry, building network >elements such as switches and routers, since 1978. His involvement with >Internet technology started in 1986, and with the IETF in 1989. He has >contributed to the development of OSPF, QoS, PPP, SNMP MIBs, and a variety of >other technologies. He has also held a variety of management positions, >including chairing various working groups, participating in the IAB, and >chairing the IETF. He currently serves on the Technical Advisory Board of the >U.S. Federal Communications Commission and as the Chairman of ISOC's Board of >Trustees. E-mail: fred at cisco.com > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Piche, Dennis [mailto:piched at anx.com] >>Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:25 PM >>To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >>Cc: Brent Sweeny; arin-discuss at arin.net >>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to RETURN a >/20 > >I need a user ID to access this report! > >Sent from my iPhone > >On 2009-07-23, at 11:56 AM, "VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT >SYSTEMS INC" > wrote: > >> Brent, >> >> Sorry if I came across as name calling - that's good >feedback. Let >> me tone it down a bit, be a bit more constructive, >and go more at >> the root of the issue, i.e. my concern regarding >throwing our hands >> up too easily. >> >> I am stating that, in my humble opinion, the >previous study is not >> based wholly on verified facts, but rather on >supposition and >> speculation layered upon partially verified data. >Further, it >> included sources who had an interest in moving the >world forward >> towards IPv6 at a faster pace (sell new >hardware/software/services, >> etc.). This is not (on it's own) a valid basis for >current >> decisions about how to smooth an impending rough >transition. The >> stakes have been raised and it's time to do our job >as a membership >> and work in the interest of the larger community - >our eco-system as >> it were. >> >> There is ample corroborated testimony (to indicate >the existence of >> substantial reclamation opportunities) within the >postings on this >> list (over just the last 72 hours) to serve as >evidence warranting a >> grand jury. I qualify that statement with: provided >people would >> swear to their recent statements, etc. So, it seems >we should be as >> inquisitive as the law would when our own interests >are at stake. >> This is especially true for the smaller operators >that need some >> headroom while this inevitable transition occurs. >> >> I can quote a recent study by a conservative think >tank and another >> from a liberal think tank - both on a current hot >topic (never mind >> the issue, don't want to bunny trail here). Each >offers a >> diametrically opposed viewpoint of the same data. >Each effectively >> presents a favorable subset of the data without >exposing the >> weakness of certain suppositions used to arrive at >the seemingly >> data based results. In fact, both will assume their >viewpoint upon >> the same data and it has to color the result. >> >> Data is objective, analysis is subjective. >> >> It sounds to me like there is a lot of unanalyzed >data yet to be >> given the "Colombo"... >> >> "The /8's are too hard to get back without >fragmentation and >> everyone would fight to the death to keep their >unused space. So >> let's look at the remaining data" >> >> Colombo: "Yes, but Sir, I have just one more >question..." which is >> how we get at the missed opportunity for solutions. >That's all I >> want us to do. >> >> Hope that more politely expands upon my point: We >are not in a >> situation where inaction is acceptable unless it is >based upon >> aggressively verified data... in other words I >suggest that ARIN >> *should* contact the holders of large blocks of >unused space *anew* >> and see what their feeling is about being good >corporate Internet >> citizens in the face of a crisis headed towards >public attention. >> Offer press releases praising them for their good >deeds, and >> honorable mention at various events, and you might >be quite >> surprised what a well placed call from senior >resources could >> accomplish. I'm an optimist. >> >> Of course, a stick should be behind the back that >wears that >> friendly smile. I believe it should have written on >it: "The power >> of the press". >> >> In my opinion, ARIN can reach that stick faster than >small operators >> can on our own, but we can band up and reach it if >ARIN feels bound >> or otherwise unable to do so. That stick is the >data verifier we >> need. I am not suggesting we fight bears, but >rather that we be >> brave enough to make sure they are not just wooly >caterpillars in an >> oversized (allocation) bear suit before we checkmark >those caves as >> being off limits. >> >> Best regards, >> ~Vaughn >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brent Sweeny [mailto:sweeny at indiana.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:09 AM >> To: Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by >example, I'd like to >> RETURN a /20 >> >> the fact that someone has already "studied the >issue" (precisely as >> you >> suggest be done) and the data behind the facts of >the study disagree >> with >> your assumption doesn't make them a >"naysayer"; it makes them much >> more >> convincing, and the name-calling doesn't change the >facts nor their >> inevitable conclusions. If you assert that ARIN >needs to expend >> resources to >> try to disprove Tony's (and Geoff's) pretty careful >analysis, it'd be >> necessary to have more than that you don't like the >conclusions as a >> reason: >> you'd have to have some factual basis for convincing >us their >> analysis is >> flawed and must be redone. Absent that, we have to >be grownups, >> accept the >> facts, and try to use "a group this bright" >to do the best we can >> with the >> facts -- and move forward, not backwards. >> >> On 7/22/2009 8:23 PM, Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems >wrote: >>> Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up >you little fleas. Don't >>> you >>> know that the experts have spoken? Why study the >issue when others >>> have >>> already said it is not worth it." >>> >>> The power of the press and public opinion are >pretty powerful. >>> Does a >>> protracted battle against the interests of small >ISP types or the >>> "Internet community" really suit HP, >Apple, or any of the other space >>> Easters if in the public eye? Think about the >good will a few have >>> gotten on this list by committing to return >space.. >>> >>> You don't get what you don't ask for. >>> >>> Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming >low is too easy to >>> succeed at for a group this bright. >>> >>> ~Vaughn >>> >>> Sent from my handheld >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner >wrote: >>>> >>>>> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am >in Idaho. The State of >>>>> Idaho >>>>> has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State >government activities sit >>>>> behind >>>>> two different firewalls. >>>>> >>>>> Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits >behind firewalls >>>>> >>>>> And so forth into perpetuity it seems >>>>> >>>>> In this regard by reclaiming this >address space that companies >>>>> have, >>>>> particularly when the coropration sits >behind NAT firewalls is >>>>> unjustified. The ones I listed above >use Private address space >>>>> behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. >So why then would a company >>>>> entity that does this need to retain >their public Class A, B, C >>>>> etc. >>>>> There is no technical or administrative >justification I can see. >>>>> >>>>> Nevertheless, there was a comment about >pre ARIN and Contract Law. >>>>> Unfortunatley this may play the larger >role over common sense. >>>>> >>>>> While this is not the ultimate solution, >it certainly can stem the >>>>> tide for many years. >>>>> >>>>> It would be an interesting study to >examine the allocated IP >>>>> address >>>>> space by entity and determine how many >of these organizations sit >>>>> behind a NAT firewall, and only use a >small portion of their >>>>> allocation. >>>>> >>>> Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, >and, in general, the >>>> conclusion matches the following excerpt >from a Cisco Journal >>>> article: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html >>>> >>>>> Reclaiming Allocations >>>>> Another debate occasionally resurfaces >about reclaiming some of the >>>>> early allocations to further extend the >lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully >>>>> this article has shown that the ROI for >that approach is going to >>>>> be >>>>> extremely low. Discussions around the >Internet community show there >>>>> is an expectation that it will take >several years of substantive >>>>> negotiation (in multiple court systems >around the globe) to >>>>> retrieve >>>>> any /8s. Then following that effort and >expense, the likelihood of >>>>> even getting back more than a few /8 >blocks is very low. Following >>>>> the allocation growth trend, after >several years of litigation the >>>>> result is likely to be just a few months >of additional resource >>>>> added >>>>> to the pool?and possibly not even a >whole month. All this assumes >>>>> IANA does not completely run out before >getting any back, because >>>>> running out would result in pentup >demand that could immediately >>>>> exhaust any returns. >>>> >>>> >>>> If you can come up with credible figures >indicating that there are >>>> at >>>> least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out >there, then, reclamation >>>> efforts might be more interesting, but, I >tend to doubt that is the >>>> case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, >you don't even buy an >>>> additional year. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Steve Wagner >>>>> Vice President of Operations >>>>> Syringa Networks, LLC >>>>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 >>>>> Boise, ID 83705 >>>>> Office: 208.229.6104 >>>>> Main: 208.229.6100 >>>>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 >>>>> Fax: 208.229.6110 >>>>> Email: >>>>> >Stwagner at syringanetworks.net >>>>> > >>>>> Web: >www.syringanetworks.net> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic >Network" >>>>> >>>>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice >>>>> The information in this message is >intended for the named >>>>> recipients >>>>> only. It may contain information that is >privileged, confidential >>>>> or >>>>> otherwise protected from disclosure. If >you are not the intended >>>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that >any disclosure, copying, >>>>> distribution, or the taking of any >action in reliance on the >>>>> contents >>>>> of this message is strictly prohibited. >If you have received this >>>>> e-mail in error, do not print it or >disseminate it or its contents. >>>>> In such event, please notify the sender >by return e-mail and delete >>>>> the e-mail file immediately thereafter. >Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>>> > [ >>>>> >mailto:arin-discuss- >>>>> bounces at arin.net] >>>>> On Behalf Of John Osmon >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM >>>>> To: >arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good >Stewardship by example, I'd like >>>>> to >>>>> RETURN a /20 >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM >-0400, Joe Maimon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> John Osmon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We're aren't going to save the >IPv4 world by returning space, but >>>>>>> we *will* make it easier on soe >folks that are coming to the >>>>>>> table >>>>>>> (relatively) late. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hate to be a downer, but not at the >current burn rate. >>>>> >>>>> Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the >folks that think getting >>>>> a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and >the DOD is going to >>>>> significant >>>>> difference in the timing of IPv4 >exhaustion. :-) >>>>> >>>>> I still think that anything you aren't >using should go back to the >>>>> pool that allows new comers a chance to >participate in >>>>> commerce/communication. I don't, >however, think that a slew of >>>>> /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big >impact. >>>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you >are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List ( >>>>> >ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>>> ). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list >subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net > if you >>>>> experience >>>>> any issues. >>>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because >you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >(ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>>> ). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list >subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you >experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you >are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >(ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>> ). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list >subscription at: >>>> >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net >if you >>>> experience >>>> any issues. >>> >>> --- >>> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are >subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >(ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list >subscription at: >>> >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience >any issues. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are >subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >(ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription >at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any >issues. > > >-----Inline Attachment Follows----- > >>_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 38851 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 39998 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 45793 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 32967 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 31672 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 46248 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27679 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 38920 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Thu Jul 23 16:39:22 2009 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:39:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> Message-ID: <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> I've replied to you elsewhere, but I might have missed the real point. The original suggestion was to study how much address space we could get back. Has there already been a study of that question published somewhere? I would really like to see it. After a few minutes of searching, I dug up an old post of mine: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-August/011711.html where I ask, "How much time would we have?" under various assumptions. I think the best scenario within the realm of realism is a 30% rate of reclamation. If that's about right, then we gain, at most, a year. Please feel free to question my assumptions or my methodology. If you don't, then please answer the question: "How much (effort=time=) money should ARIN spend on reclamation?" This is, to me, why this debate is a membership question, and not a policy question. Lee ----- Original Message ---- > From: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > To: Brent Sweeny > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:52:33 AM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 > > Brent, > > Sorry if I came across as name calling - that's good feedback. Let me tone it > down a bit, be a bit more constructive, and go more at the root of the issue, > i.e. my concern regarding throwing our hands up too easily. > > I am stating that, in my humble opinion, the previous study is not based wholly > on verified facts, but rather on supposition and speculation layered upon > partially verified data. Further, it included sources who had an interest in > moving the world forward towards IPv6 at a faster pace (sell new > hardware/software/services, etc.). This is not (on it's own) a valid basis for > current decisions about how to smooth an impending rough transition. The stakes > have been raised and it's time to do our job as a membership and work in the > interest of the larger community - our eco-system as it were. > > There is ample corroborated testimony (to indicate the existence of substantial > reclamation opportunities) within the postings on this list (over just the last > 72 hours) to serve as evidence warranting a grand jury. I qualify that > statement with: provided people would swear to their recent statements, etc. > So, it seems we should be as inquisitive as the law would when our own interests > are at stake. This is especially true for the smaller operators that need some > headroom while this inevitable transition occurs. > > I can quote a recent study by a conservative think tank and another from a > liberal think tank - both on a current hot topic (never mind the issue, don't > want to bunny trail here). Each offers a diametrically opposed viewpoint of the > same data. Each effectively presents a favorable subset of the data without > exposing the weakness of certain suppositions used to arrive at the seemingly > data based results. In fact, both will assume their viewpoint upon the same > data and it has to color the result. > > Data is objective, analysis is subjective. > > It sounds to me like there is a lot of unanalyzed data yet to be given the > "Colombo"... > > "The /8's are too hard to get back without fragmentation and everyone would > fight to the death to keep their unused space. So let's look at the remaining > data" > > Colombo: "Yes, but Sir, I have just one more question..." which is how we get > at the missed opportunity for solutions. That's all I want us to do. > > Hope that more politely expands upon my point: We are not in a situation where > inaction is acceptable unless it is based upon aggressively verified data... in > other words I suggest that ARIN *should* contact the holders of large blocks of > unused space *anew* and see what their feeling is about being good corporate > Internet citizens in the face of a crisis headed towards public attention. > Offer press releases praising them for their good deeds, and honorable mention > at various events, and you might be quite surprised what a well placed call from > senior resources could accomplish. I'm an optimist. > > Of course, a stick should be behind the back that wears that friendly smile. I > believe it should have written on it: "The power of the press". > > In my opinion, ARIN can reach that stick faster than small operators can on our > own, but we can band up and reach it if ARIN feels bound or otherwise unable to > do so. That stick is the data verifier we need. I am not suggesting we fight > bears, but rather that we be brave enough to make sure they are not just wooly > caterpillars in an oversized (allocation) bear suit before we checkmark those > caves as being off limits. > > Best regards, > ~Vaughn > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Sweeny [mailto:sweeny at indiana.edu] > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:09 AM > To: Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a > /20 > > the fact that someone has already "studied the issue" (precisely as you > suggest be done) and the data behind the facts of the study disagree with > your assumption doesn't make them a "naysayer"; it makes them much more > convincing, and the name-calling doesn't change the facts nor their > inevitable conclusions. If you assert that ARIN needs to expend resources to > try to disprove Tony's (and Geoff's) pretty careful analysis, it'd be > necessary to have more than that you don't like the conclusions as a reason: > you'd have to have some factual basis for convincing us their analysis is > flawed and must be redone. Absent that, we have to be grownups, accept the > facts, and try to use "a group this bright" to do the best we can with the > facts -- and move forward, not backwards. > > On 7/22/2009 8:23 PM, Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: > > Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't you > > know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when others have > > already said it is not worth it." > > > > The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. Does a > > protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types or the > > "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the other space > > Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good will a few have > > gotten on this list by committing to return space.. > > > > You don't get what you don't ask for. > > > > Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to > > succeed at for a group this bright. > > > > ~Vaughn > > > > Sent from my handheld > > > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong > > > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: > >> > >>> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of Idaho > >>> has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit behind > >>> two different firewalls. > >>> > >>> Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls > >>> > >>> And so forth into perpetuity it seems > >>> > >>> In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies have, > >>> particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is > >>> unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address space > >>> behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a company > >>> entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, B, C etc. > >>> There is no technical or administrative justification I can see. > >>> > >>> Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. > >>> Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. > >>> > >>> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the > >>> tide for many years. > >>> > >>> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP address > >>> space by entity and determine how many of these organizations sit > >>> behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small portion of their allocation. > >>> > >> Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the > >> conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal article: > >> > >> > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html > >> > >>> Reclaiming Allocations > >>> Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of the > >>> early allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully > >>> this article has shown that the ROI for that approach is going to be > >>> extremely low. Discussions around the Internet community show there > >>> is an expectation that it will take several years of substantive > >>> negotiation (in multiple court systems around the globe) to retrieve > >>> any /8s. Then following that effort and expense, the likelihood of > >>> even getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following > >>> the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation the > >>> result is likely to be just a few months of additional resource added > >>> to the pool?and possibly not even a whole month. All this assumes > >>> IANA does not completely run out before getting any back, because > >>> running out would result in pentup demand that could immediately > >>> exhaust any returns. > >> > >> > >> If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are at > >> least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, reclamation > >> efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to doubt that is the > >> case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you don't even buy an > >> additional year. > >> > >> Owen > >> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Steve Wagner > >>> Vice President of Operations > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > >>> Boise, ID 83705 > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 > >>> Email: > >>> Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > >>> > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > >>> > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named recipients > >>> only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended > >>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, > >>> distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents > >>> of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > >>> e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or its contents. > >>> In such event, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete > >>> the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > >>> [ > >>> mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > >>> On Behalf Of John Osmon > >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM > >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net > >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to > >>> RETURN a /20 > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> John Osmon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but > >>>>> we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table > >>>>> (relatively) late. > >>>> > >>>> Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. > >>> > >>> Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting > >>> a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to significant > >>> difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) > >>> > >>> I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the > >>> pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in > >>> commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of > >>> /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List ( > >>> ARIN-discuss at arin.net > >>> ). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience > >>> any issues. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > >>> ). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Discuss > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > >> ). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience > >> any issues. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jul 23 17:10:41 2009 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:10:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Outreach to legacy holders to recover address space In-Reply-To: <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <07CE0E0C-3369-482F-ACFE-51C3B11AEACD@arin.net> On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Lee Howard wrote: > > ... Please feel free to question my assumptions or my > methodology. If you don't, then please answer the question: "How > much (effort=time=) > money should ARIN spend on reclamation?" > > This is, to me, why this debate is a membership question, and not a > policy question. Lee - Thanks for mentioning this important point. I'd like to elaborate for clarity: I've been asked by several people why this is on arin-discuss and not PPML, and answered similarly. To the extent that we're discussing the level of resources for outreach to the legacy community, then indeed this is a budget and membership priorities question suitable for arin-discuss. There have been a few postings suggesting mandatory audit and reclamation rather than outreach and voluntary return, and it would be best if such discussions were directed to the PPML list as they would require a clear statement of policy to pursue. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jmaimon at chl.com Thu Jul 23 17:59:35 2009 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:59:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A68DD47.5040303@chl.com> Lee Howard wrote: > After a few minutes of searching, I dug up an old post of mine: > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-August/011711.html > where I ask, "How much time would we have?" under various assumptions. I think the > best scenario within the realm of realism is a 30% rate of reclamation. If that's about > right, then we gain, at most, a year. Please feel free to question my assumptions or my > methodology. If you don't, then please answer the question: "How much (effort=time=) > money should ARIN spend on reclamation?" The less the better with the current burn rate. I dont expect that burn rate to trend downward until imminent or actual exhaustion. The less that is reclaimed before that point, the better. > > This is, to me, why this debate is a membership question, and not a policy question. > > Lee > Member speaking, the only reason to perform reclamation now is for reasons of good stewardship, which is a goal I wholly support. I understand from the publicly available meeting reports plenty of reclamation and return already occurs on an ongoing basis. Picking fights with members and murky contractual battles are not part of good stewardship. Outreach is. In the current and coming environment I am expecting and hoping arin to be thinking big tent. Preserving the current burn rate for any period of time less than years is not worth any additional effort or significant goodwill loss. Stated differently, without any changes in policy or reality, reclaimed space wont actually do most of the participants in these threads any good, the reclaimed space will be allocated and consumed in the same manner as the current space is. Joe From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jul 23 18:35:34 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:35:34 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802492072@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <6D4F72E9-6E9A-493E-843E-CAE502C0B278@delong.com> <753CBD87-AD2E-4AAC-9F2E-2097F87FB313@swiftsystems.com> <4A67B67A.2070201@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <4A68E5B6.1010408@ipinc.net> I could have sworn MS had a /8 at one time. The reason why I'm sure they did was because I'm positive I cited this years ago as evidence of MS being a bad corporate citizen during an online debate. I'm not surprised they don't have one now. The departure of Bill Gates was the point at which MS stopped being an irresponsible, loudmouthed teenager company and started to grow up. For example, their writing and releasing of the Linux drivers under the GPL2 to allow Linux sessions to run under HyperV would have been unthinkable during the "Halloween papers" days. Now, Apple, OTOH.... ;-) Ted Owen DeLong wrote: > A quick trip through whois reveals: > > owen-delongs-macbook-pro:owen (265) ~ % whois -h whois.arin.net '>MSFT' > > OrgName: Microsoft Corp > OrgID: MSFT > Address: One Microsoft Way > City: Redmond > StateProv: WA > PostalCode: 98052 > Country: US > Comment: > RegDate: 1998-07-10 > Updated: 2008-08-25 > > AbuseHandle: ABUSE231-ARIN > AbuseName: Abuse > AbusePhone: +1-425-882-8080 > AbuseEmail: abuse at msn.com > > AbuseHandle: HOTMA-ARIN > AbuseName: Hotmail Abuse > AbusePhone: +1-425-882-8080 > AbuseEmail: abuse at hotmail.com > > AbuseHandle: MSNAB-ARIN > AbuseName: MSN ABUSE > AbusePhone: +1-425-882-8080 > AbuseEmail: abuse at msn.com > > AdminHandle: MSFTP-ARIN > AdminName: MSFT-POC > AdminPhone: +1-425-882-8080 > AdminEmail: iprrms at microsoft.com > > NOCHandle: ZM23-ARIN > NOCName: Microsoft Corporation > NOCPhone: +1-425-882-8080 > NOCEmail: noc at microsoft.com > > TechHandle: MSFTP-ARIN > TechName: MSFT-POC > TechPhone: +1-425-882-8080 > TechEmail: iprrms at microsoft.com > > Resources Used By Organization: > Microsoft Corp (AS20046) MICROSOFT-BOS 20046 > Microsoft Corp (AS8068) MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS-BLOCK 8068 - 8075 > Microsoft Corp (AS13811) MSLI 13811 > Microsoft Corp (AS14719) MICROSOFT-CORP-BCENTRAL 14719 > Microsoft Corp (AS13399) MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS-2 13399 > Microsoft Corp (AS3598) MICROSOFT-CORP-AS 3598 > Microsoft Corp (AS5761) MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS---SATURN 5761 > Microsoft Corp (AS6182) MICROSOFT-CORP--MSN-AS-4 6182 > Microsoft Corp (AS6194) MICROSOFT-CORP--MSN-AS-3 6194 > Microsoft Corp (AS6291) MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS 6291 > Microsoft Corp (AS23468) MICROSOFT-CORP-XBOX-ONLINE 23468 > Microsoft Corp LVLT-MSFT-8-6-176 (NET-8-6-176-0-1) 8.6.176.0 - 8.6.176.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOF33-108-0 (NET-12-28-108-0-1) 12.28.108.0 - > 12.28.108.127 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOF81-163-0 (NET-12-178-163-0-1) 12.178.163.0 - > 12.178.163.31 > Microsoft Corp Q0523-63-148-123-240 (NET-63-148-123-240-1) > 63.148.123.240 - 63.148.123.247 > Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-151-87-64 (NET-63-151-87-64-1) 63.151.87.64 - > 63.151.87.71 > Microsoft Corp SPRINT-3FA132-6 (NET-63-161-50-0-1) 63.161.50.0 - > 63.161.50.127 > Microsoft Corp SPRINT-3FA132 (NET-63-161-50-128-1) 63.161.50.128 - > 63.161.50.255 > Microsoft Corp SPRINTLINK (NET-63-173-42-128-1) 63.173.42.128 - > 63.173.42.255 > Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-170-64 (NET-63-236-170-64-1) 63.236.170.64 - > 63.236.170.71 > Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-186-64 (NET-63-236-186-64-1) 63.236.186.64 - > 63.236.186.71 > Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-187-104 (NET-63-236-187-104-1) > 63.236.187.104 - 63.236.187.111 > Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-187-128 (NET-63-236-187-128-1) > 63.236.187.128 - 63.236.187.135 > Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-187-160 (NET-63-236-187-160-1) > 63.236.187.160 - 63.236.187.167 > Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-198-64 (NET-63-236-198-64-1) 63.236.198.64 - > 63.236.198.71 > Microsoft Corp QWEST-63-236-198-152 (NET-63-236-198-152-1) > 63.236.198.152 - 63.236.198.159 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233050-4 (NET-64-15-170-192-1) 64.15.170.192 - > 64.15.170.199 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233050-5 (NET-64-15-177-0-1) 64.15.177.0 - > 64.15.177.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233050-6 (NET-64-15-178-0-1) 64.15.178.0 - > 64.15.178.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-15 (NET-64-15-229-96-1) 64.15.229.96 - > 64.15.229.127 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-1 (NET-64-41-193-0-1) 64.41.193.0 - > 64.41.193.255 > Microsoft Corp HP-64-77-82-96 (NET-64-77-82-96-1) 64.77.82.96 - > 64.77.82.103 > Microsoft Corp HP-64-77-93-80 (NET-64-77-93-80-1) 64.77.93.80 - 64.77.93.95 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-1 (NET-64-85-70-32-1) 64.85.70.32 - 64.85.70.47 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-2 (NET-64-85-81-96-1) 64.85.81.96 - > 64.85.81.103 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-3 (NET-64-85-81-104-1) 64.85.81.104 - > 64.85.81.111 > Microsoft Corp WLCO-TWC1057147-MICROSOFT (NET-64-200-211-16-1) > 64.200.211.16 - 64.200.211.31 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-1BLK (NET-65-52-0-0-1) 65.52.0.0 - 65.55.255.255 > Microsoft Corp Q0112-65-114-175-128 (NET-65-114-175-128-1) > 65.114.175.128 - 65.114.175.159 > Microsoft Corp SPRINTLINK (NET-65-170-29-0-1) 65.170.29.0 - 65.170.29.7 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S232995-1 (NET-66-35-208-48-1) 66.35.208.48 - > 66.35.208.63 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S232995-2 (NET-66-35-209-120-1) 66.35.209.120 - > 66.35.209.127 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S232995-3 (NET-66-35-211-128-1) 66.35.211.128 - > 66.35.211.191 > Microsoft Corp Q0903-67-132-133-96 (NET-67-132-133-96-1) 67.132.133.96 - > 67.132.133.103 > Microsoft Corp WLCO-TWC1057147-MICROSOFT-1 (NET-69-44-126-80-1) > 69.44.126.80 - 69.44.126.95 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT (NET-131-107-0-0-1) 131.107.0.0 - 131.107.255.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-BBLK (NET-157-54-0-0-1) 157.54.0.0 - > 157.60.255.255 > Microsoft Corp ERMS-6799349 (NET-165-121-253-232-1) 165.121.253.232 - > 165.121.253.239 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-VEXCEL (NET-192-92-90-0-1) 192.92.90.0 - > 192.92.90.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-2 (NET-192-197-157-0-1) 192.197.157.0 > - 192.197.157.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT18 (NET-192-237-67-0-1) 192.237.67.0 - > 192.237.67.255 > Microsoft Corp NETBLK-MSOFT-NET (NET-198-105-232-0-1) 198.105.232.0 - > 198.105.235.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT19 (NET-198-137-97-0-1) 198.137.97.0 - > 198.137.97.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT2 (NET-198-180-74-0-1) 198.180.74.0 - > 198.180.75.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT3 (NET-198-180-95-0-1) 198.180.95.0 - > 198.180.97.255 > Microsoft Corp FON-3338832128690 (NET-199-2-137-0-1) 199.2.137.0 - > 199.2.137.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT17 (NET-199-6-92-0-1) 199.6.92.0 - 199.6.94.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-1 (NET-199-60-28-0-1) 199.60.28.0 - > 199.60.28.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-1 (NET-199-103-90-0-1) 199.103.90.0 - > 199.103.91.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-3 (NET-199-103-122-0-1) 199.103.122.0 > - 199.103.122.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-IPV6-BLK (NET6-2001-4898-1) > 2001:4898:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - > 2001:4898:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-2 (NET-204-79-7-0-1) 204.79.7.0 - 204.79.7.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-NET1 (NET-204-79-27-0-1) 204.79.27.0 - > 204.79.27.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT8 (NET-204-79-101-0-1) 204.79.101.0 - > 204.79.101.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-HK (NET-204-79-135-0-1) 204.79.135.0 - > 204.79.135.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-PLACEWARE-1 (NET-204-79-179-0-1) 204.79.179.0 - > 204.79.179.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT11 (NET-204-79-180-0-1) 204.79.180.0 - > 204.79.181.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-PLACEWARE-2 (NET-204-79-188-0-1) 204.79.188.0 - > 204.79.188.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT13 (NET-204-79-195-0-1) 204.79.195.0 - > 204.79.197.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-PLACEWARE-2 (NET-204-79-252-0-1) 204.79.252.0 - > 204.79.252.255 > Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CC5F6F (NET-204-95-96-0-1) 204.95.96.0 - > 204.95.111.255 > Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CC5F95-8 (NET-204-95-149-0-1) 204.95.149.0 - > 204.95.149.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFTDENVER (NET-204-133-231-0-1) 204.133.231.0 - > 204.133.231.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT15 (NET-204-140-77-0-1) 204.140.77.0 - > 204.140.77.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT16 (NET-204-140-80-0-1) 204.140.80.0 - > 204.140.83.255 > Microsoft Corp FON-343451648081865 (NET-204-182-144-0-1) 204.182.144.0 - > 204.182.159.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT19-NET58 (NET-204-231-58-0-1) 204.231.58.0 - > 204.231.58.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT20 (NET-204-231-76-0-1) 204.231.76.0 - > 204.231.76.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT26 (NET-204-231-192-0-1) 204.231.192.0 - > 204.231.192.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT27 (NET-204-231-194-0-1) 204.231.194.0 - > 204.231.223.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT28 (NET-204-231-236-0-1) 204.231.236.0 - > 204.231.236.255 > Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CDA33E (NET-205-163-62-0-1) 205.163.62.0 - > 205.163.62.255 > Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CDA33F (NET-205-163-63-0-1) 205.163.63.0 - > 205.163.63.255 > Microsoft Corp SPRINT-CDA39F (NET-205-163-144-0-1) 205.163.144.0 - > 205.163.159.255 > Microsoft Corp FON-34550983681918 (NET-205-240-158-0-1) 205.240.158.0 - > 205.240.159.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT29 (NET-205-248-10-0-1) 205.248.10.0 - > 205.248.15.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT30 (NET-205-248-41-0-1) 205.248.41.0 - > 205.248.43.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT31 (NET-205-248-50-0-1) 205.248.50.0 - > 205.248.51.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT32 (NET-205-248-61-0-1) 205.248.61.0 - > 205.248.63.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT34 (NET-205-248-72-0-1) 205.248.72.0 - > 205.248.72.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT33 (NET-205-248-80-0-1) 205.248.80.0 - > 205.248.129.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT35 (NET-205-248-212-0-1) 205.248.212.0 - > 205.248.215.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT36 (NET-205-248-228-0-1) 205.248.228.0 - > 205.248.228.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT37 (NET-205-248-235-0-1) 205.248.235.0 - > 205.248.235.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT44 (NET-205-248-243-0-1) 205.248.243.0 - > 205.248.244.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT58 (NET-206-73-31-0-1) 206.73.31.0 - 206.73.31.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT59 (NET-206-73-67-0-1) 206.73.67.0 - 206.73.67.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT56 (NET-206-73-118-0-1) 206.73.118.0 - > 206.73.118.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT57 (NET-206-73-203-0-1) 206.73.203.0 - > 206.73.203.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-6 (NET-206-79-74-32-1) 206.79.74.32 - > 206.79.74.47 > Microsoft Corp FON-346312755281299 (NET-206-107-34-0-1) 206.107.34.0 - > 206.107.34.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT61 (NET-206-182-69-0-1) 206.182.69.0 - > 206.182.69.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT62 (NET-206-182-236-0-1) 206.182.236.0 - > 206.182.236.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT63 (NET-206-182-240-0-1) 206.182.240.0 - > 206.182.240.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT64 (NET-206-182-241-0-1) 206.182.241.0 - > 206.182.241.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT65 (NET-206-182-247-0-1) 206.182.247.0 - > 206.182.247.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT66 (NET-206-182-251-0-1) 206.182.251.0 - > 206.182.251.255 > Microsoft Corp UU-207-18-117 (NET-207-18-117-0-1) 207.18.117.0 - > 207.18.117.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-GLOBAL-NET (NET-207-46-0-0-1) 207.46.0.0 - > 207.46.255.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-BLK (NET-207-68-128-0-1) 207.68.128.0 > - 207.68.207.255 > Microsoft Corp SOCRATIC (NET-207-78-80-0-1) 207.78.80.0 - 207.78.80.255 > Microsoft Corp DAVELADD (NET-207-78-81-0-1) 207.78.81.0 - 207.78.81.255 > Microsoft Corp RSEGAL (NET-207-78-82-0-1) 207.78.82.0 - 207.78.82.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT48 (NET-207-117-3-0-1) 207.117.3.0 - 207.117.3.255 > Microsoft Corp CYBR-LCCLAB (NET-207-158-93-192-1) 207.158.93.192 - > 207.158.93.223 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT50 (NET-207-209-68-0-1) 207.209.68.0 - > 207.209.68.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-8-18 (NET-207-240-8-224-1) 207.240.8.224 - > 207.240.8.239 > Microsoft Corp MSBPN-2 (NET-207-240-123-192-1) 207.240.123.192 - > 207.240.123.223 > Microsoft Corp SPRINT-D01ACD (NET-208-26-205-0-1) 208.26.205.0 - > 208.26.205.255 > Microsoft Corp QWEST-208-45-54-8 (NET-208-45-54-8-1) 208.45.54.8 - > 208.45.54.15 > Microsoft Corp QWEST-208-45-54-16 (NET-208-45-54-16-1) 208.45.54.16 - > 208.45.54.23 > Microsoft Corp QWEST-208-45-89-248A (NET-208-45-89-248-1) 208.45.89.248 > - 208.45.89.255 > Microsoft Corp CW-208-139-27-B (NET-208-139-27-0-1) 208.139.27.0 - > 208.139.27.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-2 (NET-209-1-15-0-1) 209.1.15.0 - 209.1.15.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-4 (NET-209-1-112-0-1) 209.1.112.0 - > 209.1.112.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-5 (NET-209-1-113-0-1) 209.1.113.0 - > 209.1.113.255 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT55 (NET-209-28-213-0-1) 209.28.213.0 - > 209.28.213.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233050-2 (NET-209-143-238-0-1) 209.143.238.0 - > 209.143.238.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-14 (NET-209-185-128-0-1) 209.185.128.0 - > 209.185.131.255 > Microsoft Corp NET-CSAMSI (NET-209-192-213-72-1) 209.192.213.72 - > 209.192.213.79 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-7 (NET-216-32-168-224-1) 216.32.168.224 - > 216.32.168.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-8 (NET-216-32-175-224-1) 216.32.175.224 - > 216.32.175.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-9 (NET-216-32-180-0-1) 216.32.180.0 - > 216.32.183.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-10 (NET-216-32-240-0-1) 216.32.240.0 - > 216.32.243.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-16 (NET-216-33-148-0-1) 216.33.148.0 - > 216.33.151.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-11 (NET-216-33-229-224-1) 216.33.229.224 - > 216.33.229.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-12 (NET-216-33-236-0-1) 216.33.236.0 - > 216.33.239.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233053-13 (NET-216-33-240-0-1) 216.33.240.0 - > 216.33.243.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-3 (NET-216-34-51-0-1) 216.34.51.0 - > 216.34.51.255 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-4 (NET-216-34-53-176-1) 216.34.53.176 - > 216.34.53.191 > Microsoft Corp SAVV-S233608-5 (NET-216-35-8-224-1) 216.35.8.224 - > 216.35.8.239 > Microsoft Corp MICROSOFTG1-COM (NET-216-72-96-0-1) 216.72.96.0 - > 216.72.99.255 > Microsoft Corp CUST-86-24614 (NET-216-222-104-224-1) 216.222.104.224 - > 216.222.104.239 > > > Looking at the networks contained therein, that looks like: 939400 > addresses and no /8s. > The largest block is Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-BBLK (NET-157-54-0-0-1) > 157.54.0.0 - 157.60.255.255 > which doesn't appear to be bit-aligned, but, looks like: > > 157.54.0.0/15 > 157.56.0.0/14 > > They also have a couple of /16s and a /14. There are a couple of other > large non-aligned ranges, > and the rest appear to be smaller blocks. > > The block Microsoft Corp MICROSOFT-IPV6-BLK (NET6-2001-4898-1) > 2001:4898:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - > 2001:4898:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF > is specifically not included in the calculations above, but, is a /32 of > IPv6 space. > > HP has a large number of Org IDs: > Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-5) > Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-6) > Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-1) > Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-13) > Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-16) > HEWLETT PACKARD (HEWLET-21) > Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-24) > Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-27) > Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-28) > Hewlett Packard (HEWLET-29) > hewlett packard (HEWLET-31) > HEWLETT PACKARD (HEWLET-33) > HEWLETT PACKARD (HEWLE-10) > Hewlett Packard (HEWLE-16) > HEWLETT PACKARD - BRS (HPB-6) > Hewlett Packard / COMPAQ (HEWLE-25) > Hewlett Packard Co. (HEWLET-3) > Hewlett Packard Company (HEWLET-25) > HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY (HEWLE-13) > HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY (HEWLE-15) > Hewlett Packard OKI Printed Circuit (HPOPC) > HEWLETT PACKARD-VERIFONE (HEWLET-32) > Hewlett packard/Danzas AEI (HPA-6) > Hewlett Packard Company (AI2-ORG-ARIN) ipaddr at hp.com +1-800-524-7638 > > Which makes it a bit more challenging to indentify all of their space. > > However, looking through all of the blocks which are returned from whois > -h whois.arin.net 'hewlett', > I do not see any /8s listed. > > Trying to look at Apple is even worse... > > Apple Computer (APPLEC-13) > Apple Computer (APPLEC-16) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-6) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-7) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-152) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-12) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-43) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-46) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-47) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-48) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-49) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-50) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-51) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-56) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-57) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-59) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-60) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-69) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-62) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-71) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-72) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-73) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-74) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-75) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-76) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-77) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-78) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-79) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-83) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-84) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-80) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-81) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-82) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-85) > APPLE COMPUTER (APPLE-146) > Apple Computer, Inc (APPLEC-14) > Apple Computer, Inc. (APPLEC-3) > Apple Computer, Inc. (APPLEC-2) > Apple Computer, Inc. (APPLEC-4) > > > However, looking at the blocks returned by whois -h whois.arin.net 'apple', > I also do not see a single /8 listed. > > Owen > > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure that Microsoft used to have a class A and I'm pretty >> sure that disappeared a few years ago. >> >> Apple and HP may be in that same boat. They may have a class B now >> because they gave up a class A a few years ago, and they got the B >> under a secret agreement with ARIN >> >> This is just sheer speculation. Since I don't work for ARIN and don't >> know if it's true or not, I'm free to speculate. The people who >> actually know, well their hands are a bit more tied. >> >> Ted >> >> Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: >>> So what does ARIN have to lose... Are these orgs cooperating now? >>> Sent from my handheld >>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:17 AM, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> When Apple or HP got their space in the late 1980's there was >>>>>> no fee as part of the "contract". >>>>> >>>>> It is a principle of common law that if there is no money (or >>>>> equivalent) paid then there is no legal contract. Has this changed in >>>>> the USA? >>>>> >>>> It is a principle of common law that a contract involves an exchange >>>> of value. (labor, things, etc. == value) >>>> >>>> It is a principle of common law that without a contract, you cannot >>>> expect >>>> someone to pay a bill for a service you did not tell them you were >>>> going >>>> to charge them for, whether or not they asked for said service and >>>> whether >>>> or not you performed said service. >>>> >>>> The above use of the term "contract" probably is in quotations because, >>>> it specifically is not a contract in the legal meaning of the word, >>>> but, more >>>> the "contract" as a term of art for any form of agreement between >>>> two or >>>> more parties. >>>> >>>>> I'd like to see all these entities billed retroactively back to the >>>>> beginning of ARIN. If they complain, then we could negotiate it >>>>> down to >>>>> just the past year if they sign an RSA. >>>>> >>>> This would be an absurd waste of time and money on the part of ARIN in >>>> my humble opinion. I think it would also go a long way towards reducing >>>> the willingness to work with ARIN on the parts of several >>>> organizations with >>>> legacy space. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com Thu Jul 23 18:43:49 2009 From: Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com (VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:43:49 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> Lee Wrote: > ...If you don't, then please answer the question: "How much (effort=time=) > money should ARIN spend on reclamation?"... Well... as much as can be reasonably allocated to the effort starting on Monday. 1 year of additional time might make the difference between survival and/or implosion for service providers trapped under other providers that are not making proper progress. I don't want to see some of us (even if I am in "the club") make it through at the expense of others who are asking for help - that is reasonable, possible, and equitable. How many members need to be saved from failure for it to be worth the effort? 1? 2? 5? 100?... A nice certified letter went out a month or two ago (3?), that alerted the community to the seriousness of the issue at hand. The result (well done by the way ARIN) is increased participation and awareness. So now that we have critical mass building, do we have enough time for a smooth transition? I hope so, but I don't bet that way when lives or livelihoods of others are at stake, at least not when I see the odds like I do on this one. To me, every day we can buy by asking (not forcing) others to be responsible is worth the effort required. I believe the cordiality of many is better than exhibited on this list (including by myself at times lately), and given the opportunity to do the right thing in the public eye, I believe we might be pleasantly surprised at the philanthropy available. Yes, I am suggesting some public pressure on organizations to be accountable and equitable, but that is not so draconian, is it? Best, ~Vaughn -----Original Message----- From: Lee Howard [mailto:spiffnolee at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:39 PM To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Brent Sweeny Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 I've replied to you elsewhere, but I might have missed the real point. The original suggestion was to study how much address space we could get back. Has there already been a study of that question published somewhere? I would really like to see it. After a few minutes of searching, I dug up an old post of mine: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-August/011711.html where I ask, "How much time would we have?" under various assumptions. I think the best scenario within the realm of realism is a 30% rate of reclamation. If that's about right, then we gain, at most, a year. Please feel free to question my assumptions or my methodology. If you don't, then please answer the question: "How much (effort=time=) money should ARIN spend on reclamation?" This is, to me, why this debate is a membership question, and not a policy question. Lee ----- Original Message ---- > From: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > To: Brent Sweeny > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:52:33 AM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 > > Brent, > > Sorry if I came across as name calling - that's good feedback. Let me tone it > down a bit, be a bit more constructive, and go more at the root of the issue, > i.e. my concern regarding throwing our hands up too easily. > > I am stating that, in my humble opinion, the previous study is not based wholly > on verified facts, but rather on supposition and speculation layered upon > partially verified data. Further, it included sources who had an interest in > moving the world forward towards IPv6 at a faster pace (sell new > hardware/software/services, etc.). This is not (on it's own) a valid basis for > current decisions about how to smooth an impending rough transition. The stakes > have been raised and it's time to do our job as a membership and work in the > interest of the larger community - our eco-system as it were. > > There is ample corroborated testimony (to indicate the existence of substantial > reclamation opportunities) within the postings on this list (over just the last > 72 hours) to serve as evidence warranting a grand jury. I qualify that > statement with: provided people would swear to their recent statements, etc. > So, it seems we should be as inquisitive as the law would when our own interests > are at stake. This is especially true for the smaller operators that need some > headroom while this inevitable transition occurs. > > I can quote a recent study by a conservative think tank and another from a > liberal think tank - both on a current hot topic (never mind the issue, don't > want to bunny trail here). Each offers a diametrically opposed viewpoint of the > same data. Each effectively presents a favorable subset of the data without > exposing the weakness of certain suppositions used to arrive at the seemingly > data based results. In fact, both will assume their viewpoint upon the same > data and it has to color the result. > > Data is objective, analysis is subjective. > > It sounds to me like there is a lot of unanalyzed data yet to be given the > "Colombo"... > > "The /8's are too hard to get back without fragmentation and everyone would > fight to the death to keep their unused space. So let's look at the remaining > data" > > Colombo: "Yes, but Sir, I have just one more question..." which is how we get > at the missed opportunity for solutions. That's all I want us to do. > > Hope that more politely expands upon my point: We are not in a situation where > inaction is acceptable unless it is based upon aggressively verified data... in > other words I suggest that ARIN *should* contact the holders of large blocks of > unused space *anew* and see what their feeling is about being good corporate > Internet citizens in the face of a crisis headed towards public attention. > Offer press releases praising them for their good deeds, and honorable mention > at various events, and you might be quite surprised what a well placed call from > senior resources could accomplish. I'm an optimist. > > Of course, a stick should be behind the back that wears that friendly smile. I > believe it should have written on it: "The power of the press". > > In my opinion, ARIN can reach that stick faster than small operators can on our > own, but we can band up and reach it if ARIN feels bound or otherwise unable to > do so. That stick is the data verifier we need. I am not suggesting we fight > bears, but rather that we be brave enough to make sure they are not just wooly > caterpillars in an oversized (allocation) bear suit before we checkmark those > caves as being off limits. > > Best regards, > ~Vaughn > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Sweeny [mailto:sweeny at indiana.edu] > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:09 AM > To: Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a > /20 > > the fact that someone has already "studied the issue" (precisely as you > suggest be done) and the data behind the facts of the study disagree with > your assumption doesn't make them a "naysayer"; it makes them much more > convincing, and the name-calling doesn't change the facts nor their > inevitable conclusions. If you assert that ARIN needs to expend resources to > try to disprove Tony's (and Geoff's) pretty careful analysis, it'd be > necessary to have more than that you don't like the conclusions as a reason: > you'd have to have some factual basis for convincing us their analysis is > flawed and must be redone. Absent that, we have to be grownups, accept the > facts, and try to use "a group this bright" to do the best we can with the > facts -- and move forward, not backwards. > > On 7/22/2009 8:23 PM, Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote: > > Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't you > > know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when others have > > already said it is not worth it." > > > > The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. Does a > > protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types or the > > "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the other space > > Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good will a few have > > gotten on this list by committing to return space.. > > > > You don't get what you don't ask for. > > > > Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to > > succeed at for a group this bright. > > > > ~Vaughn > > > > Sent from my handheld > > > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong > > > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote: > >> > >>> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of Idaho > >>> has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit behind > >>> two different firewalls. > >>> > >>> Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls > >>> > >>> And so forth into perpetuity it seems > >>> > >>> In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies have, > >>> particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is > >>> unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address space > >>> behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a company > >>> entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, B, C etc. > >>> There is no technical or administrative justification I can see. > >>> > >>> Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law. > >>> Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense. > >>> > >>> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the > >>> tide for many years. > >>> > >>> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP address > >>> space by entity and determine how many of these organizations sit > >>> behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small portion of their allocation. > >>> > >> Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the > >> conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal article: > >> > >> > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html > >> > >>> Reclaiming Allocations > >>> Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of the > >>> early allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully > >>> this article has shown that the ROI for that approach is going to be > >>> extremely low. Discussions around the Internet community show there > >>> is an expectation that it will take several years of substantive > >>> negotiation (in multiple court systems around the globe) to retrieve > >>> any /8s. Then following that effort and expense, the likelihood of > >>> even getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following > >>> the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation the > >>> result is likely to be just a few months of additional resource added > >>> to the pool?and possibly not even a whole month. All this assumes > >>> IANA does not completely run out before getting any back, because > >>> running out would result in pentup demand that could immediately > >>> exhaust any returns. > >> > >> > >> If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are at > >> least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, reclamation > >> efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to doubt that is the > >> case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you don't even buy an > >> additional year. > >> > >> Owen > >> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Steve Wagner > >>> Vice President of Operations > >>> Syringa Networks, LLC > >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100 > >>> Boise, ID 83705 > >>> Office: 208.229.6104 > >>> Main: 208.229.6100 > >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214 > >>> Fax: 208.229.6110 > >>> Email: > >>> Stwagner at syringanetworks.net > >>> > >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network" > >>> > >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice > >>> The information in this message is intended for the named recipients > >>> only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended > >>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, > >>> distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents > >>> of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > >>> e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or its contents. > >>> In such event, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete > >>> the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > >>> [ > >>> mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > >>> On Behalf Of John Osmon > >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM > >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net > >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to > >>> RETURN a /20 > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> John Osmon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but > >>>>> we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table > >>>>> (relatively) late. > >>>> > >>>> Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate. > >>> > >>> Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting > >>> a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to significant > >>> difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-) > >>> > >>> I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the > >>> pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in > >>> commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of > >>> /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List ( > >>> ARIN-discuss at arin.net > >>> ). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience > >>> any issues. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > >>> ). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Discuss > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > >> ). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience > >> any issues. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From steve at ibctech.ca Thu Jul 23 20:41:26 2009 From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:41:26 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Food for thought: IPv4 accountability. In-Reply-To: <4A68E5B6.1010408@ipinc.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802492072@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <6D4F72E9-6E9A-493E-843E-CAE502C0B278@delong.com> <753CBD87-AD2E-4AAC-9F2E-2097F87FB313@swiftsystems.com> <4A67B67A.2070201@ipinc.net> <4A68E5B6.1010408@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <4A690336.4000802@ibctech.ca> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > I could have sworn MS had a /8 at one time. The reason why > I'm sure they did was because I'm positive I cited this years > ago as evidence of MS being a bad corporate citizen during > an online debate. > > I'm not surprised they don't have one now. The departure of > Bill Gates was the point at which MS stopped being an > irresponsible, loudmouthed teenager company and started to > grow up. That's a pretty noisy claim ;) > For example, their writing and releasing of the > Linux drivers under the GPL2 to allow Linux sessions to run under > HyperV would have been unthinkable during the "Halloween papers" > days. Even though this is very off-topic, it appears as though there may be a slight possibility that Microsoft was trying to head-off possible GPL violations by coming forward with their GPL'd code. IANAL, I read it on slashdot ;) Steve ps. personally, this entire process has been interesting to watch. I hope to be in Michigan. pps. as soon as a /20 reaches seven figures, let me know... since I'm v6 ready, I'll advise my boss at our small ISP that I have a young-age retirement plan :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3233 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From jradel at vantage.com Thu Jul 23 22:14:05 2009 From: jradel at vantage.com (Jon Radel) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:14:05 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> Message-ID: <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote: > Lee Wrote: > > >> ...If you don't, then please answer the question: "How much (effort=time=) >> money should ARIN spend on reclamation?"... >> > > Well... as much as can be reasonably allocated to the effort starting on Monday. 1 year of additional time might make the difference between survival and/or implosion for service providers trapped under other providers that are not making proper progress. I don't want to see some of us (even if I am in "the club") make it through at the expense of others who are asking for help - that is reasonable, possible, and equitable. > > > Yes, I'm a cynic, but.... When I hear things like this I wonder, I truly wonder what evidence there is that should enough addresses be recovered to put run-out off for another year, that an awful lot of management teams won't immediately refocus their efforts on projects with pay offs in the next quarter or two and shift their entire ipv6 efforts out by a year or so? Obviously, not everyone will do that, and overall we will be closer to being able to deal with run-out, but all evidence I've seen over the years of listening to this discussion go 'round and 'round, is that a year's grace does not equal a year's effort or progress in implementing a long-term solution. > A nice certified letter went out a month or two ago (3?), that alerted the community to the seriousness of the issue at hand. The result (well done by the way ARIN) is increased participation and awareness. So now that we have critical mass building, do we have enough time for a smooth transition? > > You mean the one my CEO faxed to my VP (and otherwise ignored) who sent it to me and a couple of other technical people (and otherwise ignored) after I'd given my VP a heads up that the CEO would be getting it? Do we really have any hard data, or even squishy data, on how many corporate officers said, "Oh, my, I never knew that; we'll do something about it!" Does ARIN staff have any sense for how many contacts they've had as a result of the letter, and possibly even how many of those might be characterized as productive? I apologize if that information has been published and I've missed it. While I think the letter was a good thing, don't underestimate the number of corporate officers who still don't comprehend and/or care what impact this will have on them in the next couple of years. It'll take a couple more letters and a couple of WSJ front-page articles about company, or at least major initiative, failures due to inability to get v4 addresses, before everyone gets that this is something that they have to pay attention to. -- Jon Radel Senior Director of Engineering Vantage Communications p: 267-756-1014 f: 202-742-5661 e: jradel at vantage.com "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the state of science, whatever the matter may be." ~Lord Kelvin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3303 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Fri Jul 24 10:07:02 2009 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> Message-ID: <289260.52011.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > Yes, I'm a cynic, but.... When I hear things like this I wonder, I truly wonder > what evidence there is that should enough addresses be recovered to put run-out > off for another year, that an awful lot of management teams won't immediately > refocus their efforts on projects with pay offs in the next quarter or two and > shift their entire ipv6 efforts out by a year or so? Purely my speculation: I don't think it's likely that a significant amount of address space can be recovered in the next three months. Even if recovery efforts were very successful, ARIN would be receiving address blocks over the course of many months, as organizations renumbered into subnets or smaller blocks. We wouldn't be able to say in August 2009 that IANA runout had been delayed by two years. . . we would just slowly see the projections move farther out. That's what I would guess, anyway. So, if your company has just begun its IPv6 transition efforts, and has just realized that it'll take 3-5 years to be replace equipment that needs replacing, an extra year might be very important. You might want ARIN to raise your fees to fund the staff hours and legal resources. If you think you can be ready in time (whatever you might mean by that), you might not want that. In order to fulfill my duties as a Board member, I am asking the membership for guidance in setting the budget and fees. For your reference, ARIN Member Services maintains the web site, and publishes an annual budget and financial reports, About Us > Corporate Documents https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs.html > While I think the letter was a good thing, don't underestimate the number of > corporate officers who still don't comprehend and/or care what impact this will > have on them in the next couple of years. It'll take a couple more letters and > a couple of WSJ front-page articles about company, or at least major initiative, > failures due to inability to get v4 addresses, before everyone gets that this is > something that they have to pay attention to. Is there anything we (the ARIN community) can do to help? Probably a better topic for ARIN-PPML. Lee From Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com Fri Jul 24 10:32:36 2009 From: Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com (VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:32:36 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <289260.52011.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> <289260.52011.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00bd01ca0c6b$96e95af0$c4bc10d0$@com> Lee Howard asked: > In order to fulfill my duties as a Board member, I am asking the membership > for guidance in setting the budget and fees. Could we consider developing a voluntary fund (like the extra dollar you can contribute to Presidential Election Funds) when you renew? I would contribute to it, but don't like the idea of forcing Owen to do so, since he doesn't see things as I do. :- ) ??? Regards, ~Vaughn PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, quote below) that ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP space (paid transfers) between organizations. Does this seem counter to good stewardship in a time of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, this is a pretty kind act towards those same early/big assignment holders, isn't it? ------------------------------------------------ > Add to that the fact that we now have a strong incentive for people to squat on wasted space > and maximize their profits from doing so by transferring that space for a fee as a result of > revisions to sections 8.2 and 8.3 of the NRPM by policy proposals 2008-6 and 2009-1, and I > just don't see how people would be more willing to give up space for free. I agree that this > will harm small providers. Frankly, I was not convinced that a paid transfer policy was a > good idea, but, rather regarded it as a necessary evil. Hence my strong efforts to make > sure it was temporary in nature. ------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Lee Howard [mailto:spiffnolee at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:07 AM To: Jon Radel; VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 > Yes, I'm a cynic, but.... When I hear things like this I wonder, I truly wonder > what evidence there is that should enough addresses be recovered to put run-out > off for another year, that an awful lot of management teams won't immediately > refocus their efforts on projects with pay offs in the next quarter or two and > shift their entire ipv6 efforts out by a year or so? Purely my speculation: I don't think it's likely that a significant amount of address space can be recovered in the next three months. Even if recovery efforts were very successful, ARIN would be receiving address blocks over the course of many months, as organizations renumbered into subnets or smaller blocks. We wouldn't be able to say in August 2009 that IANA runout had been delayed by two years. . . we would just slowly see the projections move farther out. That's what I would guess, anyway. So, if your company has just begun its IPv6 transition efforts, and has just realized that it'll take 3-5 years to be replace equipment that needs replacing, an extra year might be very important. You might want ARIN to raise your fees to fund the staff hours and legal resources. If you think you can be ready in time (whatever you might mean by that), you might not want that. In order to fulfill my duties as a Board member, I am asking the membership for guidance in setting the budget and fees. For your reference, ARIN Member Services maintains the web site, and publishes an annual budget and financial reports, About Us > Corporate Documents https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs.html > While I think the letter was a good thing, don't underestimate the number of > corporate officers who still don't comprehend and/or care what impact this will > have on them in the next couple of years. It'll take a couple more letters and > a couple of WSJ front-page articles about company, or at least major initiative, > failures due to inability to get v4 addresses, before everyone gets that this is > something that they have to pay attention to. Is there anything we (the ARIN community) can do to help? Probably a better topic for ARIN-PPML. Lee From Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com Fri Jul 24 10:51:54 2009 From: Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com (VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:51:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> Message-ID: <00d301ca0c6e$495ba880$dc12f980$@com> Lee, The letter got our attention. It's why I am speaking up, getting involved, and why our staff is hustling to return all the space we can to our upstreams so we can justify one more v4 allocation ASAP, and why we have our IPv6 research in progress as well. Now I am a technical type leader, and may not be a good sample... but trust me, it shook us to the core. We had been watching from a distance before that, but not so closely. We are in a fairly good area to address this. We have fiber to one of the ISP hotels where IPv6 is running, but a lot of the small operators I know well do not have that luxury and are in a mild panic, some of them were considering buying gear they can't afford because sales people had shown them the ARIN letter as evidence that the world is ending for them unless they buy new routers and so forth. Now truthfully, while I don't advocate forklift upgrades in a panic, our initial research has not been pretty about the performance of IPv6 on equipment that was originally designed for IPv4. Anyway... the letter... In my opinion it's having an effect. Best regards, ~Vaughn -----Original Message----- From: Jon Radel [mailto:jradel at vantage.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:14 PM To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote: > Lee Wrote: > > >> ...If you don't, then please answer the question: "How much (effort=time=) >> money should ARIN spend on reclamation?"... >> > > Well... as much as can be reasonably allocated to the effort starting on Monday. 1 year of additional time might make the difference between survival and/or implosion for service providers trapped under other providers that are not making proper progress. I don't want to see some of us (even if I am in "the club") make it through at the expense of others who are asking for help - that is reasonable, possible, and equitable. > > > Yes, I'm a cynic, but.... When I hear things like this I wonder, I truly wonder what evidence there is that should enough addresses be recovered to put run-out off for another year, that an awful lot of management teams won't immediately refocus their efforts on projects with pay offs in the next quarter or two and shift their entire ipv6 efforts out by a year or so? Obviously, not everyone will do that, and overall we will be closer to being able to deal with run-out, but all evidence I've seen over the years of listening to this discussion go 'round and 'round, is that a year's grace does not equal a year's effort or progress in implementing a long-term solution. > A nice certified letter went out a month or two ago (3?), that alerted the community to the seriousness of the issue at hand. The result (well done by the way ARIN) is increased participation and awareness. So now that we have critical mass building, do we have enough time for a smooth transition? > > You mean the one my CEO faxed to my VP (and otherwise ignored) who sent it to me and a couple of other technical people (and otherwise ignored) after I'd given my VP a heads up that the CEO would be getting it? Do we really have any hard data, or even squishy data, on how many corporate officers said, "Oh, my, I never knew that; we'll do something about it!" Does ARIN staff have any sense for how many contacts they've had as a result of the letter, and possibly even how many of those might be characterized as productive? I apologize if that information has been published and I've missed it. While I think the letter was a good thing, don't underestimate the number of corporate officers who still don't comprehend and/or care what impact this will have on them in the next couple of years. It'll take a couple more letters and a couple of WSJ front-page articles about company, or at least major initiative, failures due to inability to get v4 addresses, before everyone gets that this is something that they have to pay attention to. -- Jon Radel Senior Director of Engineering Vantage Communications p: 267-756-1014 f: 202-742-5661 e: jradel at vantage.com "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the state of science, whatever the matter may be." ~Lord Kelvin From Keith at jcc.com Fri Jul 24 10:59:14 2009 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:59:14 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <289260.52011.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> <289260.52011.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1a9794f25b604e5841681e5a254ff3f04a69cc41@jcc.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lee Howard > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:07 AM > >... > In order to fulfill my duties as a Board member, I am asking > the membership > for guidance in setting the budget and fees. > ... My opinion is that ARIN should not spend any additional money attempting to convince legacy (or non legacy) resource holders to consolidate and return IPv4 address space. My reasons for this opinion are: 1. The agreements related to pre-ARIN address assignments are murky and would require a fair amount of legal effort and time to force an organization to return address space. 2. Social pressure is unlikely to be effective because this is a complex issue not easily explained in a sound-bite. 3. Even if an organization decides for whatever reason that it is a good idea to return a /8, it is likely to take a fair amount of time to renumber out of the /8 and return it. So, I don't expect enough IPv4 address space to be returned quickly enough to make a significant difference. ARIN efforts and budget are better spent doing whatever it can to convince equipment vendors, network vendors, and end users to push towards IPv6. >... > Is there anything we (the ARIN community) can do to help? > Probably a better > topic for ARIN-PPML. At this point, the only policy related action that might help would be to allow smaller organizations to get Provider Independent IPv6 address space. This has the risk of increasing the size of the global routing tables, but it would also increase the size of the IPv6 equipment market and put more pressure on upstream providers to support IPv6. Right now, I can find only a small amount of router/firewall equipment in my size range that supports IPv6, but that doesn't really matter because I can't get IPv6 address space from my upstream or from ARIN. >From where I sit, it looks like the IPv6 equipment and upstream support does not exist because there is no market demand, and there is no market demand because the IPv6 equipment and upstream support does not exist. Whatever ARIN can do to disrupt this cycle will help. Keith Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Fri Jul 24 11:07:41 2009 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:07:41 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <1a9794f25b604e5841681e5a254ff3f04a69cc41@jcc.com> References: <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> <289260.52011.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <1a9794f25b604e5841681e5a254ff3f04a69cc41@jcc.com> Message-ID: <20090724150741.GD26184@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:59:14AM -0400, Keith W. Hare wrote: [...] > So, I don't expect enough IPv4 address space to be returned quickly > enough to make a significant difference. Me too! From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 24 11:14:33 2009 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:14:33 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <00bd01ca0c6b$96e95af0$c4bc10d0$@com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> <289260.52011.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <00bd01ca0c6b$96e95af0$c4bc10d0$@com> Message-ID: <962B3997-2D76-4903-831A-BE2378F664D1@delong.com> > > PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, quote below) > that > ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP space (paid > transfers) > between organizations. Does this seem counter to good stewardship > in a time > of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, this is a > pretty > kind act towards those same early/big assignment holders, isn't it? You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party setting policy independent of input from the membership or the community. While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and circuitous route to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support throughout the process. It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice in passing policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I felt that the community's interests were not represented in the removal of the sunset clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring the sunset clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have been incorrect. While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer policy is good policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating in policy development at the time the issue was being considered, there was/is strong support for such a policy. I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there is strong community support for it. However, I do believe that if ARIN (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently certain that the relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. Owen The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on this subject. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2105 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Fri Jul 24 11:17:54 2009 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <1a9794f25b604e5841681e5a254ff3f04a69cc44@jcc.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> <289260.52011.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <1a9794f25b604e5841681e5a254ff3f04a69cc44@jcc.com> Message-ID: <47074.45167.qm@web63303.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > My opinion is that ARIN should not spend any additional money attempting to > convince legacy (or non legacy) resource holders to consolidate and return IPv4 > address space. My reasons for this opinion are: Thanks! That's exactly the kind of comment I'm looking for. > At this point, the only policy related action that might help would be to allow > smaller organizations to get Provider Independent IPv6 address space. This has > the risk of increasing the size of the global routing tables, but it would also > increase the size of the IPv6 equipment market and put more pressure on upstream > providers to support IPv6. You need to subscribe to ARIN-PPML http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml and discuss this proposal: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-May/014105.html The AC expects to bring it to the October meeting in Dearborn, MI. Seriously. Lee From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 24 11:18:04 2009 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:18:04 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <1a9794f25b604e5841681e5a254ff3f04a69cc41@jcc.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> <289260.52011.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <1a9794f25b604e5841681e5a254ff3f04a69cc41@jcc.com> Message-ID: > > At this point, the only policy related action that might help would > be to allow smaller organizations to get Provider Independent IPv6 > address space. This has the risk of increasing the size of the > global routing tables, but it would also increase the size of the > IPv6 equipment market and put more pressure on upstream providers to > support IPv6. > The current boundary is set at an organization which has ~500 hosts and could justify an IPv4 /22. How much smaller would you like the boundary to be? > Right now, I can find only a small amount of router/firewall > equipment in my size range that supports IPv6, but that doesn't > really matter because I can't get IPv6 address space from my > upstream or from ARIN. > What is your size range, and, have you considered getting a /48 from a tunnel broker? (Feel free to reply to this one off list if you prefer) http://www.tunnelbroker.net as an example. * >> From where I sit, it looks like the IPv6 equipment and upstream >> support does not exist because there is no market demand, and there >> is no market demand because the IPv6 equipment and upstream support >> does not exist. Whatever ARIN can do to disrupt this cycle will help. > > Keith Hare > JCC Consulting, Inc. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. * Full disclosure: I work for Hurricane Electric as an IPv6 Evangelist. Tunnelbroker is a community service provided by Hurricane Electric. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2105 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com Fri Jul 24 12:08:25 2009 From: Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com (VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:08:25 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <962B3997-2D76-4903-831A-BE2378F664D1@delong.com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> <289260.52011.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <00bd01ca0c6b$96e95af0$c4bc10d0$@com> <962B3997-2D76-4903-831A-BE2378F664D1@delong.com> Message-ID: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. I think the "community" is being represented by a subset that seems to have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been under-representing the small ISP's, which by the way make up the bulk of the community - the silent majority in fact. I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has been awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. ~Vaughn From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, quote below) that ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP space (paid transfers) between organizations. Does this seem counter to good stewardship in a time of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, this is a pretty kind act towards those same early/big assignment holders, isn't it? You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party setting policy independent of input from the membership or the community. While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and circuitous route to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support throughout the process. It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice in passing policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I felt that the community's interests were not represented in the removal of the sunset clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring the sunset clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have been incorrect. While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer policy is good policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating in policy development at the time the issue was being considered, there was/is strong support for such a policy. I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there is strong community support for it. However, I do believe that if ARIN (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently certain that the relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. Owen The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on this subject. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Fri Jul 24 12:37:15 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:37:15 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> Message-ID: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned that the small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should be. I was told that I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the small ISP, rural ISP is still overlooked. The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases the money to fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while generally a good idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the small guy. Must small ISP's don't attend NANOG either, for much the same reasons. This creates an impression that personal participation in ARIN is limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to spend $1500 or more in travel and other costs to attend an ARIN meeting. As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, participation is key. Whinning is non-productive, constructive suggestions are productive. There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many of those on this list have been involved with netops for decades, many of the questions have been asked and answered before, newer people now getting involved will ask those questions again. It may be useful for the AC to work on a list of "common" questions for the website. 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. Pre ARIN allocated Pre InterNIC allocated Etc. In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the questions that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs allocated needs to be conducted. With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to town, get your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or be by-passed. The fact that your provider doesn't have it yet is an invalid excuse. Get it working internally, use a tunnel broker, but get it working. Then BUG THE HECK out of your providers sales guy every other week. They will get the message. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM > To: 'Owen DeLong' > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. > > > > I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often > overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. > > > > I think the "community" is being represented by a subset that > seems to have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been > under-representing the small ISP's, which by the way make up > the bulk of the community - the silent majority in fact. > > > > I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has > been awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. > You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. > > > > ~Vaughn > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > > > > PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, > quote below) that > ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP > space (paid transfers) > between organizations. Does this seem counter to good > stewardship in a time > of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, > this is a pretty > kind act towards those same early/big assignment > holders, isn't it? > > > > You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party > setting policy > > independent of input from the membership or the community. > > > > While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and > circuitous route > > to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support > > throughout the process. > > > > It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice > in passing > > policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I > felt that the > > community's interests were not represented in the removal of > the sunset > > clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring > the sunset > > clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude > > that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have > > been incorrect. > > > > While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer policy is good > > policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating > > in policy development at the time the issue was being > considered, there > > was/is strong support for such a policy. > > > > I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there > > is strong community support for it. However, I do believe > that if ARIN > > (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong > > community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the > > policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently > certain that the > > relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. > > > > Owen > > > > The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking > > for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on > > this subject. > > > > From Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com Fri Jul 24 12:41:16 2009 From: Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com (VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:41:16 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> References: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> Message-ID: <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few million a year in sales who seriously cannot afford the combined travel costs and lost time of key staff. Sending the receptionist doesn't do much good. I really feel like the small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/hire a competent and loyal representative. -----Original Message----- From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to RETURN a /20 When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned that the small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should be. I was told that I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the small ISP, rural ISP is still overlooked. The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases the money to fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while generally a good idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the small guy. Must small ISP's don't attend NANOG either, for much the same reasons. This creates an impression that personal participation in ARIN is limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to spend $1500 or more in travel and other costs to attend an ARIN meeting. As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, participation is key. Whinning is non-productive, constructive suggestions are productive. There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many of those on this list have been involved with netops for decades, many of the questions have been asked and answered before, newer people now getting involved will ask those questions again. It may be useful for the AC to work on a list of "common" questions for the website. 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. Pre ARIN allocated Pre InterNIC allocated Etc. In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the questions that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs allocated needs to be conducted. With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to town, get your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or be by-passed. The fact that your provider doesn't have it yet is an invalid excuse. Get it working internally, use a tunnel broker, but get it working. Then BUG THE HECK out of your providers sales guy every other week. They will get the message. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM > To: 'Owen DeLong' > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. > > > > I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often > overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. > > > > I think the "community" is being represented by a subset that > seems to have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been > under-representing the small ISP's, which by the way make up > the bulk of the community - the silent majority in fact. > > > > I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has > been awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. > You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. > > > > ~Vaughn > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > > > > PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, > quote below) that > ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP > space (paid transfers) > between organizations. Does this seem counter to good > stewardship in a time > of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, > this is a pretty > kind act towards those same early/big assignment > holders, isn't it? > > > > You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party > setting policy > > independent of input from the membership or the community. > > > > While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and > circuitous route > > to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support > > throughout the process. > > > > It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice > in passing > > policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I > felt that the > > community's interests were not represented in the removal of > the sunset > > clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring > the sunset > > clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude > > that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have > > been incorrect. > > > > While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer policy is good > > policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating > > in policy development at the time the issue was being > considered, there > > was/is strong support for such a policy. > > > > I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there > > is strong community support for it. However, I do believe > that if ARIN > > (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong > > community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the > > policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently > certain that the > > relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. > > > > Owen > > > > The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking > > for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on > > this subject. > > > > From john at citylinkfiber.com Fri Jul 24 12:51:05 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:51:05 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> Message-ID: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7CC@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> Actually what the small ISP's need to do is to place people on the AC and on the BoT. Find people within the small guy world that have clue and get them nominated and then get them elected to the BoT and or the AC. (note well, I believe that the BoT and AC have generally done a good job.) Internet governance is a "stakeholder" (ducking now) driven process. So if you give a darn, you have to participate in a meaning full manner. And be willing to invest in your time for the betterment of the entire community. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:41 AM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few > million a year in sales who seriously cannot afford the > combined travel costs and lost time of key staff. Sending the > receptionist doesn't do much good. I really feel like the > small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/hire > a competent and loyal representative. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned > that the small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should > be. I was told that I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the > small ISP, rural ISP is still overlooked. > > The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases > the money to > fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped > that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. > > Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while > generally a good idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the > small guy. Must small ISP's don't attend NANOG either, for > much the same reasons. > > This creates an impression that personal participation in > ARIN is limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to > spend $1500 or more in travel and other costs to attend an > ARIN meeting. > > As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, > participation is key. Whinning is non-productive, > constructive suggestions are productive. > > There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many > of those on this list have been involved with netops for > decades, many of the questions have been asked and answered > before, newer people now getting involved will ask those > questions again. It may be useful for the AC to work on a > list of "common" questions for the website. > > 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. > Pre ARIN allocated > Pre InterNIC allocated > > Etc. > > > > In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the > questions that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. > > A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs > allocated needs to be conducted. > > > With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to > town, get your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or > be by-passed. The fact that your provider doesn't have it > yet is an invalid excuse. Get it working internally, use a > tunnel broker, but get it working. Then BUG THE HECK out of > your providers sales guy every other week. They will get the > message. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - > > SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM > > To: 'Owen DeLong' > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. > > > > > > > > I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often > > overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. > > > > > > > > I think the "community" is being represented by a subset > that seems to > > have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been > under-representing the > > small ISP's, which by the way make up the bulk of the > community - the > > silent majority in fact. > > > > > > > > I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has been > > awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. > > You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. > > > > > > > > ~Vaughn > > > > > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM > > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, > I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > > > > > > > PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, > quote below) > > that > > ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP > space (paid > > transfers) > > between organizations. Does this seem counter to good > stewardship in > > a time > > of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, > this is a > > pretty > > kind act towards those same early/big assignment > holders, isn't it? > > > > > > > > You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party setting > > policy > > > > independent of input from the membership or the community. > > > > > > > > While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and > circuitous > > route > > > > to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support > > > > throughout the process. > > > > > > > > It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice in > > passing > > > > policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I felt > > that the > > > > community's interests were not represented in the removal of the > > sunset > > > > clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring the > > sunset > > > > clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude > > > > that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have > > > > been incorrect. > > > > > > > > While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer > policy is good > > > > policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating > > > > in policy development at the time the issue was being considered, > > there > > > > was/is strong support for such a policy. > > > > > > > > I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there > > > > is strong community support for it. However, I do believe that if > > ARIN > > > > (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong > > > > community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the > > > > policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently > certain that > > the > > > > relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. > > > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking > > > > for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on > > > > this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From heidi at nuwave.com Fri Jul 24 13:42:12 2009 From: heidi at nuwave.com (Heidi Dohse) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:42:12 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7CC@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> References: <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7CC@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> Message-ID: <000c01ca0c86$14887a80$3d996f80$@com> Ok - I hadn't planned to go to the Michigan meeting. I have changed my mind. In the past I have worked for the "Big Guy" with lots of resources. Currently I am working with a rural "small guy" provider and I am the resource (sad but true). When I first started, 15 years ago, the IP world was pretty much just data traffic. Now the IP world consists of Voice, Data and convergent communication networks that deliver it all. The number of IP driven end-user devices is just going to keep growing. I guess it will take all of us working together so we don't break the network. My company is in the process of making sure that we will be IPv6 compatible, but need to request additional IPv4 space too. If I can help be an advocate for small ISPs - though I can't guarantee that I have a clue (per the email below :-) - I am willing to be involved. Cheers, Heidi Dohse NuWave Communications heidi at nuwave.com -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:51 AM To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Actually what the small ISP's need to do is to place people on the AC and on the BoT. Find people within the small guy world that have clue and get them nominated and then get them elected to the BoT and or the AC. (note well, I believe that the BoT and AC have generally done a good job.) Internet governance is a "stakeholder" (ducking now) driven process. So if you give a darn, you have to participate in a meaning full manner. And be willing to invest in your time for the betterment of the entire community. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:41 AM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few > million a year in sales who seriously cannot afford the > combined travel costs and lost time of key staff. Sending the > receptionist doesn't do much good. I really feel like the > small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/hire > a competent and loyal representative. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned > that the small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should > be. I was told that I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the > small ISP, rural ISP is still overlooked. > > The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases > the money to > fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped > that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. > > Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while > generally a good idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the > small guy. Must small ISP's don't attend NANOG either, for > much the same reasons. > > This creates an impression that personal participation in > ARIN is limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to > spend $1500 or more in travel and other costs to attend an > ARIN meeting. > > As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, > participation is key. Whinning is non-productive, > constructive suggestions are productive. > > There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many > of those on this list have been involved with netops for > decades, many of the questions have been asked and answered > before, newer people now getting involved will ask those > questions again. It may be useful for the AC to work on a > list of "common" questions for the website. > > 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. > Pre ARIN allocated > Pre InterNIC allocated > > Etc. > > > > In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the > questions that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. > > A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs > allocated needs to be conducted. > > > With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to > town, get your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or > be by-passed. The fact that your provider doesn't have it > yet is an invalid excuse. Get it working internally, use a > tunnel broker, but get it working. Then BUG THE HECK out of > your providers sales guy every other week. They will get the > message. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - > > SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM > > To: 'Owen DeLong' > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. > > > > > > > > I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often > > overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. > > > > > > > > I think the "community" is being represented by a subset > that seems to > > have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been > under-representing the > > small ISP's, which by the way make up the bulk of the > community - the > > silent majority in fact. > > > > > > > > I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has been > > awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. > > You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. > > > > > > > > ~Vaughn > > > > > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM > > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, > I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > > > > > > > PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, > quote below) > > that > > ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP > space (paid > > transfers) > > between organizations. Does this seem counter to good > stewardship in > > a time > > of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, > this is a > > pretty > > kind act towards those same early/big assignment > holders, isn't it? > > > > > > > > You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party setting > > policy > > > > independent of input from the membership or the community. > > > > > > > > While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and > circuitous > > route > > > > to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support > > > > throughout the process. > > > > > > > > It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice in > > passing > > > > policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I felt > > that the > > > > community's interests were not represented in the removal of the > > sunset > > > > clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring the > > sunset > > > > clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude > > > > that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have > > > > been incorrect. > > > > > > > > While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer > policy is good > > > > policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating > > > > in policy development at the time the issue was being considered, > > there > > > > was/is strong support for such a policy. > > > > > > > > I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there > > > > is strong community support for it. However, I do believe that if > > ARIN > > > > (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong > > > > community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the > > > > policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently > certain that > > the > > > > relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. > > > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking > > > > for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on > > > > this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com Fri Jul 24 13:54:51 2009 From: Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com (VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:54:51 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <000c01ca0c86$14887a80$3d996f80$@com> References: <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7CC@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <000c01ca0c86$14887a80$3d996f80$@com> Message-ID: <034601ca0c87$d809ce40$881d6ac0$@com> Ditto, can someone provide info links to this event in Michigan? -----Original Message----- From: Heidi Dohse [mailto:heidi at nuwave.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:42 PM To: 'John Brown'; 'VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC'; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Ok - I hadn't planned to go to the Michigan meeting. I have changed my mind. In the past I have worked for the "Big Guy" with lots of resources. Currently I am working with a rural "small guy" provider and I am the resource (sad but true). When I first started, 15 years ago, the IP world was pretty much just data traffic. Now the IP world consists of Voice, Data and convergent communication networks that deliver it all. The number of IP driven end-user devices is just going to keep growing. I guess it will take all of us working together so we don't break the network. My company is in the process of making sure that we will be IPv6 compatible, but need to request additional IPv4 space too. If I can help be an advocate for small ISPs - though I can't guarantee that I have a clue (per the email below :-) - I am willing to be involved. Cheers, Heidi Dohse NuWave Communications heidi at nuwave.com -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:51 AM To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Actually what the small ISP's need to do is to place people on the AC and on the BoT. Find people within the small guy world that have clue and get them nominated and then get them elected to the BoT and or the AC. (note well, I believe that the BoT and AC have generally done a good job.) Internet governance is a "stakeholder" (ducking now) driven process. So if you give a darn, you have to participate in a meaning full manner. And be willing to invest in your time for the betterment of the entire community. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:41 AM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few > million a year in sales who seriously cannot afford the > combined travel costs and lost time of key staff. Sending the > receptionist doesn't do much good. I really feel like the > small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/hire > a competent and loyal representative. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned > that the small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should > be. I was told that I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the > small ISP, rural ISP is still overlooked. > > The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases > the money to > fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped > that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. > > Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while > generally a good idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the > small guy. Must small ISP's don't attend NANOG either, for > much the same reasons. > > This creates an impression that personal participation in > ARIN is limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to > spend $1500 or more in travel and other costs to attend an > ARIN meeting. > > As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, > participation is key. Whinning is non-productive, > constructive suggestions are productive. > > There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many > of those on this list have been involved with netops for > decades, many of the questions have been asked and answered > before, newer people now getting involved will ask those > questions again. It may be useful for the AC to work on a > list of "common" questions for the website. > > 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. > Pre ARIN allocated > Pre InterNIC allocated > > Etc. > > > > In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the > questions that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. > > A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs > allocated needs to be conducted. > > > With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to > town, get your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or > be by-passed. The fact that your provider doesn't have it > yet is an invalid excuse. Get it working internally, use a > tunnel broker, but get it working. Then BUG THE HECK out of > your providers sales guy every other week. They will get the > message. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - > > SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM > > To: 'Owen DeLong' > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. > > > > > > > > I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often > > overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. > > > > > > > > I think the "community" is being represented by a subset > that seems to > > have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been > under-representing the > > small ISP's, which by the way make up the bulk of the > community - the > > silent majority in fact. > > > > > > > > I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has been > > awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. > > You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. > > > > > > > > ~Vaughn > > > > > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM > > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, > I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > > > > > > > PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, > quote below) > > that > > ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP > space (paid > > transfers) > > between organizations. Does this seem counter to good > stewardship in > > a time > > of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, > this is a > > pretty > > kind act towards those same early/big assignment > holders, isn't it? > > > > > > > > You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party setting > > policy > > > > independent of input from the membership or the community. > > > > > > > > While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and > circuitous > > route > > > > to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support > > > > throughout the process. > > > > > > > > It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice in > > passing > > > > policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I felt > > that the > > > > community's interests were not represented in the removal of the > > sunset > > > > clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring the > > sunset > > > > clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude > > > > that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have > > > > been incorrect. > > > > > > > > While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer > policy is good > > > > policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating > > > > in policy development at the time the issue was being considered, > > there > > > > was/is strong support for such a policy. > > > > > > > > I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there > > > > is strong community support for it. However, I do believe that if > > ARIN > > > > (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong > > > > community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the > > > > policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently > certain that > > the > > > > relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. > > > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking > > > > for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on > > > > this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From john at citylinkfiber.com Fri Jul 24 13:59:53 2009 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:59:53 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <034601ca0c87$d809ce40$881d6ac0$@com> Message-ID: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7D2@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> www.arin.net > -----Original Message----- > From: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > [mailto:Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:55 AM > To: 'Heidi Dohse'; John Brown; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > Ditto, can someone provide info links to this event in Michigan? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Heidi Dohse [mailto:heidi at nuwave.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:42 PM > To: 'John Brown'; 'VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC'; > arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > Ok - I hadn't planned to go to the Michigan meeting. I have > changed my mind. > > > In the past I have worked for the "Big Guy" with lots of resources. > Currently I am working with a rural "small guy" provider and > I am the resource (sad but true). When I first started, 15 > years ago, the IP world was pretty much just data traffic. > Now the IP world consists of Voice, Data and convergent > communication networks that deliver it all. The number of IP > driven end-user devices is just going to keep growing. I > guess it will take all of us working together so we don't > break the network. My company is in the process of making > sure that we will be IPv6 compatible, but need to request > additional IPv4 space too. > > If I can help be an advocate for small ISPs - though I can't > guarantee that I have a clue (per the email below :-) - I am > willing to be involved. > > Cheers, > > Heidi Dohse > NuWave Communications > heidi at nuwave.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of John Brown > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:51 AM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > Actually what the small ISP's need to do is to place people > on the AC and on the BoT. > > Find people within the small guy world that have clue and get > them nominated and then get them elected to the BoT and or > the AC. (note well, I believe that the BoT and AC have > generally done a good job.) > > Internet governance is a "stakeholder" (ducking now) driven > process. So if you give a darn, you have to participate in a > meaning full manner. > And be willing to invest in your time for the betterment of > the entire community. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - > > SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:41 AM > > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few million a > > year in sales who seriously cannot afford the combined travel costs > > and lost time of key staff. Sending the receptionist > doesn't do much > > good. I really feel like the small ISP's need to band up, share > > expenses and delegate/hire a competent and loyal representative. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM > > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often > mentioned that the > > small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should be. I was told > > that I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the small ISP, > rural ISP is > > still overlooked. > > > > The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases > the money > > to > > fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I > had hoped > > that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. > > > > Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while > generally a good > > idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the small guy. Must small > > ISP's don't attend NANOG either, for much the same reasons. > > > > This creates an impression that personal participation in ARIN is > > limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to spend $1500 or > > more in travel and other costs to attend an ARIN meeting. > > > > As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, > > participation is key. Whinning is non-productive, constructive > > suggestions are productive. > > > > There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. > Many of those > > on this list have been involved with netops for decades, > many of the > > questions have been asked and answered before, newer people now > > getting involved will ask those questions again. It may be > useful for > > the AC to work on a list of "common" questions for the website. > > > > 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. > > Pre ARIN allocated > > Pre InterNIC allocated > > > > Etc. > > > > > > > > In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the > questions > > that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. > > > > A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs > allocated > > needs to be conducted. > > > > > > With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to town, > > get your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or be > by-passed. > > The fact that your provider doesn't have it yet is an > invalid excuse. > > Get it working internally, use a tunnel broker, but get it > working. > > Then BUG THE HECK out of your providers sales guy every > other week. > > They will get the message. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > > THURMAN - > > > SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM > > > To: 'Owen DeLong' > > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by > example,I'd like to > > > RETURN a /20 > > > > > > Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often > > > overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the "community" is being represented by a subset > > that seems to > > > have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been > > under-representing the > > > small ISP's, which by the way make up the bulk of the > > community - the > > > silent majority in fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has been > > > awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. > > > You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Vaughn > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM > > > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, > > I'd like to > > > RETURN a /20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, > > quote below) > > > that > > > ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP > > space (paid > > > transfers) > > > between organizations. Does this seem counter to good > > stewardship in > > > a time > > > of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, > > this is a > > > pretty > > > kind act towards those same early/big assignment > > holders, isn't it? > > > > > > > > > > > > You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third > party setting > > > policy > > > > > > independent of input from the membership or the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and > > circuitous > > > route > > > > > > to adoption, it was definitely done with community input > and support > > > > > > throughout the process. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice in > > > passing > > > > > > policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly > because I felt > > > that the > > > > > > community's interests were not represented in the removal of the > > > sunset > > > > > > clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring the > > > sunset > > > > > > clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude > > > > > > that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may > well have > > > > > > been incorrect. > > > > > > > > > > > > While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer > > policy is good > > > > > > policy, I am convinced that of the community which was > participating > > > > > > in policy development at the time the issue was being considered, > > > there > > > > > > was/is strong support for such a policy. > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just > because there > > > > > > is strong community support for it. However, I do > believe that if > > > ARIN > > > > > > (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong > > > > > > community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the > > > > > > policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently > > certain that > > > the > > > > > > relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > > > > > The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking > > > > > > for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on > > > > > > this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed > to the ARIN > > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > From heidi at nuwave.com Fri Jul 24 14:02:05 2009 From: heidi at nuwave.com (Heidi Dohse) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:02:05 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <034601ca0c87$d809ce40$881d6ac0$@com> References: <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7CC@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <000c01ca0c86$14887a80$3d996f80$@com> <034601ca0c87$d809ce40$881d6ac0$@com> Message-ID: <001901ca0c88$db6e6090$924b21b0$@com> Here is the link I have from the ARIN website: https://www.arin.net/announcements/2009/20090713.html Cheers, Heidi Dohse -----Original Message----- From: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC [mailto:Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:55 AM To: 'Heidi Dohse'; 'John Brown'; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Ditto, can someone provide info links to this event in Michigan? -----Original Message----- From: Heidi Dohse [mailto:heidi at nuwave.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:42 PM To: 'John Brown'; 'VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC'; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Ok - I hadn't planned to go to the Michigan meeting. I have changed my mind. In the past I have worked for the "Big Guy" with lots of resources. Currently I am working with a rural "small guy" provider and I am the resource (sad but true). When I first started, 15 years ago, the IP world was pretty much just data traffic. Now the IP world consists of Voice, Data and convergent communication networks that deliver it all. The number of IP driven end-user devices is just going to keep growing. I guess it will take all of us working together so we don't break the network. My company is in the process of making sure that we will be IPv6 compatible, but need to request additional IPv4 space too. If I can help be an advocate for small ISPs - though I can't guarantee that I have a clue (per the email below :-) - I am willing to be involved. Cheers, Heidi Dohse NuWave Communications heidi at nuwave.com -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:51 AM To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Actually what the small ISP's need to do is to place people on the AC and on the BoT. Find people within the small guy world that have clue and get them nominated and then get them elected to the BoT and or the AC. (note well, I believe that the BoT and AC have generally done a good job.) Internet governance is a "stakeholder" (ducking now) driven process. So if you give a darn, you have to participate in a meaning full manner. And be willing to invest in your time for the betterment of the entire community. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:41 AM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few > million a year in sales who seriously cannot afford the > combined travel costs and lost time of key staff. Sending the > receptionist doesn't do much good. I really feel like the > small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/hire > a competent and loyal representative. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned > that the small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should > be. I was told that I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the > small ISP, rural ISP is still overlooked. > > The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases > the money to > fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped > that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. > > Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while > generally a good idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the > small guy. Must small ISP's don't attend NANOG either, for > much the same reasons. > > This creates an impression that personal participation in > ARIN is limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to > spend $1500 or more in travel and other costs to attend an > ARIN meeting. > > As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, > participation is key. Whinning is non-productive, > constructive suggestions are productive. > > There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many > of those on this list have been involved with netops for > decades, many of the questions have been asked and answered > before, newer people now getting involved will ask those > questions again. It may be useful for the AC to work on a > list of "common" questions for the website. > > 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. > Pre ARIN allocated > Pre InterNIC allocated > > Etc. > > > > In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the > questions that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. > > A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs > allocated needs to be conducted. > > > With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to > town, get your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or > be by-passed. The fact that your provider doesn't have it > yet is an invalid excuse. Get it working internally, use a > tunnel broker, but get it working. Then BUG THE HECK out of > your providers sales guy every other week. They will get the > message. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - > > SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM > > To: 'Owen DeLong' > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. > > > > > > > > I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often > > overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. > > > > > > > > I think the "community" is being represented by a subset > that seems to > > have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been > under-representing the > > small ISP's, which by the way make up the bulk of the > community - the > > silent majority in fact. > > > > > > > > I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has been > > awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. > > You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. > > > > > > > > ~Vaughn > > > > > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM > > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, > I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > > > > > > > PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, > quote below) > > that > > ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP > space (paid > > transfers) > > between organizations. Does this seem counter to good > stewardship in > > a time > > of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, > this is a > > pretty > > kind act towards those same early/big assignment > holders, isn't it? > > > > > > > > You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party setting > > policy > > > > independent of input from the membership or the community. > > > > > > > > While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and > circuitous > > route > > > > to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support > > > > throughout the process. > > > > > > > > It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice in > > passing > > > > policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I felt > > that the > > > > community's interests were not represented in the removal of the > > sunset > > > > clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring the > > sunset > > > > clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude > > > > that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have > > > > been incorrect. > > > > > > > > While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer > policy is good > > > > policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating > > > > in policy development at the time the issue was being considered, > > there > > > > was/is strong support for such a policy. > > > > > > > > I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there > > > > is strong community support for it. However, I do believe that if > > ARIN > > > > (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong > > > > community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the > > > > policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently > certain that > > the > > > > relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. > > > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking > > > > for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on > > > > this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From alex.ryu at kdlinc.com Fri Jul 24 14:04:42 2009 From: alex.ryu at kdlinc.com (Alex H. Ryu) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:04:42 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <034601ca0c87$d809ce40$881d6ac0$@com> References: <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7CC@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <000c01ca0c86$14887a80$3d996f80$@com> <034601ca0c87$d809ce40$881d6ac0$@com> Message-ID: <278B5E4BCD5E654385A9F83C7CA6D517A081BD1108@MAILBOX-01.qcommcorp.ad> I think you are talking about upcoming ARIN XXIV meeting. https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXIV/index.html It's sad, but most small ISP doesn't have resource to allocate somebody to liason to ARIN. Some small ISP may have the resource available because CEO/President understand the nature of IP address, and co-operation with other ISPs. But others may not. I saw a lot of cases small ISP only have only one guy, who is superman doing everything from server installations to network troubleshooting/planning/design. But I'm planning to be Dearborn, MI for NANOG47/ARIN-XXIV back-to-back meeting, too. Alex -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:55 PM To: 'Heidi Dohse'; 'John Brown'; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Ditto, can someone provide info links to this event in Michigan? -----Original Message----- From: Heidi Dohse [mailto:heidi at nuwave.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:42 PM To: 'John Brown'; 'VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC'; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Ok - I hadn't planned to go to the Michigan meeting. I have changed my mind. In the past I have worked for the "Big Guy" with lots of resources. Currently I am working with a rural "small guy" provider and I am the resource (sad but true). When I first started, 15 years ago, the IP world was pretty much just data traffic. Now the IP world consists of Voice, Data and convergent communication networks that deliver it all. The number of IP driven end-user devices is just going to keep growing. I guess it will take all of us working together so we don't break the network. My company is in the process of making sure that we will be IPv6 compatible, but need to request additional IPv4 space too. If I can help be an advocate for small ISPs - though I can't guarantee that I have a clue (per the email below :-) - I am willing to be involved. Cheers, Heidi Dohse NuWave Communications heidi at nuwave.com -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:51 AM To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Actually what the small ISP's need to do is to place people on the AC and on the BoT. Find people within the small guy world that have clue and get them nominated and then get them elected to the BoT and or the AC. (note well, I believe that the BoT and AC have generally done a good job.) Internet governance is a "stakeholder" (ducking now) driven process. So if you give a darn, you have to participate in a meaning full manner. And be willing to invest in your time for the betterment of the entire community. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:41 AM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few > million a year in sales who seriously cannot afford the > combined travel costs and lost time of key staff. Sending the > receptionist doesn't do much good. I really feel like the > small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/hire > a competent and loyal representative. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned > that the small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should > be. I was told that I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the > small ISP, rural ISP is still overlooked. > > The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases > the money to > fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped > that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. > > Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while > generally a good idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the > small guy. Must small ISP's don't attend NANOG either, for > much the same reasons. > > This creates an impression that personal participation in > ARIN is limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to > spend $1500 or more in travel and other costs to attend an > ARIN meeting. > > As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, > participation is key. Whinning is non-productive, > constructive suggestions are productive. > > There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many > of those on this list have been involved with netops for > decades, many of the questions have been asked and answered > before, newer people now getting involved will ask those > questions again. It may be useful for the AC to work on a > list of "common" questions for the website. > > 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. > Pre ARIN allocated > Pre InterNIC allocated > > Etc. > > > > In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the > questions that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. > > A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs > allocated needs to be conducted. > > > With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to > town, get your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or > be by-passed. The fact that your provider doesn't have it > yet is an invalid excuse. Get it working internally, use a > tunnel broker, but get it working. Then BUG THE HECK out of > your providers sales guy every other week. They will get the > message. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - > > SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM > > To: 'Owen DeLong' > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. > > > > > > > > I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often > > overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. > > > > > > > > I think the "community" is being represented by a subset > that seems to > > have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been > under-representing the > > small ISP's, which by the way make up the bulk of the > community - the > > silent majority in fact. > > > > > > > > I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has been > > awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. > > You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. > > > > > > > > ~Vaughn > > > > > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM > > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, > I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > > > > > > > PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, > quote below) > > that > > ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP > space (paid > > transfers) > > between organizations. Does this seem counter to good > stewardship in > > a time > > of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, > this is a > > pretty > > kind act towards those same early/big assignment > holders, isn't it? > > > > > > > > You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party setting > > policy > > > > independent of input from the membership or the community. > > > > > > > > While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and > circuitous > > route > > > > to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support > > > > throughout the process. > > > > > > > > It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice in > > passing > > > > policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I felt > > that the > > > > community's interests were not represented in the removal of the > > sunset > > > > clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring the > > sunset > > > > clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude > > > > that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have > > > > been incorrect. > > > > > > > > While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer > policy is good > > > > policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating > > > > in policy development at the time the issue was being considered, > > there > > > > was/is strong support for such a policy. > > > > > > > > I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there > > > > is strong community support for it. However, I do believe that if > > ARIN > > > > (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong > > > > community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the > > > > policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently > certain that > > the > > > > relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. > > > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking > > > > for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on > > > > this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jradel at vantage.com Fri Jul 24 14:05:30 2009 From: jradel at vantage.com (Jon Radel) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:05:30 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <034601ca0c87$d809ce40$881d6ac0$@com> References: <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7CC@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <000c01ca0c86$14887a80$3d996f80$@com> <034601ca0c87$d809ce40$881d6ac0$@com> Message-ID: <4A69F7EA.1090204@vantage.com> VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote: > Ditto, can someone provide info links to this event in Michigan? > > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXIV/ By the way, if you can write a good story about why you would bring new perspective/energy/representation to what would be your first ARIN meeting, consider applying for the fellowship position for your sector. Meanwhile, I, in a burst of optimism, have put in yet another budget request to be allowed to get a block of ipv6 addresses. -- Jon Radel Senior Director of Engineering Vantage Communications p: 267-756-1014 f: 202-742-5661 e: jradel at vantage.com "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the state of science, whatever the matter may be." ~Lord Kelvin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3303 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com Fri Jul 24 14:04:02 2009 From: Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com (VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:04:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7D2@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> References: <034601ca0c87$d809ce40$881d6ac0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7D2@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> Message-ID: <036d01ca0c89$207d0ec0$61772c40$@com> :- / Sure, I get the point. -----Original Message----- From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:00 PM To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Heidi Dohse; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 www.arin.net > -----Original Message----- > From: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > [mailto:Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:55 AM > To: 'Heidi Dohse'; John Brown; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > Ditto, can someone provide info links to this event in Michigan? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Heidi Dohse [mailto:heidi at nuwave.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:42 PM > To: 'John Brown'; 'VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC'; > arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > Ok - I hadn't planned to go to the Michigan meeting. I have > changed my mind. > > > In the past I have worked for the "Big Guy" with lots of resources. > Currently I am working with a rural "small guy" provider and > I am the resource (sad but true). When I first started, 15 > years ago, the IP world was pretty much just data traffic. > Now the IP world consists of Voice, Data and convergent > communication networks that deliver it all. The number of IP > driven end-user devices is just going to keep growing. I > guess it will take all of us working together so we don't > break the network. My company is in the process of making > sure that we will be IPv6 compatible, but need to request > additional IPv4 space too. > > If I can help be an advocate for small ISPs - though I can't > guarantee that I have a clue (per the email below :-) - I am > willing to be involved. > > Cheers, > > Heidi Dohse > NuWave Communications > heidi at nuwave.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of John Brown > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:51 AM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd > like to RETURN a /20 > > Actually what the small ISP's need to do is to place people > on the AC and on the BoT. > > Find people within the small guy world that have clue and get > them nominated and then get them elected to the BoT and or > the AC. (note well, I believe that the BoT and AC have > generally done a good job.) > > Internet governance is a "stakeholder" (ducking now) driven > process. So if you give a darn, you have to participate in a > meaning full manner. > And be willing to invest in your time for the betterment of > the entire community. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > THURMAN - > > SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:41 AM > > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few million a > > year in sales who seriously cannot afford the combined travel costs > > and lost time of key staff. Sending the receptionist > doesn't do much > > good. I really feel like the small ISP's need to band up, share > > expenses and delegate/hire a competent and loyal representative. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM > > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to > > RETURN a /20 > > > > When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often > mentioned that the > > small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should be. I was told > > that I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the small ISP, > rural ISP is > > still overlooked. > > > > The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases > the money > > to > > fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I > had hoped > > that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. > > > > Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while > generally a good > > idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the small guy. Must small > > ISP's don't attend NANOG either, for much the same reasons. > > > > This creates an impression that personal participation in ARIN is > > limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to spend $1500 or > > more in travel and other costs to attend an ARIN meeting. > > > > As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, > > participation is key. Whinning is non-productive, constructive > > suggestions are productive. > > > > There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. > Many of those > > on this list have been involved with netops for decades, > many of the > > questions have been asked and answered before, newer people now > > getting involved will ask those questions again. It may be > useful for > > the AC to work on a list of "common" questions for the website. > > > > 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. > > Pre ARIN allocated > > Pre InterNIC allocated > > > > Etc. > > > > > > > > In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the > questions > > that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. > > > > A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs > allocated > > needs to be conducted. > > > > > > With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to town, > > get your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or be > by-passed. > > The fact that your provider doesn't have it yet is an > invalid excuse. > > Get it working internally, use a tunnel broker, but get it > working. > > Then BUG THE HECK out of your providers sales guy every > other week. > > They will get the message. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN > > THURMAN - > > > SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM > > > To: 'Owen DeLong' > > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by > example,I'd like to > > > RETURN a /20 > > > > > > Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often > > > overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the "community" is being represented by a subset > > that seems to > > > have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been > > under-representing the > > > small ISP's, which by the way make up the bulk of the > > community - the > > > silent majority in fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has been > > > awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. > > > You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Vaughn > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM > > > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, > > I'd like to > > > RETURN a /20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, > > quote below) > > > that > > > ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP > > space (paid > > > transfers) > > > between organizations. Does this seem counter to good > > stewardship in > > > a time > > > of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, > > this is a > > > pretty > > > kind act towards those same early/big assignment > > holders, isn't it? > > > > > > > > > > > > You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third > party setting > > > policy > > > > > > independent of input from the membership or the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and > > circuitous > > > route > > > > > > to adoption, it was definitely done with community input > and support > > > > > > throughout the process. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice in > > > passing > > > > > > policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly > because I felt > > > that the > > > > > > community's interests were not represented in the removal of the > > > sunset > > > > > > clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring the > > > sunset > > > > > > clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude > > > > > > that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may > well have > > > > > > been incorrect. > > > > > > > > > > > > While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer > > policy is good > > > > > > policy, I am convinced that of the community which was > participating > > > > > > in policy development at the time the issue was being considered, > > > there > > > > > > was/is strong support for such a policy. > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just > because there > > > > > > is strong community support for it. However, I do > believe that if > > > ARIN > > > > > > (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong > > > > > > community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the > > > > > > policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently > > certain that > > > the > > > > > > relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > > > > > The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking > > > > > > for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on > > > > > > this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed > to the ARIN > > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > From jmaimon at chl.com Fri Jul 24 14:09:06 2009 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:09:06 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> References: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> Message-ID: <4A69F8C2.5030506@chl.com> Arin allows for Designated Member Representative While this will help with election representation, it wont help much to show consensus for policies. Joe VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote: > I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few million a year in > sales who seriously cannot afford the combined travel costs and lost time of > key staff. Sending the receptionist doesn't do much good. I really feel > like the small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/hire a > competent and loyal representative. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to RETURN a > /20 > > When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned that the > small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should be. I was told that > I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the small ISP, rural ISP is still > overlooked. > > The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases the money to > fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped > that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. > > Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while generally a good > idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the small guy. Must small ISP's > don't attend NANOG either, for much the same reasons. > > This creates an impression that personal participation in ARIN is > limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to spend $1500 or more > in travel and other costs to attend an ARIN meeting. > > As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, participation > is key. Whinning is non-productive, constructive suggestions are > productive. > > There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many of those on > this list have been involved with netops for decades, many of the > questions have been asked and answered before, newer people now getting > involved will ask those questions again. It may be useful for the AC to > work on a list of "common" questions for the website. > > 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. > Pre ARIN allocated > Pre InterNIC allocated > > Etc. > > > > In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the questions > that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. > > A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs allocated > needs to be conducted. > > > With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to town, get > your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or be by-passed. The > fact that your provider doesn't have it yet is an invalid excuse. Get > it working internally, use a tunnel broker, but get it working. Then > BUG THE HECK out of your providers sales guy every other week. They > will get the message. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN >> THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM >> To: 'Owen DeLong' >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd >> like to RETURN a /20 >> >> Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. >> >> >> >> I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often >> overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. >> >> >> >> I think the "community" is being represented by a subset that >> seems to have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been >> under-representing the small ISP's, which by the way make up >> the bulk of the community - the silent majority in fact. >> >> >> >> I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has >> been awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. >> You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. >> >> >> >> ~Vaughn >> >> >> >> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM >> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd >> like to RETURN a /20 >> >> >> >> >> PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, >> quote below) that >> ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP >> space (paid transfers) >> between organizations. Does this seem counter to good >> stewardship in a time >> of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, >> this is a pretty >> kind act towards those same early/big assignment >> holders, isn't it? >> >> >> >> You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party >> setting policy >> >> independent of input from the membership or the community. >> >> >> >> While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and >> circuitous route >> >> to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support >> >> throughout the process. >> >> >> >> It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice >> in passing >> >> policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I >> felt that the >> >> community's interests were not represented in the removal of >> the sunset >> >> clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring >> the sunset >> >> clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude >> >> that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have >> >> been incorrect. >> >> >> >> While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer policy is good >> >> policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating >> >> in policy development at the time the issue was being >> considered, there >> >> was/is strong support for such a policy. >> >> >> >> I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there >> >> is strong community support for it. However, I do believe >> that if ARIN >> >> (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong >> >> community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the >> >> policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently >> certain that the >> >> relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. >> >> >> >> Owen >> >> >> >> The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking >> >> for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on >> >> this subject. >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > From scottleibrand at gmail.com Fri Jul 24 14:12:51 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:12:51 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> References: <20090722162617.GE23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <4A674D23.5020001@chl.com> <20090722194325.GG23859@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> <66194326-18CE-4018-AC73-E9CA03DD61A4@swiftsystems.com> <4A687D01.2050002@indiana.edu> <006001ca0bad$97a8f2c0$c6fad840$@com> <672087.99014.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <02bb01ca0be7$0b6e4f50$224aedf0$@com> <4A6918ED.60004@vantage.com> <289260.52011.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <00bd01ca0c6b$96e95af0$c4bc10d0$@com> <962B3997-2D76-4903-831A-BE2378F664D1@delong.com> <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> Message-ID: <4A69F9A3.2070509@gmail.com> Vaughn, It's good to see more folks getting interested. I'm not sure that small ISPs were under-represented before, but either way, more participation and wider representation will definitely help. Thanks. All, If you haven't already, please subscribe to PPML, speak up on any policy proposals of interest, and be sure to participate (in person or remotely) at the next Public Policy Meeting. There are still a lot of policy issues on the table, many of which touch on the topics we've been discussing here the last few days. Also, feel free to contact me, or any other AC member, if you need any background or other assistance getting up to speed on things. You can find us all at https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac.html. Thanks, Scott VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote: > > Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. > > I think the issue is that small ISP?s (overworked and often > overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. > > I think the ?community? is being represented by a subset that seems to > have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been under-representing the > small ISP?s, which by the way make up the bulk of the community ? the > silent majority in fact. > > I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has been > awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. You might not > be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. > > ~Vaughn > > *From:* Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM > *To:* VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > *Cc:* arin-discuss at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to > RETURN a /20 > > > PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, quote > below) that > ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP space (paid > transfers) > between organizations. Does this seem counter to good stewardship > in a time > of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, this is a > pretty > kind act towards those same early/big assignment holders, isn't it? > > You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party setting policy > > independent of input from the membership or the community. > > While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and circuitous > route > > to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support > > throughout the process. > > It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice in passing > > policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I felt > that the > > community's interests were not represented in the removal of the sunset > > clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring the sunset > > clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude > > that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have > > been incorrect. > > While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer policy is good > > policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating > > in policy development at the time the issue was being considered, there > > was/is strong support for such a policy. > > I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there > > is strong community support for it. However, I do believe that if ARIN > > (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong > > community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the > > policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently certain that the > > relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. > > Owen > > The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking > > for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on > > this subject. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com Fri Jul 24 14:17:26 2009 From: Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com (VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:17:26 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <4A69F8C2.5030506@chl.com> References: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <4A69F8C2.5030506@chl.com> Message-ID: <041101ca0c8a$ffa19480$fee4bd80$@com> Hmmm... Can this be pooled? In other words, could "many of us" designate "some of us"? ~V -----Original Message----- From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:09 PM To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Arin allows for Designated Member Representative While this will help with election representation, it wont help much to show consensus for policies. Joe VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote: > I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few million a year in > sales who seriously cannot afford the combined travel costs and lost time of > key staff. Sending the receptionist doesn't do much good. I really feel > like the small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/hire a > competent and loyal representative. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to RETURN a > /20 > > When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned that the > small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should be. I was told that > I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the small ISP, rural ISP is still > overlooked. > > The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases the money to > fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped > that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. > > Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while generally a good > idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the small guy. Must small ISP's > don't attend NANOG either, for much the same reasons. > > This creates an impression that personal participation in ARIN is > limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to spend $1500 or more > in travel and other costs to attend an ARIN meeting. > > As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, participation > is key. Whinning is non-productive, constructive suggestions are > productive. > > There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many of those on > this list have been involved with netops for decades, many of the > questions have been asked and answered before, newer people now getting > involved will ask those questions again. It may be useful for the AC to > work on a list of "common" questions for the website. > > 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. > Pre ARIN allocated > Pre InterNIC allocated > > Etc. > > > > In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the questions > that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. > > A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs allocated > needs to be conducted. > > > With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to town, get > your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or be by-passed. The > fact that your provider doesn't have it yet is an invalid excuse. Get > it working internally, use a tunnel broker, but get it working. Then > BUG THE HECK out of your providers sales guy every other week. They > will get the message. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN >> THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM >> To: 'Owen DeLong' >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd >> like to RETURN a /20 >> >> Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. >> >> >> >> I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often >> overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. >> >> >> >> I think the "community" is being represented by a subset that >> seems to have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been >> under-representing the small ISP's, which by the way make up >> the bulk of the community - the silent majority in fact. >> >> >> >> I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has >> been awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. >> You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. >> >> >> >> ~Vaughn >> >> >> >> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM >> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd >> like to RETURN a /20 >> >> >> >> >> PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, >> quote below) that >> ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP >> space (paid transfers) >> between organizations. Does this seem counter to good >> stewardship in a time >> of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, >> this is a pretty >> kind act towards those same early/big assignment >> holders, isn't it? >> >> >> >> You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party >> setting policy >> >> independent of input from the membership or the community. >> >> >> >> While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and >> circuitous route >> >> to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support >> >> throughout the process. >> >> >> >> It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice >> in passing >> >> policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I >> felt that the >> >> community's interests were not represented in the removal of >> the sunset >> >> clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring >> the sunset >> >> clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude >> >> that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have >> >> been incorrect. >> >> >> >> While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer policy is good >> >> policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating >> >> in policy development at the time the issue was being >> considered, there >> >> was/is strong support for such a policy. >> >> >> >> I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there >> >> is strong community support for it. However, I do believe >> that if ARIN >> >> (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong >> >> community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the >> >> policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently >> certain that the >> >> relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. >> >> >> >> Owen >> >> >> >> The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking >> >> for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on >> >> this subject. >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > From scottleibrand at gmail.com Fri Jul 24 14:25:53 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:25:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Participating in ARIN elections In-Reply-To: <041101ca0c8a$ffa19480$fee4bd80$@com> References: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <4A69F8C2.5030506@chl.com> <041101ca0c8a$ffa19480$fee4bd80$@com> Message-ID: <4A69FCB1.8060804@gmail.com> When it comes to elections, the effort required to cast your own ballot is about the same as that required to designate someone else to do it. I would encourage everyone to make use of the "statements of support" on the candidates' pages to indicate which candidates you support and why, and take such statements into consideration when casting your ballot. If "some of us" make the effort to do such research and summarize it for others, then the "many of us" with less time to do so can use that information to help make an informed decision. -Scott VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote: > Hmmm... > > Can this be pooled? In other words, could "many of us" designate "some of > us"? > > ~V > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:09 PM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN > a /20 > > Arin allows for Designated Member Representative > > While this will help with election representation, it wont help much to > show consensus for policies. > > Joe > > VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote: > >> I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few million a year >> > in > >> sales who seriously cannot afford the combined travel costs and lost time >> > of > >> key staff. Sending the receptionist doesn't do much good. I really feel >> like the small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/hire a >> competent and loyal representative. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM >> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to RETURN >> > a > >> /20 >> >> When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned that the >> small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should be. I was told that >> I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the small ISP, rural ISP is still >> overlooked. >> >> The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases the money to >> fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped >> that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. >> >> Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while generally a good >> idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the small guy. Must small ISP's >> don't attend NANOG either, for much the same reasons. >> >> This creates an impression that personal participation in ARIN is >> limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to spend $1500 or more >> in travel and other costs to attend an ARIN meeting. >> >> As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, participation >> is key. Whinning is non-productive, constructive suggestions are >> productive. >> >> There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many of those on >> this list have been involved with netops for decades, many of the >> questions have been asked and answered before, newer people now getting >> involved will ask those questions again. It may be useful for the AC to >> work on a list of "common" questions for the website. >> >> 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. >> Pre ARIN allocated >> Pre InterNIC allocated >> >> Etc. >> >> >> >> In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the questions >> that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. >> >> A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs allocated >> needs to be conducted. >> >> >> With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to town, get >> your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or be by-passed. The >> fact that your provider doesn't have it yet is an invalid excuse. Get >> it working internally, use a tunnel broker, but get it working. Then >> BUG THE HECK out of your providers sales guy every other week. They >> will get the message. >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN >>> THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM >>> To: 'Owen DeLong' >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd >>> like to RETURN a /20 >>> >>> Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often >>> overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the "community" is being represented by a subset that >>> seems to have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been >>> under-representing the small ISP's, which by the way make up >>> the bulk of the community - the silent majority in fact. >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has >>> been awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. >>> You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. >>> >>> >>> >>> ~Vaughn >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM >>> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd >>> like to RETURN a /20 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, >>> quote below) that >>> ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP >>> space (paid transfers) >>> between organizations. Does this seem counter to good >>> stewardship in a time >>> of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, >>> this is a pretty >>> kind act towards those same early/big assignment >>> holders, isn't it? >>> >>> >>> >>> You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party >>> setting policy >>> >>> independent of input from the membership or the community. >>> >>> >>> >>> While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and >>> circuitous route >>> >>> to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support >>> >>> throughout the process. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice >>> in passing >>> >>> policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I >>> felt that the >>> >>> community's interests were not represented in the removal of >>> the sunset >>> >>> clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring >>> the sunset >>> >>> clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude >>> >>> that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have >>> >>> been incorrect. >>> >>> >>> >>> While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer policy is good >>> >>> policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating >>> >>> in policy development at the time the issue was being >>> considered, there >>> >>> was/is strong support for such a policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there >>> >>> is strong community support for it. However, I do believe >>> that if ARIN >>> >>> (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong >>> >>> community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the >>> >>> policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently >>> certain that the >>> >>> relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> >>> The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking >>> >>> for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on >>> >>> this subject. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From scottleibrand at gmail.com Fri Jul 24 14:20:18 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:20:18 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Participation, nominations, and elections In-Reply-To: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7CC@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> References: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7CC@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> Message-ID: <4A69FB62.9020708@gmail.com> Good point, John, and timely: nominations for the Board, AC, and NRO Number Council open next week, on July 27th. https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/elec_calendar.html We can use all the qualified nominees we can get. For the AC in particular, here's the details on nominees: https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/ac.html#acreqmts Thanks, Scott John Brown wrote: > Actually what the small ISP's need to do is to place people on the AC > and on the BoT. > > Find people within the small guy world that have clue and get them > nominated and then get them elected to the BoT and or the AC. (note > well, I believe that the BoT and AC have generally done a good job.) > > Internet governance is a "stakeholder" (ducking now) driven process. So > if you give a darn, you have to participate in a meaning full manner. > And be willing to invest in your time for the betterment of the entire > community. > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN >> THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:41 AM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd >> like to RETURN a /20 >> >> I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few >> million a year in sales who seriously cannot afford the >> combined travel costs and lost time of key staff. Sending the >> receptionist doesn't do much good. I really feel like the >> small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/hire >> a competent and loyal representative. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM >> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd >> like to RETURN a /20 >> >> When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned >> that the small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should >> be. I was told that I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the >> small ISP, rural ISP is still overlooked. >> >> The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases >> the money to >> fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped >> that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. >> >> Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while >> generally a good idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the >> small guy. Must small ISP's don't attend NANOG either, for >> much the same reasons. >> >> This creates an impression that personal participation in >> ARIN is limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to >> spend $1500 or more in travel and other costs to attend an >> ARIN meeting. >> >> As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, >> participation is key. Whinning is non-productive, >> constructive suggestions are productive. >> >> There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many >> of those on this list have been involved with netops for >> decades, many of the questions have been asked and answered >> before, newer people now getting involved will ask those >> questions again. It may be useful for the AC to work on a >> list of "common" questions for the website. >> >> 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. >> Pre ARIN allocated >> Pre InterNIC allocated >> >> Etc. >> >> >> >> In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the >> questions that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. >> >> A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs >> allocated needs to be conducted. >> >> >> With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to >> town, get your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or >> be by-passed. The fact that your provider doesn't have it >> yet is an invalid excuse. Get it working internally, use a >> tunnel broker, but get it working. Then BUG THE HECK out of >> your providers sales guy every other week. They will get the >> message. >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN >>> >> THURMAN - >> >>> SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM >>> To: 'Owen DeLong' >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to >>> RETURN a /20 >>> >>> Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often >>> overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the "community" is being represented by a subset >>> >> that seems to >> >>> have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been >>> >> under-representing the >> >>> small ISP's, which by the way make up the bulk of the >>> >> community - the >> >>> silent majority in fact. >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has been >>> awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. >>> You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. >>> >>> >>> >>> ~Vaughn >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM >>> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, >>> >> I'd like to >> >>> RETURN a /20 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, >>> >> quote below) >> >>> that >>> ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP >>> >> space (paid >> >>> transfers) >>> between organizations. Does this seem counter to good >>> >> stewardship in >> >>> a time >>> of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, >>> >> this is a >> >>> pretty >>> kind act towards those same early/big assignment >>> >> holders, isn't it? >> >>> >>> >>> You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party setting >>> policy >>> >>> independent of input from the membership or the community. >>> >>> >>> >>> While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and >>> >> circuitous >> >>> route >>> >>> to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support >>> >>> throughout the process. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice in >>> passing >>> >>> policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I felt >>> that the >>> >>> community's interests were not represented in the removal of the >>> sunset >>> >>> clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring the >>> sunset >>> >>> clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude >>> >>> that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have >>> >>> been incorrect. >>> >>> >>> >>> While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer >>> >> policy is good >> >>> policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating >>> >>> in policy development at the time the issue was being considered, >>> there >>> >>> was/is strong support for such a policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there >>> >>> is strong community support for it. However, I do believe that if >>> ARIN >>> >>> (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong >>> >>> community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the >>> >>> policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently >>> >> certain that >> >>> the >>> >>> relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> >>> The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking >>> >>> for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on >>> >>> this subject. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From alan at peak.org Fri Jul 24 14:35:03 2009 From: alan at peak.org (Alan Batie) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:35:03 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> References: <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> Message-ID: <4A69FED7.1050906@peak.org> John Brown wrote: > With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to town, get > your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or be by-passed. The > fact that your provider doesn't have it yet is an invalid excuse. Get > it working internally, use a tunnel broker, but get it working. FWIW, I concur: that's exactly what we're doing. Because the traffic is nearly non-existent at the moment, we're getting away with cheap gear when the existing routers don't support ipv6 (alix/monowall) just to get something working to play with, migrating to the real gear over time as it becomes capable. From erik at emctelecom.com Fri Jul 24 14:49:45 2009 From: erik at emctelecom.com (Erik Zeiner) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:49:45 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <000c01ca0c86$14887a80$3d996f80$@com> References: <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7CC@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <000c01ca0c86$14887a80$3d996f80$@com> Message-ID: <4D52FA88-EBC6-456E-A43A-5ECB3964462B@emctelecom.com> Unsubscribe. Sincerely, Erik ************************************* On Jul 24, 2009, at 10:42 AM, "Heidi Dohse" wrote: > Ok - I hadn't planned to go to the Michigan meeting. I have changed > my mind. > > > In the past I have worked for the "Big Guy" with lots of resources. > Currently I am working with a rural "small guy" provider and I am the > resource (sad but true). When I first started, 15 years ago, the IP > world > was pretty much just data traffic. Now the IP world consists of > Voice, Data > and convergent communication networks that deliver it all. The > number of IP > driven end-user devices is just going to keep growing. I guess it > will take > all of us working together so we don't break the network. My company > is in > the process of making sure that we will be IPv6 compatible, but need > to > request additional IPv4 space too. > > If I can help be an advocate for small ISPs - though I can't > guarantee that > I have a clue (per the email below :-) - I am willing to be involved. > > Cheers, > > Heidi Dohse > NuWave Communications > heidi at nuwave.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of John Brown > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:51 AM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to > RETURN > a /20 > > Actually what the small ISP's need to do is to place people on the AC > and on the BoT. > > Find people within the small guy world that have clue and get them > nominated and then get them elected to the BoT and or the AC. (note > well, I believe that the BoT and AC have generally done a good job.) > > Internet governance is a "stakeholder" (ducking now) driven > process. So > if you give a darn, you have to participate in a meaning full manner. > And be willing to invest in your time for the betterment of the entire > community. > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN >> THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:41 AM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd >> like to RETURN a /20 >> >> I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few >> million a year in sales who seriously cannot afford the >> combined travel costs and lost time of key staff. Sending the >> receptionist doesn't do much good. I really feel like the >> small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/hire >> a competent and loyal representative. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM >> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd >> like to RETURN a /20 >> >> When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned >> that the small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should >> be. I was told that I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the >> small ISP, rural ISP is still overlooked. >> >> The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases >> the money to >> fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped >> that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. >> >> Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while >> generally a good idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the >> small guy. Must small ISP's don't attend NANOG either, for >> much the same reasons. >> >> This creates an impression that personal participation in >> ARIN is limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to >> spend $1500 or more in travel and other costs to attend an >> ARIN meeting. >> >> As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, >> participation is key. Whinning is non-productive, >> constructive suggestions are productive. >> >> There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many >> of those on this list have been involved with netops for >> decades, many of the questions have been asked and answered >> before, newer people now getting involved will ask those >> questions again. It may be useful for the AC to work on a >> list of "common" questions for the website. >> >> 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. >> Pre ARIN allocated >> Pre InterNIC allocated >> >> Etc. >> >> >> >> In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the >> questions that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. >> >> A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs >> allocated needs to be conducted. >> >> >> With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to >> town, get your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or >> be by-passed. The fact that your provider doesn't have it >> yet is an invalid excuse. Get it working internally, use a >> tunnel broker, but get it working. Then BUG THE HECK out of >> your providers sales guy every other week. They will get the >> message. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN >> THURMAN - >>> SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM >>> To: 'Owen DeLong' >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to >>> RETURN a /20 >>> >>> Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often >>> overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the "community" is being represented by a subset >> that seems to >>> have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been >> under-representing the >>> small ISP's, which by the way make up the bulk of the >> community - the >>> silent majority in fact. >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has been >>> awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. >>> You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. >>> >>> >>> >>> ~Vaughn >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM >>> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, >> I'd like to >>> RETURN a /20 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, >> quote below) >>> that >>> ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP >> space (paid >>> transfers) >>> between organizations. Does this seem counter to good >> stewardship in >>> a time >>> of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, >> this is a >>> pretty >>> kind act towards those same early/big assignment >> holders, isn't it? >>> >>> >>> >>> You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party setting >>> policy >>> >>> independent of input from the membership or the community. >>> >>> >>> >>> While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and >> circuitous >>> route >>> >>> to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support >>> >>> throughout the process. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice in >>> passing >>> >>> policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I felt >>> that the >>> >>> community's interests were not represented in the removal of the >>> sunset >>> >>> clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring the >>> sunset >>> >>> clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude >>> >>> that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have >>> >>> been incorrect. >>> >>> >>> >>> While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer >> policy is good >>> >>> policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating >>> >>> in policy development at the time the issue was being considered, >>> there >>> >>> was/is strong support for such a policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there >>> >>> is strong community support for it. However, I do believe that if >>> ARIN >>> >>> (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong >>> >>> community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the >>> >>> policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently >> certain that >>> the >>> >>> relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> >>> The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking >>> >>> for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on >>> >>> this subject. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From alex.ryu at kdlinc.com Fri Jul 24 15:03:52 2009 From: alex.ryu at kdlinc.com (Alex H. Ryu) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:03:52 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <4D52FA88-EBC6-456E-A43A-5ECB3964462B@emctelecom.com> References: <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7CC@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <000c01ca0c86$14887a80$3d996f80$@com> <4D52FA88-EBC6-456E-A43A-5ECB3964462B@emctelecom.com> Message-ID: <278B5E4BCD5E654385A9F83C7CA6D517A081BD113A@MAILBOX-01.qcommcorp.ad> For someone who wants to unscribe this mailing-list, please look at the bottom signature. It is clearly saying... " Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss " Every 1st day of each month, you get login/password credential for above website to manage your subscription setting. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Fri Jul 24 16:19:05 2009 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Membership representation In-Reply-To: <041101ca0c8a$ffa19480$fee4bd80$@com> References: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <4A69F8C2.5030506@chl.com> <041101ca0c8a$ffa19480$fee4bd80$@com> Message-ID: <755252.35831.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > Can this be pooled? In other words, could "many of us" designate "some of > us"? I'm veering out-of-charter for this mailing list, but I think this may be useful to many people on this list. . . The policy development process is documented at https://www.arin.net/participate/how_to_participate.html Informal version follows (or skip to see some other links) . . . Let's say you have an idea for a new policy or a policy change. The current Number Resource Policy Manual is at https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html You can fill out the template (very simple) at https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html and email it to policy at arin.net. They'll give it a number for tracking and send it to the Advisory Council (AC). Somebody on the AC may contact you for discussion, or they may say, "This is definitely worth talking about more." You do not need to be a member to propose policy. If you want some discussion before proposing, you can just post to arin-ppml, or pick a random-looking AC member (https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac.html you'll see that some of them look pretty random) and send them email, or you can come to the Open Policy Hour, usually held the night before the ARIN meeting actually starts. Once your proposal is in, Member Services sends it to PPML. Once the proposal hits the mailing list, a lively discussion starts. Or maybe no discussion, because your idea is so obvious nobody cares to object. The AC may rework the proposal in response to comments. If at some point, the AC decides to stop working on a proposal, there's always an opportunity for the community to object (and the means to petition is always sent out after the AC abandons work). Before a Public Policy Meeting, the AC determines that it has good words, and invites staff and legal counsel to review. The proposal is discussed at the meeting, so that there's a fair chance for people to discover new ideas; remote participation (webcast, with text comments read aloud) works pretty well: https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXIV/remote.html See also below, "What to expect from ARIN meetings." After the meeting, the AC meets and discusses whether there has been consensus on the mailing list and at the meeting, or whether the proposal still needs work. If they're satisfied that the proposal has support and is as good as it will get, the proposal gets sent out for Last Call. If anything did not get full consideration, or a new point has come up, this is your chance to bring it up. After Last Call, the AC recommends adoption to the Board. Unless the Board has serious objections, we adopt the policy. As you can see, the AC is critical to the process. They are unpaid volunteers, although we do cover their travel expenses to ARIN meetings. They're also elected, and you as a member get to vote for some of them every fall. Some other things I've described in the past: What to expect from ARIN meetings: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2009-June/001261.html Size of organizations at public policy meeting: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-April/013796.html Why does ARIN charge so much? http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-September/011845.html How much time would we gain from reclamation? http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-August/011711.html Years ago I looked at who participated in ARIN by organization size, based on posts to PPML, but I can't find it now. I'm pretty confident that if you look at http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-June/author.html you'll find a wide distribution of representation. If your name isn't there, then at least make sure there's somebody there (or on the AC) who generally shares your point of view. Encouragement to attend meetings: admission is free for Designated Member Representatives, breakfast, lunch, snacks and some dinners are included, you can get from BWI to DTW for $118 round trip, and you can find hotels for < $90/night within a mile of the Hyatt Regency. Hope to see you there! Lee From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 24 16:30:11 2009 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:30:11 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <041101ca0c8a$ffa19480$fee4bd80$@com> References: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <4A69F8C2.5030506@chl.com> <041101ca0c8a$ffa19480$fee4bd80$@com> Message-ID: <770C90F6-458C-427B-AC13-28AEFBEC5B4B@delong.com> Designated Member Representative is the person at an ARIN member organization who is designated to vote in ARIN elections. There is no voting directly on policy matters. Instead, the Advisory Council evaluates feedback from the community in a variety of fora, including, but not limited to: PPML Meetings Remote Participation at Meetings If the advisory council determines that a policy proposal is good policy and that there is community consensus around the proposal, then, we recommend it for adoption to the Board of Trustees. The Board, upon receiving such a recommendation from the AC reviews the policy to confirm that the ARIN Policy Development Process was properly followed and that the policy would not be a violation of the Boards fiduciary duties to the membership of the organization. If the board finds that those two conditions are met, they ratify the policy and staff implements it. This is a summary from memory, so, I apologize if it contains any mistakes on the details, but, I think it is a reasonably accurate overview of the process. Bottom line is that you can't designate a proxy, but, you CAN make your input known to the process by participating on PPML even if you do not attend a meeting. Further, you can attend the meeting through remote participation at nearly zero cost if you have an internet connection. It will still cost you whatever the bandwidth costs and your time to participate, but, at least it doesn't require a huge travel budget and is not a major time commitment (meetings only last 2 days). Owen On Jul 24, 2009, at 11:17 AM, VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote: > Hmmm... > > Can this be pooled? In other words, could "many of us" designate > "some of > us"? > > ~V > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:09 PM > To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to > RETURN > a /20 > > Arin allows for Designated Member Representative > > While this will help with election representation, it wont help much > to > show consensus for policies. > > Joe > > VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote: >> I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few million a >> year > in >> sales who seriously cannot afford the combined travel costs and >> lost time > of >> key staff. Sending the receptionist doesn't do much good. I really >> feel >> like the small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/ >> hire a >> competent and loyal representative. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM >> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to >> RETURN > a >> /20 >> >> When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned that >> the >> small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should be. I was told >> that >> I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the small ISP, rural ISP is >> still >> overlooked. >> >> The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases the >> money to >> fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped >> that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. >> >> Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while generally a good >> idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the small guy. Must small >> ISP's >> don't attend NANOG either, for much the same reasons. >> >> This creates an impression that personal participation in ARIN is >> limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to spend $1500 or >> more >> in travel and other costs to attend an ARIN meeting. >> >> As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, >> participation >> is key. Whinning is non-productive, constructive suggestions are >> productive. >> >> There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many of >> those on >> this list have been involved with netops for decades, many of the >> questions have been asked and answered before, newer people now >> getting >> involved will ask those questions again. It may be useful for the >> AC to >> work on a list of "common" questions for the website. >> >> 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. >> Pre ARIN allocated >> Pre InterNIC allocated >> >> Etc. >> >> >> >> In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the questions >> that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. >> >> A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs allocated >> needs to be conducted. >> >> >> With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to town, >> get >> your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or be by-passed. >> The >> fact that your provider doesn't have it yet is an invalid excuse. >> Get >> it working internally, use a tunnel broker, but get it working. Then >> BUG THE HECK out of your providers sales guy every other week. They >> will get the message. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN >>> THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM >>> To: 'Owen DeLong' >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd >>> like to RETURN a /20 >>> >>> Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often >>> overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the "community" is being represented by a subset that >>> seems to have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been >>> under-representing the small ISP's, which by the way make up >>> the bulk of the community - the silent majority in fact. >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has >>> been awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. >>> You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. >>> >>> >>> >>> ~Vaughn >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM >>> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd >>> like to RETURN a /20 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, >>> quote below) that >>> ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP >>> space (paid transfers) >>> between organizations. Does this seem counter to good >>> stewardship in a time >>> of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, >>> this is a pretty >>> kind act towards those same early/big assignment >>> holders, isn't it? >>> >>> >>> >>> You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party >>> setting policy >>> >>> independent of input from the membership or the community. >>> >>> >>> >>> While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and >>> circuitous route >>> >>> to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support >>> >>> throughout the process. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice >>> in passing >>> >>> policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I >>> felt that the >>> >>> community's interests were not represented in the removal of >>> the sunset >>> >>> clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring >>> the sunset >>> >>> clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude >>> >>> that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have >>> >>> been incorrect. >>> >>> >>> >>> While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer policy is >>> good >>> >>> policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating >>> >>> in policy development at the time the issue was being >>> considered, there >>> >>> was/is strong support for such a policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there >>> >>> is strong community support for it. However, I do believe >>> that if ARIN >>> >>> (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong >>> >>> community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the >>> >>> policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently >>> certain that the >>> >>> relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> >>> The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking >>> >>> for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on >>> >>> this subject. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Fri Jul 24 21:09:24 2009 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:09:24 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <770C90F6-458C-427B-AC13-28AEFBEC5B4B@delong.com> References: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <4A69F8C2.5030506@chl.com> <041101ca0c8a$ffa19480$fee4bd80$@com> <770C90F6-458C-427B-AC13-28AEFBEC5B4B@delong.com> Message-ID: <4607e1d50907241809p66ec1e4eld46c6f5c0e155b20@mail.gmail.com> Where does it say you can't designate a proxy as the DMR? I believe we can designate someone as our proxy by assigning them as DMR. Best Regards, Martin On 7/24/09, Owen DeLong wrote: > Designated Member Representative is the person at an ARIN member > organization > who is designated to vote in ARIN elections. > > There is no voting directly on policy matters. Instead, the Advisory > Council evaluates > feedback from the community in a variety of fora, including, but not > limited to: > > PPML > Meetings > Remote Participation at Meetings > > If the advisory council determines that a policy proposal is good > policy and that there > is community consensus around the proposal, then, we recommend it for > adoption > to the Board of Trustees. > > The Board, upon receiving such a recommendation from the AC reviews > the policy > to confirm that the ARIN Policy Development Process was properly > followed and > that the policy would not be a violation of the Boards fiduciary > duties to the membership > of the organization. If the board finds that those two conditions are > met, they > ratify the policy and staff implements it. > > This is a summary from memory, so, I apologize if it contains any > mistakes on the > details, but, I think it is a reasonably accurate overview of the > process. > > Bottom line is that you can't designate a proxy, but, you CAN make > your input known > to the process by participating on PPML even if you do not attend a > meeting. > > Further, you can attend the meeting through remote participation at > nearly zero > cost if you have an internet connection. It will still cost you > whatever the bandwidth > costs and your time to participate, but, at least it doesn't require a > huge travel > budget and is not a major time commitment (meetings only last 2 days). > > Owen > > On Jul 24, 2009, at 11:17 AM, VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote: > >> Hmmm... >> >> Can this be pooled? In other words, could "many of us" designate >> "some of >> us"? >> >> ~V >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:09 PM >> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to >> RETURN >> a /20 >> >> Arin allows for Designated Member Representative >> >> While this will help with election representation, it wont help much >> to >> show consensus for policies. >> >> Joe >> >> VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote: >>> I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few million a >>> year >> in >>> sales who seriously cannot afford the combined travel costs and >>> lost time >> of >>> key staff. Sending the receptionist doesn't do much good. I really >>> feel >>> like the small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/ >>> hire a >>> competent and loyal representative. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] >>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM >>> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to >>> RETURN >> a >>> /20 >>> >>> When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned that >>> the >>> small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should be. I was told >>> that >>> I was incorrect. Hmm, I still think the small ISP, rural ISP is >>> still >>> overlooked. >>> >>> The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases the >>> money to >>> fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city. I had hoped >>> that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings. >>> >>> Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while generally a good >>> idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the small guy. Must small >>> ISP's >>> don't attend NANOG either, for much the same reasons. >>> >>> This creates an impression that personal participation in ARIN is >>> limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to spend $1500 or >>> more >>> in travel and other costs to attend an ARIN meeting. >>> >>> As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, >>> participation >>> is key. Whinning is non-productive, constructive suggestions are >>> productive. >>> >>> There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at. Many of >>> those on >>> this list have been involved with netops for decades, many of the >>> questions have been asked and answered before, newer people now >>> getting >>> involved will ask those questions again. It may be useful for the >>> AC to >>> work on a list of "common" questions for the website. >>> >>> 1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space. >>> Pre ARIN allocated >>> Pre InterNIC allocated >>> >>> Etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the questions >>> that come forward. There could be good ideas in there. >>> >>> A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs allocated >>> needs to be conducted. >>> >>> >>> With respects to IPv6. Bottom line. That train is coming to town, >>> get >>> your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or be by-passed. >>> The >>> fact that your provider doesn't have it yet is an invalid excuse. >>> Get >>> it working internally, use a tunnel broker, but get it working. Then >>> BUG THE HECK out of your providers sales guy every other week. They >>> will get the message. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN >>>> THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM >>>> To: 'Owen DeLong' >>>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd >>>> like to RETURN a /20 >>>> >>>> Thanks for fleshing that out Owen. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often >>>> overwhelmed) have not been paying attention. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the "community" is being represented by a subset that >>>> seems to have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been >>>> under-representing the small ISP's, which by the way make up >>>> the bulk of the community - the silent majority in fact. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has >>>> been awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now. >>>> You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ~Vaughn >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM >>>> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC >>>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd >>>> like to RETURN a /20 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> PS. I also just learned (from an offline conversation, >>>> quote below) that >>>> ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP >>>> space (paid transfers) >>>> between organizations. Does this seem counter to good >>>> stewardship in a time >>>> of impending depletion? If I have my head on straight, >>>> this is a pretty >>>> kind act towards those same early/big assignment >>>> holders, isn't it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party >>>> setting policy >>>> >>>> independent of input from the membership or the community. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and >>>> circuitous route >>>> >>>> to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support >>>> >>>> throughout the process. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice >>>> in passing >>>> >>>> policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I >>>> felt that the >>>> >>>> community's interests were not represented in the removal of >>>> the sunset >>>> >>>> clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring >>>> the sunset >>>> >>>> clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude >>>> >>>> that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have >>>> >>>> been incorrect. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer policy is >>>> good >>>> >>>> policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating >>>> >>>> in policy development at the time the issue was being >>>> considered, there >>>> >>>> was/is strong support for such a policy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there >>>> >>>> is strong community support for it. However, I do believe >>>> that if ARIN >>>> >>>> (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong >>>> >>>> community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the >>>> >>>> policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently >>>> certain that the >>>> >>>> relaxed transfer policy is bad policy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The opinions above are mine and mine alone. I am not speaking >>>> >>>> for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on >>>> >>>> this subject. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Fri Jul 24 22:02:18 2009 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:02:18 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50907241809p66ec1e4eld46c6f5c0e155b20@mail.gmail.com> References: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <4A69F8C2.5030506@chl.com> <041101ca0c8a$ffa19480$fee4bd80$@com> <770C90F6-458C-427B-AC13-28AEFBEC5B4B@delong.com> <4607e1d50907241809p66ec1e4eld46c6f5c0e155b20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4607e1d50907241902m34f22cc2k5b176272c8c22ce5@mail.gmail.com> Owen sent me [another] private email displaying confusion. Let me restate this [publicly] for clarity sake: > > On 7/24/09, Owen DeLong wrote: That would be you, Owen Delong, the author. [ snip ] >> >> Bottom line is that you can't designate a proxy, but, you CAN make >> your input known >> to the process by participating on PPML even if you do not attend a >> meeting. That would be what you said. Your text. "Where does it say you can't designate a proxy as the DMR? I believe we can designate someone as our proxy by assigning them as DMR." That would be me, yours truly, addressing your incorrect assertion. "Each General Member shall name one designated member representative to vote on its behalf in any ARIN general election for the Board of Trustees and Advisory Council and other matters related to ARIN." That would be a quote from the ARIN bylaws. "The DMR must have a name and personalized e-mail address on record with the Member Services Department to be eligible to vote. The e-mail must include the person's name or initials and the organization's domain name. Role accounts are not acceptable." That would be from the ARIN website. Personally, I question that validity of ARIN requiring that form for the DMR without it being codified in the by-laws or even a community policy. Any email address should suffice as long as it is properly directed by the member. Regardless, the bottom line is yes, you can in fact assign a proxy to cast your vote if you so choose. Best, Regards, Martin From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 24 22:53:34 2009 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:53:34 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50907241902m34f22cc2k5b176272c8c22ce5@mail.gmail.com> References: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <4A69F8C2.5030506@chl.com> <041101ca0c8a$ffa19480$fee4bd80$@com> <770C90F6-458C-427B-AC13-28AEFBEC5B4B@delong.com> <4607e1d50907241809p66ec1e4eld46c6f5c0e155b20@mail.gmail.com> <4607e1d50907241902m34f22cc2k5b176272c8c22ce5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 24, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Owen sent me [another] private email displaying confusion. Let me > restate this [publicly] for clarity sake: > > >> >> On 7/24/09, Owen DeLong wrote: > > That would be you, Owen Delong, the author. > Yep. > [ snip ] > >>> >>> Bottom line is that you can't designate a proxy, but, you CAN make >>> your input known >>> to the process by participating on PPML even if you do not attend a >>> meeting. > > That would be what you said. Your text. > Yep... Which clearly refers to POLICY and not to Elections which is the only role a DMR really has. > "Where does it say you can't designate a proxy as the DMR? I believe > we > can designate someone as our proxy by assigning them as DMR." > You can't designate a proxy for POLICY matters which is what the context of the rest of my post made pretty clear. Additionally you can't really appoint a PROXY for your DMR, so much as you can appoint anyone you chose AS your DMR. > > "Each General Member shall name one designated member representative > to vote on its behalf in any ARIN general election for the Board of > Trustees and Advisory Council and other matters related to ARIN." > Right... ELECTIONS. Nothing to do with POLICY, the subject of my post. > That would be a quote from the ARIN bylaws. > > "The DMR must have a name and personalized e-mail address on record > with the Member Services Department to be eligible to vote. The e-mail > must include the person's name or initials and the organization's > domain name. Role accounts are not acceptable." > > That would be from the ARIN website. > > Personally, I question that validity of ARIN requiring that form for > the DMR without it being codified in the by-laws or even a community > policy. Any email address should suffice as long as it is properly > directed by the member. > I'll leave that between you and the BoT who are responsible for those decisions. > Regardless, the bottom line is yes, you can in fact assign a proxy to > cast your vote if you so choose. > Sure, in elections. However, since the discussion was about how to affect POLICY discussions and "votes", the DMR is a rathole to the original discussion and really has nothing to do with the subject. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2105 bytes Desc: not available URL: From john.sweeting at twcable.com Sat Jul 25 09:04:38 2009 From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 09:04:38 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 Message-ID: <58174FA985B92A42B9E3142C4DD2CC0405EC0A1A@PRVPVSMAIL07.corp.twcable.com> Just a quick question: Does anyone believe that the results of the elections do not affect and influence POLICY? ________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net To: Martin Hannigan Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: Fri Jul 24 22:53:34 2009 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to RETURN a /20 On Jul 24, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: Owen sent me [another] private email displaying confusion. Let me restate this [publicly] for clarity sake: On 7/24/09, Owen DeLong wrote: That would be you, Owen Delong, the author. Yep. [ snip ] Bottom line is that you can't designate a proxy, but, you CAN make your input known to the process by participating on PPML even if you do not attend a meeting. That would be what you said. Your text. Yep... Which clearly refers to POLICY and not to Elections which is the only role a DMR really has. "Where does it say you can't designate a proxy as the DMR? I believe we can designate someone as our proxy by assigning them as DMR." You can't designate a proxy for POLICY matters which is what the context of the rest of my post made pretty clear. Additionally you can't really appoint a PROXY for your DMR, so much as you can appoint anyone you chose AS your DMR. "Each General Member shall name one designated member representative to vote on its behalf in any ARIN general election for the Board of Trustees and Advisory Council and other matters related to ARIN." Right... ELECTIONS. Nothing to do with POLICY, the subject of my post. That would be a quote from the ARIN bylaws. "The DMR must have a name and personalized e-mail address on record with the Member Services Department to be eligible to vote. The e-mail must include the person's name or initials and the organization's domain name. Role accounts are not acceptable." That would be from the ARIN website. Personally, I question that validity of ARIN requiring that form for the DMR without it being codified in the by-laws or even a community policy. Any email address should suffice as long as it is properly directed by the member. I'll leave that between you and the BoT who are responsible for those decisions. Regardless, the bottom line is yes, you can in fact assign a proxy to cast your vote if you so choose. Sure, in elections. However, since the discussion was about how to affect POLICY discussions and "votes", the DMR is a rathole to the original discussion and really has nothing to do with the subject. Owen This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Sat Jul 25 09:06:49 2009 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 09:06:49 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50907241902m34f22cc2k5b176272c8c22ce5@mail.gmail.com> References: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <4A69F8C2.5030506@chl.com> <041101ca0c8a$ffa19480$fee4bd80$@com> <770C90F6-458C-427B-AC13-28AEFBEC5B4B@delong.com> <4607e1d50907241809p66ec1e4eld46c6f5c0e155b20@mail.gmail.com> <4607e1d50907241902m34f22cc2k5b176272c8c22ce5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 24, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > ... > "The DMR must have a name and personalized e-mail address on record > with the Member Services Department to be eligible to vote. The e-mail > must include the person's name or initials and the organization's > domain name. Role accounts are not acceptable." > > That would be from the ARIN website. > > Personally, I question that validity of ARIN requiring that form for > the DMR without it being codified in the by-laws or even a community > policy. Any email address should suffice as long as it is properly > directed by the member. Martin - I keep the train moving the right direction and on time, but it's your ARIN as much as the next persons to suggest how such matters should be handled: /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Sat Jul 25 12:05:08 2009 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:05:08 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: <58174FA985B92A42B9E3142C4DD2CC0405EC0A1A@PRVPVSMAIL07.corp.twcable.com> References: <58174FA985B92A42B9E3142C4DD2CC0405EC0A1A@PRVPVSMAIL07.corp.twcable.com> Message-ID: <4607e1d50907250905y7ac4d685g1f4bd4f6ae9bb9d7@mail.gmail.com> They go hand in hand which is why getting this stuff right as well as participating is critical. Best Regards, Martin On 7/25/09, Sweeting, John wrote: > Just a quick question: Does anyone believe that the results of the elections > do not affect and influence POLICY? > > > > ________________________________ > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > To: Martin Hannigan > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Sent: Fri Jul 24 22:53:34 2009 > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd like to RETURN a > /20 > > > > On Jul 24, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > Owen sent me [another] private email displaying confusion. Let me > restate this [publicly] for clarity sake: > > > > > > On 7/24/09, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > That would be you, Owen Delong, the author. > > > > Yep. > > > [ snip ] > > > > > Bottom line is that you can't designate a proxy, but, you CAN make > > > your input known > > > to the process by participating on PPML even if you do not attend a > > > meeting. > > > > That would be what you said. Your text. > > > > Yep... Which clearly refers to POLICY and not to Elections which is the > only role a DMR really has. > > > "Where does it say you can't designate a proxy as the DMR? I believe we > can designate someone as our proxy by assigning them as DMR." > > > > You can't designate a proxy for POLICY matters which is what the context > of the rest of my post made pretty clear. > > Additionally you can't really appoint a PROXY for your DMR, so much as you > can > appoint anyone you chose AS your DMR. > > > > "Each General Member shall name one designated member representative > to vote on its behalf in any ARIN general election for the Board of > Trustees and Advisory Council and other matters related to ARIN." > > > > Right... ELECTIONS. Nothing to do with POLICY, the subject of my post. > > > That would be a quote from the ARIN bylaws. > > "The DMR must have a name and personalized e-mail address on record > with the Member Services Department to be eligible to vote. The e-mail > must include the person's name or initials and the organization's > domain name. Role accounts are not acceptable." > > That would be from the ARIN website. > > Personally, I question that validity of ARIN requiring that form for > the DMR without it being codified in the by-laws or even a community > policy. Any email address should suffice as long as it is properly > directed by the member. > > > > I'll leave that between you and the BoT who are responsible for those > decisions. > > > Regardless, the bottom line is yes, you can in fact assign a proxy to > cast your vote if you so choose. > > > > Sure, in elections. However, since the discussion was about how to > affect POLICY discussions and "votes", the DMR is a rathole to the > original discussion and really has nothing to do with the subject. > > Owen > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner > Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, > or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail > is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which > it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this > E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents > of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be > unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify > the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any > copy of this E-mail and any printout. > From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Sat Jul 25 12:08:06 2009 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:08:06 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20 In-Reply-To: References: <02ab01ca0c78$f98963a0$ec9c2ae0$@com> <45E6CE14DCD69E4490CF3ACDA767AED108B7C7@deathstar.citylinkfiber.intra> <030901ca0c7d$901597e0$b040c7a0$@com> <4A69F8C2.5030506@chl.com> <041101ca0c8a$ffa19480$fee4bd80$@com> <770C90F6-458C-427B-AC13-28AEFBEC5B4B@delong.com> <4607e1d50907241809p66ec1e4eld46c6f5c0e155b20@mail.gmail.com> <4607e1d50907241902m34f22cc2k5b176272c8c22ce5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4607e1d50907250908o5812e9c7ub914315bc9f56af5@mail.gmail.com> Hey John. I don't think everything needs a formal process.. There are some things that can just get done if they need to be. At a minimum, it spurned a thought by you. Good enough. Best, Martin On 7/25/09, John Curran wrote: > On Jul 24, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> ... >> "The DMR must have a name and personalized e-mail address on record >> with the Member Services Department to be eligible to vote. The e-mail >> must include the person's name or initials and the organization's >> domain name. Role accounts are not acceptable." >> >> That would be from the ARIN website. >> >> Personally, I question that validity of ARIN requiring that form for >> the DMR without it being codified in the by-laws or even a community >> policy. Any email address should suffice as long as it is properly >> directed by the member. > > Martin - > > I keep the train moving the right direction and on time, > but it's your ARIN as much as the next persons to suggest > how such matters should be handled: > > > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > >