From rsm at fast-serv.com Tue Apr 13 13:33:51 2010 From: rsm at fast-serv.com (Randy McAnally) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:33:51 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP Message-ID: <20100413173351.M70910@fast-serv.com> Why are extra-small ISP's with a /21 or /22 of v4 space forced to buy so much v6 IP space and essentially double our fees? I know there's a rebate in effect (for now) but regardless, I'm extremely displeased with this policy. -- Randy From joelja at bogus.com Tue Apr 13 13:51:23 2010 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:51:23 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP In-Reply-To: <20100413173351.M70910@fast-serv.com> References: <20100413173351.M70910@fast-serv.com> Message-ID: <4BC4AF1B.7030308@bogus.com> if you qualify for a /22 or /21 under existing v4 policy then you qualify for a pi direct assignment and that's a /48 minimum... obviously if you're going to hand your customers /48's that won't get you very far. On 4/13/2010 10:33 AM, Randy McAnally wrote: > Why are extra-small ISP's with a /21 or /22 of v4 space forced to buy so much v6 > IP space and essentially double our fees? I know there's a rebate in effect > (for now) but regardless, I'm extremely displeased with this policy. > > -- > Randy > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Apr 14 00:11:23 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:11:23 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP In-Reply-To: <4BC4AF1B.7030308@bogus.com> References: <20100413173351.M70910@fast-serv.com> <4BC4AF1B.7030308@bogus.com> Message-ID: <329031B4-9984-428F-A5F7-6BCF73F867F5@delong.com> You are conflating ISP and End-User policies here. As an ISP, the IPv6 minimum allocation at this time is a /32 as Randy stated. I do wonder, however, what size allocation you would want to receive for IPv6 and how many customers you expect to support with ti. A /40 would only allow you to support, for example, 256 customers. A /40 costs just as much as a /32. Owen On Apr 13, 2010, at 10:51 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > if you qualify for a /22 or /21 under existing v4 policy then you qualify for a pi direct assignment and that's a /48 minimum... obviously if you're going to hand your customers /48's that won't get you very far. > > On 4/13/2010 10:33 AM, Randy McAnally wrote: >> Why are extra-small ISP's with a /21 or /22 of v4 space forced to buy so much v6 >> IP space and essentially double our fees? I know there's a rebate in effect >> (for now) but regardless, I'm extremely displeased with this policy. >> >> -- >> Randy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Wed Apr 14 00:48:45 2010 From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:48:45 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP In-Reply-To: <329031B4-9984-428F-A5F7-6BCF73F867F5@delong.com> References: <20100413173351.M70910@fast-serv.com> <4BC4AF1B.7030308@bogus.com> <329031B4-9984-428F-A5F7-6BCF73F867F5@delong.com> Message-ID: <4BC5492D.4090903@bogus.com> On 04/13/2010 09:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > You are conflating ISP and End-User policies here. No I'm not, you're rigidly sorting entities in one of two bins without examining their circumstances. I can easily envision circumstances where an entity that might plausibly be called an isp, might choose to apply for a direct assignment. size in fact might be one of them, the actual orginazation of their business and it's address utilization might be another. > As an ISP, the IPv6 minimum allocation at this time is a /32 as Randy > stated. > > I do wonder, however, what size allocation you would want to receive > for IPv6 and how many customers you expect to support with ti. A /40 > would only allow you to support, for example, 256 customers. A /40 > costs just as much as a /32. > > Owen > > On Apr 13, 2010, at 10:51 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > >> if you qualify for a /22 or /21 under existing v4 policy then you >> qualify for a pi direct assignment and that's a /48 minimum... >> obviously if you're going to hand your customers /48's that won't >> get you very far. >> >> On 4/13/2010 10:33 AM, Randy McAnally wrote: >>> Why are extra-small ISP's with a /21 or /22 of v4 space forced to >>> buy so much v6 IP space and essentially double our fees? I know >>> there's a rebate in effect (for now) but regardless, I'm >>> extremely displeased with this policy. >>> >>> -- Randy >>> >>> _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You >>> are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >>> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or >>> manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please >>> contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You >> are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or >> manage 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 Apr 14 03:20:21 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:20:21 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP In-Reply-To: <4BC5492D.4090903@bogus.com> References: <20100413173351.M70910@fast-serv.com> <4BC4AF1B.7030308@bogus.com> <329031B4-9984-428F-A5F7-6BCF73F867F5@delong.com> <4BC5492D.4090903@bogus.com> Message-ID: Sent from my iPod On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:48 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > > On 04/13/2010 09:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> You are conflating ISP and End-User policies here. > > No I'm not, you're rigidly sorting entities in one of two bins without > examining their circumstances. > Actually, policy does that. > I can easily envision circumstances where an entity that might > plausibly be called an isp, might choose to apply for a direct > assignment. size in fact might be one of them, the actual orginazation > of their business and it's address utilization might be another. > That only works of he does not want to use customer assigemts as justification for his next block and does not need to swip his customer assignments or serve any downstream ISPs. Seems to me he made it pretty clear he was on the ISP policy category. Owen From john at citylinkfiber.com Wed Apr 14 09:38:39 2010 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:38:39 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > would only allow you to support, for example, 256 customers. A /40 > costs just as much as a /32. > How is cost calculated ? If a v6/40 is the same as a v6/32 then why isn't a v4/20 the same as a v4/17 ? From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 14 09:57:43 2010 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:57:43 +0100 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745805C3F586@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > How is cost calculated ? If a v6/40 is the same as a v6/32 then why > isn't a v4/20 the same as a v4/17 ? Not exactly something that one commits to memory, is it? The Board of Trustees all publish their contact info here: . If you have a question about something, then you should ask them. I have found them to be very responsive. >From the fee schedule page it seems like a graded scale and it's really a matter of how do you slice and dice the increments in the scale. --Michael Dillon P.S. In any case, the IPv6 addresses don't cost anything at all, so it is more a matter of how heavly, on average, they expect that you will use ARIN's services. P.P.S. the minutes of all the ARIN member meetings are up on the web, so you might even be able to find the answer by trawling through there looking for the finance committe reports whenever fees have changed. From rcarpen at network1.net Fri Apr 16 20:56:15 2010 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum Message-ID: <1367068459.22935.1271465775028.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider wouldn't (or couldn't) give them many addresses. They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, which is causing problems for their end user customers. Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a solution to get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They have 2 connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for them to have PI space. The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space from ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was assigned to you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN who says there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, and I cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers refuse to give them any. What can be done about this? Would would there be a requirement of already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That seems like a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | V.P., IT Services | First Network Group, Inc. | RHCE | (419)739-9240, x1 -- From jake at recol.com Sat Apr 17 05:28:26 2010 From: jake at recol.com (Jacob Epstein) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 05:28:26 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <1367068459.22935.1271465775028.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> References: <1367068459.22935.1271465775028.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: <4BC97F3A.7030007@recol.com> Hi Randy, I am in a similar situation, but already have a /20 allocation. I can use more public space, but due to our applications which need large blocks (/23 and /24) we end up with open space that we can not chop up and reallocate. For example our broadband Static IP Space or hosting space which are flat and not subnetted. Although we have returned /21 of space to our upstreames since our first allocation in 2003, we have been denied based on the 80% use of all IP space versus allocations based on routing and application. FYI, we orginally applied for a /19 but were advised to return /21 of space and reaply which we did but we denied due to change in policies. So is life! My understanding is that your client should be able qualify for their first Arin allocation. They should then work on moving upstream provided IP over to the Allocation so that they can return upstream space. I haven't seen a rule on this, but its is wise to do so in case you lose or want to change upstream providers. Many of us change upstream providers to get better deals or move into an Exchange Point (IX) peering arrangement. Has your customer looked at the end user allocation process. Here is a link https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_initial_assign.html I did try this in order to open a new datacenter with a /23, and could not get that based on utilization of the current /20. It seems the process doesn't care about the need. So to get us going, I requested a /23 from a new upstream provider to get our business. Later on after we are operational, we will migrate some of our /20 allocation, but its not going to be easy on current customers that will have to be assigned new IP addresses. (DNS Changes, VPN Changes, Security (Access Control) changes. One customer has 80 remote offices! But it seems to me that there has to be a way for smaller providers with no allocations to obtain blocks and then retun upstream blocks as part of the process. Seems that if not, smaller providers starting up or in our case focused on conservation should go away while the large telcos and broadband provides either "suck the pool dry" or rest on large allocations they got years ago. So something sounds strange since need upstream blocks to get into the business. The Arin contact seems to be saying no one gets their first allocation based on your customer's scenario as I read it which is to get the first allocation. Maybe they do not qualify for /19 but could for /20 or /21. FYI, we have been working on IPv6. The new data center will be native IPv6. Good Luck, Jake -- Jacob Epstein, Chief Technology Officer RECOL, LLC - An Internet Solutions Provider web: http://www.recol.net email: jake at recol.com Randy Carpenter wrote: > I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... > > They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider wouldn't (or couldn't) give them many addresses. > They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, which is causing problems for their end user customers. > > Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a solution to get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They have 2 connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for them to have PI space. > > The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space from ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was assigned to you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN who says there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, and I cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers refuse to give them any. > > What can be done about this? Would would there be a requirement of already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That seems like a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! > > -Randy > > -- > | Randy Carpenter > | V.P., IT Services > | First Network Group, Inc. > | RHCE > | (419)739-9240, x1 > -- > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Sat Apr 17 08:15:19 2010 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 05:15:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <4BC97F3A.7030007@recol.com> References: <1367068459.22935.1271465775028.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> <4BC97F3A.7030007@recol.com> Message-ID: <360586.37018.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Thanks to you both for bringing this to the mailing list. If we need to make policy changes, we should move it to the PPML. Randy, I'm interested to understand if the upstream providers told you any reason for not providing address space? In North America, that's unusual. Jacob, I'm interested in your topology. I don't understand your need for /23 and /24. Generally, renumbering needs to be easier. It's a major point in this thread, in the IPv6 NAT thread, and in many proposals for smaller Provider-Independent allocations. I see a business opportunity for someone to write an address management system that will provide updated configuration files for common firewalls, DNS servers (forward and reverse), ACLs, VPN consoles, and monitoring systems. Lee ----- Original Message ---- > From: Jacob Epstein > To: Randy Carpenter > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 5:28:26 AM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum > > Hi Randy, I am in a similar situation, but already have a /20 allocation. > I can use more public space, but due to our applications which need large blocks > (/23 and /24) we end up with open space that we can not chop up and reallocate. > For example our broadband Static IP Space or hosting space which are flat and > not subnetted. Although we have returned /21 of space to our upstreames since > our first allocation in 2003, we have been denied based on the 80% use of all IP > space versus allocations based on routing and application. FYI, we > orginally applied for a /19 but were advised to return /21 of space and reaply > which we did but we denied due to change in policies. So is life! My > understanding is that your client should be able qualify for their first Arin > allocation. They should then work on moving upstream provided IP over to the > Allocation so that they can return upstream space. I haven't seen a rule on > this, but its is wise to do so in case you lose or want to change upstream > providers. Many of us change upstream providers to get better deals or move into > an Exchange Point (IX) peering arrangement. Has your customer looked at > the end user allocation process. Here is a link > href="https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_initial_assign.html" > target=_blank > >https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_initial_assign.html I > did try this in order to open a new datacenter with a /23, and could not get > that based on utilization of the current /20. It seems the process doesn't care > about the need. So to get us going, I requested a /23 from a new upstream > provider to get our business. Later on after we are operational, we will migrate > some of our /20 allocation, but its not going to be easy on current customers > that will have to be assigned new IP addresses. (DNS Changes, VPN Changes, > Security (Access Control) changes. One customer has 80 remote > offices! But it seems to me that there has to be a way for smaller > providers with no allocations to obtain blocks and then retun upstream blocks as > part of the process. Seems that if not, smaller providers starting up or > in our case focused on conservation should go away while the large telcos and > broadband provides either "suck the pool dry" or rest on large allocations they > got years ago. So something sounds strange since need upstream blocks to > get into the business. The Arin contact seems to be saying no one gets their > first allocation based on your customer's scenario as I read it which is to get > the first allocation. Maybe they do not qualify for /19 but could for /20 or > /21. FYI, we have been working on IPv6. The new data center will be > native IPv6. Good Luck, Jake -- Jacob Epstein, Chief > Technology Officer RECOL, LLC - An Internet Solutions Provider web: > http://www.recol.net email: > href="mailto:jake at recol.com">jake at recol.com Randy Carpenter > wrote: > I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a > pickle... > > They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream > provider wouldn't (or couldn't) give them many addresses. > They resorted > to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, which is causing problems > for their end user customers. > > Now that we are working with > them, I am trying to find a solution to get them public IPs. They are also soon > to be multi-homed (They have 2 connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would > be best for them to have PI space. > > The issue is that one of the > requirements for getting PI space from ARIN is that you are already using Public > space that was assigned to you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone > from ARIN who says there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, > and I cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers refuse to > give them any. > > What can be done about this? Would would > there be a requirement of already using someone else's IP space to get your own? > That seems like a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! > > > -Randy > > -- > | Randy Carpenter > | V.P., IT > Services > | First Network Group, Inc. > | RHCE > | > (419)739-9240, x1 > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You > are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List ( > href="mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net">ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact > ymailto="mailto:info at arin.net" href="mailto:info at arin.net">info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You > are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion > Mailing List ( > href="mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net">ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe > or manage your mailing list subscription at: > href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss" target=_blank > >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact > ymailto="mailto:info at arin.net" href="mailto:info at arin.net">info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Sat Apr 17 10:00:30 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 07:00:30 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <360586.37018.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <1367068459.22935.1271465775028.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> <4BC97F3A.7030007@recol.com> <360586.37018.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A797FD4-518F-4E97-AA36-B921E9447579@delong.com> Lee, In general, the configuration file generator won't help much. The main cost/difficulty of renumbering is not reconfiguring the devices you control. The main cost/difficulty is the number of places where your addresses appear in configuration files not under your control. Examples include: Firewalls of your partners, VPN terminations at suppliers or customers, etc. These costs are not in any way linear with address space size. For example, if I have 100 subnets of desktop machines all attached to routers I control, I can trivially renumber those subnets (in IPv6) in a day or two. OTOH, if I have a subnet that contains 5 VPN concentrators, each of which terminates 100 VPNs, the coordination and cooperation required to renumber one concentrator could take weeks. Renumbering all of them could take months. To further complicate the matter, renumbering an ISP means renumbering each and every customer of said ISP. Customers generally regard that as a reason to switch to a more stable ISP. Owen On Apr 17, 2010, at 5:15 AM, Lee Howard wrote: > Thanks to you both for bringing this to the mailing list. If we need to make > policy changes, we should move it to the PPML. > > Randy, I'm interested to understand if the upstream providers told you any > reason for not providing address space? In North America, that's unusual. > > Jacob, I'm interested in your topology. I don't understand your need for > /23 and /24. > > Generally, renumbering needs to be easier. It's a major point in this thread, > in the IPv6 NAT thread, and in many proposals for smaller Provider-Independent > allocations. I see a business opportunity for someone to write an address > management system that will provide updated configuration files for common > firewalls, DNS servers (forward and reverse), ACLs, VPN consoles, and > monitoring systems. > > Lee > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Jacob Epstein >> To: Randy Carpenter >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 5:28:26 AM >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum >> >> Hi Randy, > > I am in a similar situation, but already have a /20 allocation. >> I can use more public space, but due to our applications which need large blocks >> (/23 and /24) we end up with open space that we can not chop up and reallocate. >> For example our broadband Static IP Space or hosting space which are flat and >> not subnetted. Although we have returned /21 of space to our upstreames since >> our first allocation in 2003, we have been denied based on the 80% use of all IP >> space versus allocations based on routing and application. > > FYI, we >> orginally applied for a /19 but were advised to return /21 of space and reaply >> which we did but we denied due to change in policies. So is life! > > My >> understanding is that your client should be able qualify for their first Arin >> allocation. They should then work on moving upstream provided IP over to the >> Allocation so that they can return upstream space. I haven't seen a rule on >> this, but its is wise to do so in case you lose or want to change upstream >> providers. Many of us change upstream providers to get better deals or move into >> an Exchange Point (IX) peering arrangement. > > Has your customer looked at >> the end user allocation process. Here is a link > > >> href="https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_initial_assign.html" >> target=_blank >>> https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_initial_assign.html > > I >> did try this in order to open a new datacenter with a /23, and could not get >> that based on utilization of the current /20. It seems the process doesn't care >> about the need. So to get us going, I requested a /23 from a new upstream >> provider to get our business. Later on after we are operational, we will migrate >> some of our /20 allocation, but its not going to be easy on current customers >> that will have to be assigned new IP addresses. (DNS Changes, VPN Changes, >> Security (Access Control) changes. One customer has 80 remote >> offices! > > But it seems to me that there has to be a way for smaller >> providers with no allocations to obtain blocks and then retun upstream blocks as >> part of the process. > > Seems that if not, smaller providers starting up or >> in our case focused on conservation should go away while the large telcos and >> broadband provides either "suck the pool dry" or rest on large allocations they >> got years ago. > > So something sounds strange since need upstream blocks to >> get into the business. The Arin contact seems to be saying no one gets their >> first allocation based on your customer's scenario as I read it which is to get >> the first allocation. Maybe they do not qualify for /19 but could for /20 or >> /21. > > FYI, we have been working on IPv6. The new data center will be >> native IPv6. > > Good Luck, > > > Jake > > -- Jacob Epstein, Chief >> Technology Officer > RECOL, LLC - An Internet Solutions Provider > web: >> http://www.recol.net > email: >> href="mailto:jake at recol.com">jake at recol.com > > > > Randy Carpenter >> wrote: >> I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a >> pickle... >> >> They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream >> provider wouldn't (or couldn't) give them many addresses. >> They resorted >> to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, which is causing problems >> for their end user customers. >> >> Now that we are working with >> them, I am trying to find a solution to get them public IPs. They are also soon >> to be multi-homed (They have 2 connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would >> be best for them to have PI space. >> >> The issue is that one of the >> requirements for getting PI space from ARIN is that you are already using Public >> space that was assigned to you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone >> from ARIN who says there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, >> and I cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers refuse to >> give them any. >> >> What can be done about this? Would would >> there be a requirement of already using someone else's IP space to get your own? >> That seems like a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! >> >> >> -Randy >> >> -- >> | Randy Carpenter >> | V.P., IT >> Services >> | First Network Group, Inc. >> | RHCE >> | >> (419)739-9240, x1 >> -- >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You >> are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN >> Discussion Mailing List ( >> href="mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net">ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact >> ymailto="mailto:info at arin.net" href="mailto:info at arin.net">info at arin.net if >> you experience any issues. >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You >> are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion >> Mailing List ( >> href="mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net">ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe >> or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss" target=_blank >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact >> ymailto="mailto:info at arin.net" href="mailto:info at arin.net">info at arin.net if >> you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 rcarpen at network1.net Sat Apr 17 10:53:11 2010 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <360586.37018.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <466726541.23031.1271515991616.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> I think the fact that ARIN policy states that we need to renumber from private to public, and then renumber again is completely stupid. Allocations from ARIN should be on a *needs* basis only. -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | V.P., IT Services | First Network Group, Inc. | Wapakoneta, OH | (419)739-9240, x1 -- ----- "Lee Howard" wrote: > Thanks to you both for bringing this to the mailing list. If we need > to make > policy changes, we should move it to the PPML. > > Randy, I'm interested to understand if the upstream providers told you > any > reason for not providing address space? In North America, that's > unusual. > > Jacob, I'm interested in your topology. I don't understand your need > for > /23 and /24. > > Generally, renumbering needs to be easier. It's a major point in this > thread, > in the IPv6 NAT thread, and in many proposals for smaller > Provider-Independent > allocations. I see a business opportunity for someone to write an > address > management system that will provide updated configuration files for > common > firewalls, DNS servers (forward and reverse), ACLs, VPN consoles, and > monitoring systems. > > Lee > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Jacob Epstein > > To: Randy Carpenter > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 5:28:26 AM > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum > > > > Hi Randy, > > I am in a similar situation, but already have a /20 allocation. > > I can use more public space, but due to our applications which need > large blocks > > (/23 and /24) we end up with open space that we can not chop up and > reallocate. > > For example our broadband Static IP Space or hosting space which are > flat and > > not subnetted. Although we have returned /21 of space to our > upstreames since > > our first allocation in 2003, we have been denied based on the 80% > use of all IP > > space versus allocations based on routing and application. > > FYI, we > > orginally applied for a /19 but were advised to return /21 of space > and reaply > > which we did but we denied due to change in policies. So is life! > > My > > understanding is that your client should be able qualify for their > first Arin > > allocation. They should then work on moving upstream provided IP > over to the > > Allocation so that they can return upstream space. I haven't seen a > rule on > > this, but its is wise to do so in case you lose or want to change > upstream > > providers. Many of us change upstream providers to get better deals > or move into > > an Exchange Point (IX) peering arrangement. > > Has your customer looked at > > the end user allocation process. Here is a link > > > > > href="https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_initial_assign.html" > > > target=_blank > > >https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_initial_assign.html > > I > > did try this in order to open a new datacenter with a /23, and could > not get > > that based on utilization of the current /20. It seems the process > doesn't care > > about the need. So to get us going, I requested a /23 from a new > upstream > > provider to get our business. Later on after we are operational, we > will migrate > > some of our /20 allocation, but its not going to be easy on current > customers > > that will have to be assigned new IP addresses. (DNS Changes, VPN > Changes, > > Security (Access Control) changes. One customer has 80 remote > > offices! > > But it seems to me that there has to be a way for smaller > > providers with no allocations to obtain blocks and then retun > upstream blocks as > > part of the process. > > Seems that if not, smaller providers starting up or > > in our case focused on conservation should go away while the large > telcos and > > broadband provides either "suck the pool dry" or rest on large > allocations they > > got years ago. > > So something sounds strange since need upstream blocks to > > get into the business. The Arin contact seems to be saying no one > gets their > > first allocation based on your customer's scenario as I read it > which is to get > > the first allocation. Maybe they do not qualify for /19 but could > for /20 or > > /21. > > FYI, we have been working on IPv6. The new data center will be > > native IPv6. > > Good Luck, > > > Jake > > -- Jacob Epstein, Chief > > Technology Officer > RECOL, LLC - An Internet Solutions Provider > web: > > http://www.recol.net > email: > > href="mailto:jake at recol.com">jake at recol.com > > > > Randy Carpenter > > wrote: > > I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a > > pickle... > > > > They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream > > provider wouldn't (or couldn't) give them many addresses. > > They resorted > > to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, which is > causing problems > > for their end user customers. > > > > Now that we are working with > > them, I am trying to find a solution to get them public IPs. They > are also soon > > to be multi-homed (They have 2 connections, but no BGP yet). As an > ISP, it would > > be best for them to have PI space. > > > > The issue is that one of the > > requirements for getting PI space from ARIN is that you are already > using Public > > space that was assigned to you from an upstream provider. I spoke > with someone > > from ARIN who says there is no way around this. The need around a > /19 of space, > > and I cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers > refuse to > > give them any. > > > > What can be done about this? Would would > > there be a requirement of already using someone else's IP space to > get your own? > > That seems like a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! > > > > > > -Randy > > > > -- > > | Randy Carpenter > > | V.P., IT > > Services > > | First Network Group, Inc. > > | RHCE > > | > > (419)739-9240, x1 > > -- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You > > are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN > > Discussion Mailing List ( > > href="mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net">ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact > > ymailto="mailto:info at arin.net" > href="mailto:info at arin.net">info at arin.net if > > you experience any issues. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You > > are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion > > Mailing List ( > > href="mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net">ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe > > or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss" > target=_blank > > >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact > > ymailto="mailto:info at arin.net" > href="mailto:info at arin.net">info at arin.net if > > you experience any issues. From jake at recol.com Sat Apr 17 10:56:49 2010 From: jake at recol.com (Jacob Epstein) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:56:49 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <4A797FD4-518F-4E97-AA36-B921E9447579@delong.com> References: <1367068459.22935.1271465775028.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> <4BC97F3A.7030007@recol.com> <360586.37018.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4A797FD4-518F-4E97-AA36-B921E9447579@delong.com> Message-ID: <4BC9CC31.4070901@recol.com> Hi Owen, Application is also a consideration. For example we assign single or ranges of IP and not subnets. This save a lot of space but requires larger subnet allocation to application to simplify our core and distribution routing. For example, our solutions are sold to business so our broadband customers receive single static IP via pppoe or pppoa. We then assign additional blocks as required. (/30, /29 or /28) Our competors assign /29 with their business class. This wasts up to 50% or more of space. /29 - (gateway, wire, broadcast) = 5 usable. If only one static addresses is needed, 7 are wasted. Jake Owen DeLong wrote: > Lee, > In general, the configuration file generator won't help much. The > main cost/difficulty of renumbering is not reconfiguring the devices you > control. The main cost/difficulty is the number of places where your > addresses appear in configuration files not under your control. > > Examples include: Firewalls of your partners, VPN terminations > at suppliers or customers, etc. > > These costs are not in any way linear with address space size. > For example, if I have 100 subnets of desktop machines all attached > to routers I control, I can trivially renumber those subnets (in IPv6) > in a day or two. OTOH, if I have a subnet that contains 5 VPN > concentrators, each of which terminates 100 VPNs, the coordination > and cooperation required to renumber one concentrator could > take weeks. Renumbering all of them could take months. > > To further complicate the matter, renumbering an ISP means > renumbering each and every customer of said ISP. Customers > generally regard that as a reason to switch to a more stable ISP. > > Owen > > On Apr 17, 2010, at 5:15 AM, Lee Howard wrote: > > >> Thanks to you both for bringing this to the mailing list. If we need to make >> policy changes, we should move it to the PPML. >> >> Randy, I'm interested to understand if the upstream providers told you any >> reason for not providing address space? In North America, that's unusual. >> >> Jacob, I'm interested in your topology. I don't understand your need for >> /23 and /24. >> >> Generally, renumbering needs to be easier. It's a major point in this thread, >> in the IPv6 NAT thread, and in many proposals for smaller Provider-Independent >> allocations. I see a business opportunity for someone to write an address >> management system that will provide updated configuration files for common >> firewalls, DNS servers (forward and reverse), ACLs, VPN consoles, and >> monitoring systems. >> >> Lee >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> >>> From: Jacob Epstein >>> To: Randy Carpenter >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 5:28:26 AM >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum >>> >>> Hi Randy, >>> >> I am in a similar situation, but already have a /20 allocation. >> >>> I can use more public space, but due to our applications which need large blocks >>> (/23 and /24) we end up with open space that we can not chop up and reallocate. >>> For example our broadband Static IP Space or hosting space which are flat and >>> not subnetted. Although we have returned /21 of space to our upstreames since >>> our first allocation in 2003, we have been denied based on the 80% use of all IP >>> space versus allocations based on routing and application. >>> >> FYI, we >> >>> orginally applied for a /19 but were advised to return /21 of space and reaply >>> which we did but we denied due to change in policies. So is life! >>> >> My >> >>> understanding is that your client should be able qualify for their first Arin >>> allocation. They should then work on moving upstream provided IP over to the >>> Allocation so that they can return upstream space. I haven't seen a rule on >>> this, but its is wise to do so in case you lose or want to change upstream >>> providers. Many of us change upstream providers to get better deals or move into >>> an Exchange Point (IX) peering arrangement. >>> >> Has your customer looked at >> >>> the end user allocation process. Here is a link >>> >> >>> href="https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_initial_assign.html" >>> target=_blank >>> >>>> https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_initial_assign.html >>>> >> I >> >>> did try this in order to open a new datacenter with a /23, and could not get >>> that based on utilization of the current /20. It seems the process doesn't care >>> about the need. So to get us going, I requested a /23 from a new upstream >>> provider to get our business. Later on after we are operational, we will migrate >>> some of our /20 allocation, but its not going to be easy on current customers >>> that will have to be assigned new IP addresses. (DNS Changes, VPN Changes, >>> Security (Access Control) changes. One customer has 80 remote >>> offices! >>> >> But it seems to me that there has to be a way for smaller >> >>> providers with no allocations to obtain blocks and then retun upstream blocks as >>> part of the process. >>> >> Seems that if not, smaller providers starting up or >> >>> in our case focused on conservation should go away while the large telcos and >>> broadband provides either "suck the pool dry" or rest on large allocations they >>> got years ago. >>> >> So something sounds strange since need upstream blocks to >> >>> get into the business. The Arin contact seems to be saying no one gets their >>> first allocation based on your customer's scenario as I read it which is to get >>> the first allocation. Maybe they do not qualify for /19 but could for /20 or >>> /21. >>> >> FYI, we have been working on IPv6. The new data center will be >> >>> native IPv6. >>> >> Good Luck, >> >> >> Jake >> >> -- Jacob Epstein, Chief >> >>> Technology Officer >>> >> RECOL, LLC - An Internet Solutions Provider >> web: >> >>> http://www.recol.net >>> >> email: >> >>> href="mailto:jake at recol.com">jake at recol.com >>> >> >> Randy Carpenter >> >>> wrote: >>> I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a >>> pickle... >>> >>> They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream >>> provider wouldn't (or couldn't) give them many addresses. >>> They resorted >>> to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, which is causing problems >>> for their end user customers. >>> >>> Now that we are working with >>> them, I am trying to find a solution to get them public IPs. They are also soon >>> to be multi-homed (They have 2 connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would >>> be best for them to have PI space. >>> >>> The issue is that one of the >>> requirements for getting PI space from ARIN is that you are already using Public >>> space that was assigned to you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone >>> from ARIN who says there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, >>> and I cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers refuse to >>> give them any. >>> >>> What can be done about this? Would would >>> there be a requirement of already using someone else's IP space to get your own? >>> That seems like a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! >>> >>> >>> -Randy >>> >>> -- >>> | Randy Carpenter >>> | V.P., IT >>> Services >>> | First Network Group, Inc. >>> | RHCE >>> | >>> (419)739-9240, x1 >>> -- >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You >>> are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN >>> Discussion Mailing List ( >>> href="mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net">ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact >>> ymailto="mailto:info at arin.net" href="mailto:info at arin.net">info at arin.net if >>> you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You >> >>> are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> >> the ARIN Discussion >> >>> Mailing List ( >>> href="mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net">ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> >> Unsubscribe >> >>> or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> >>> href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss" target=_blank >>> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> >> Please contact >> >>> ymailto="mailto:info at arin.net" href="mailto:info at arin.net">info at arin.net if >>> you experience any issues. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > -- Sent from Home (Mac Pro) Jacob Epstein, Chief Technology Officer RECOL, LLC - An Internet Solutions Provider 555 Long Wharf Drive, 12th Floor, New Haven, CT 06511 phone: 203.776.4874 fax: 203.776.4943 web: http://www.recol.net email: jake at recol.com From joelja at bogus.com Sat Apr 17 12:45:09 2010 From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:45:09 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <4BC9CC31.4070901@recol.com> References: <1367068459.22935.1271465775028.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> <4BC97F3A.7030007@recol.com> <360586.37018.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4A797FD4-518F-4E97-AA36-B921E9447579@delong.com> <4BC9CC31.4070901@recol.com> Message-ID: <4BC9E595.1030309@bogus.com> On 04/17/2010 07:56 AM, Jacob Epstein wrote: > Hi Owen, > > Application is also a consideration. For example we assign single or > ranges of IP and not subnets. This save a lot of space but requires > larger subnet allocation to application to simplify our core and > distribution routing. > > For example, our solutions are sold to business so our broadband > customers receive single static IP via pppoe or pppoa. We then assign > additional blocks as required. (/30, /29 or /28) > > Our competors assign /29 with their business class. This wasts up to 50% > or more of space. I think you're using the term waste quite a bit to liberally. They are not wasted they are utilized. > /29 - (gateway, wire, broadcast) = 5 usable. If only one static > addresses is needed, 7 are wasted. if you do vrrp you're going to need more than a /30 > Jake > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> Lee, >> In general, the configuration file generator won't help much. The >> main cost/difficulty of renumbering is not reconfiguring the devices you >> control. The main cost/difficulty is the number of places where your >> addresses appear in configuration files not under your control. >> >> Examples include: Firewalls of your partners, VPN terminations at >> suppliers or customers, etc. >> >> These costs are not in any way linear with address space size. >> For example, if I have 100 subnets of desktop machines all attached >> to routers I control, I can trivially renumber those subnets (in IPv6) >> in a day or two. OTOH, if I have a subnet that contains 5 VPN >> concentrators, each of which terminates 100 VPNs, the coordination >> and cooperation required to renumber one concentrator could >> take weeks. Renumbering all of them could take months. >> >> To further complicate the matter, renumbering an ISP means >> renumbering each and every customer of said ISP. Customers >> generally regard that as a reason to switch to a more stable ISP. >> >> Owen >> >> On Apr 17, 2010, at 5:15 AM, Lee Howard wrote: >> >> >>> Thanks to you both for bringing this to the mailing list. If we need >>> to make >>> policy changes, we should move it to the PPML. >>> >>> Randy, I'm interested to understand if the upstream providers told >>> you any >>> reason for not providing address space? In North America, that's >>> unusual. >>> >>> Jacob, I'm interested in your topology. I don't understand your need >>> for >>> /23 and /24. >>> >>> Generally, renumbering needs to be easier. It's a major point in >>> this thread, >>> in the IPv6 NAT thread, and in many proposals for smaller >>> Provider-Independent >>> allocations. I see a business opportunity for someone to write an >>> address >>> management system that will provide updated configuration files for >>> common >>> firewalls, DNS servers (forward and reverse), ACLs, VPN consoles, and >>> monitoring systems. >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ---- >>> >>>> From: Jacob Epstein >>>> To: Randy Carpenter >>>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 5:28:26 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum >>>> >>>> Hi Randy, >>>> >>> I am in a similar situation, but already have a /20 allocation. >>>> I can use more public space, but due to our applications which need >>>> large blocks (/23 and /24) we end up with open space that we can not >>>> chop up and reallocate. For example our broadband Static IP Space or >>>> hosting space which are flat and not subnetted. Although we have >>>> returned /21 of space to our upstreames since our first allocation >>>> in 2003, we have been denied based on the 80% use of all IP space >>>> versus allocations based on routing and application. >>>> >>> FYI, we >>>> orginally applied for a /19 but were advised to return /21 of space >>>> and reaply which we did but we denied due to change in policies. So >>>> is life! >>>> >>> My >>>> understanding is that your client should be able qualify for their >>>> first Arin allocation. They should then work on moving upstream >>>> provided IP over to the Allocation so that they can return upstream >>>> space. I haven't seen a rule on this, but its is wise to do so in >>>> case you lose or want to change upstream providers. Many of us >>>> change upstream providers to get better deals or move into an >>>> Exchange Point (IX) peering arrangement. >>>> >>> Has your customer looked at >>>> the end user allocation process. Here is a link >>>> >>> >>>> href="https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_initial_assign.html" >>>> target=_blank >>>>> https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_initial_assign.html >>>>> >>> I >>>> did try this in order to open a new datacenter with a /23, and could >>>> not get that based on utilization of the current /20. It seems the >>>> process doesn't care about the need. So to get us going, I requested >>>> a /23 from a new upstream provider to get our business. Later on >>>> after we are operational, we will migrate some of our /20 >>>> allocation, but its not going to be easy on current customers that >>>> will have to be assigned new IP addresses. (DNS Changes, VPN >>>> Changes, Security (Access Control) changes. One customer has 80 >>>> remote offices! >>>> >>> But it seems to me that there has to be a way for smaller >>>> providers with no allocations to obtain blocks and then retun >>>> upstream blocks as part of the process. >>>> >>> Seems that if not, smaller providers starting up or >>>> in our case focused on conservation should go away while the large >>>> telcos and broadband provides either "suck the pool dry" or rest on >>>> large allocations they got years ago. >>>> >>> So something sounds strange since need upstream blocks to >>>> get into the business. The Arin contact seems to be saying no one >>>> gets their first allocation based on your customer's scenario as I >>>> read it which is to get the first allocation. Maybe they do not >>>> qualify for /19 but could for /20 or /21. >>>> >>> FYI, we have been working on IPv6. The new data center will be >>>> native IPv6. >>>> >>> Good Luck, >>> >>> >>> Jake >>> >>> -- Jacob Epstein, Chief >>>> Technology Officer >>>> >>> RECOL, LLC - An Internet Solutions Provider >>> web: >>>> http://www.recol.net >>>> >>> email: >>>> href="mailto:jake at recol.com">jake at recol.com >>>> >>> >>> Randy Carpenter >>>> wrote: >>>> I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... >>>> >>>> They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider wouldn't >>>> (or couldn't) give them many addresses. >>>> They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, >>>> which is causing problems for their end user customers. >>>> >>>> Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a solution to >>>> get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They have >>>> 2 connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for them >>>> to have PI space. >>>> >>>> The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space from >>>> ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was assigned to >>>> you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN who >>>> says there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, >>>> and I cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers >>>> refuse to give them any. >>>> >>>> What can be done about this? Would would there be a requirement of >>>> already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That seems >>>> like a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! >>>> >>>> >>>> -Randy >>>> >>>> -- >>>> | Randy Carpenter >>>> | V.P., IT Services >>>> | First Network Group, Inc. >>>> | RHCE >>>> | (419)739-9240, x1 >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List ( >>>> href="mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net">ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact ymailto="mailto:info at arin.net" >>>> href="mailto:info at arin.net">info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You >>>> are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> >>> the ARIN Discussion >>>> Mailing List ( >>>> href="mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net">ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> >>> Unsubscribe >>>> or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss" >>>> target=_blank >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> >>> Please contact >>>> ymailto="mailto:info at arin.net" >>>> href="mailto:info at arin.net">info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage 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 Sat Apr 17 14:58:48 2010 From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:58:48 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <466726541.23031.1271515991616.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> References: <466726541.23031.1271515991616.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: <4BCA04E8.8050506@ibctech.ca> On 2010.04.17 10:53, Randy Carpenter wrote: > > I think the fact that ARIN policy states that we need to renumber from private to public, and then renumber again is completely stupid. My following statement is irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with what you've said: If you really feel that way, then I'd recommend watching out for a Policy Proposal that may materialize shortly after Toronto that you may be interested in. Steve From alh-ietf at tndh.net Sun Apr 18 16:49:44 2010 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:49:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <1367068459.22935.1271465775028.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> References: <1367068459.22935.1271465775028.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: <02da01cadf38$ad6572f0$083058d0$@net> IANAL ... but they already have public address space assigned by their provider. That may only be a /32, but that is still public, and it is assigned by their provider. It would likely help make the case if it were a static assignment, but dhcp is an assignment mechanism. YMMV Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:56 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum > > > I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... > > They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider wouldn't (or > couldn't) give them many addresses. > They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, > which is causing problems for their end user customers. > > Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a solution to > get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They have 2 > connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for them to > have PI space. > > The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space from > ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was assigned to > you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN who says > there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, and I > cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers refuse > to give them any. > > What can be done about this? Would would there be a requirement of > already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That seems like > a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! > > -Randy > > -- > | Randy Carpenter > | V.P., IT Services > | First Network Group, Inc. > | RHCE > | (419)739-9240, x1 > -- > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 rcarpen at network1.net Sun Apr 18 17:55:40 2010 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:55:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <02da01cadf38$ad6572f0$083058d0$@net> Message-ID: <542026147.23328.1271627740151.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> They have a /24, but the ARIN policy states that if you need a /19, you already have to have 50% of that size already fully in use. Our specific situation is that the ISP was forced to use private IPs for purposes that should have been public to begin with. -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | V.P., IT Services | First Network Group, Inc. | Wapakoneta, OH | (419)739-9240, x1 -- ----- "Tony Hain" wrote: > IANAL ... but they already have public address space assigned by > their > provider. That may only be a /32, but that is still public, and it is > assigned by their provider. It would likely help make the case if it > were a > static assignment, but dhcp is an assignment mechanism. YMMV > > Tony > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > > bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter > > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:56 PM > > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum > > > > > > I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... > > > > They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider wouldn't > (or > > couldn't) give them many addresses. > > They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, > > which is causing problems for their end user customers. > > > > Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a solution > to > > get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They have > 2 > > connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for them > to > > have PI space. > > > > The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space from > > ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was assigned > to > > you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN who > says > > there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, and I > > cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers > refuse > > to give them any. > > > > What can be done about this? Would would there be a requirement of > > already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That seems > like > > a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! > > > > -Randy > > > > -- > > | Randy Carpenter > > | V.P., IT Services > > | First Network Group, Inc. > > | RHCE > > | (419)739-9240, x1 > > -- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage 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 rcarpen at network1.net Sun Apr 18 18:49:48 2010 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:49:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <4BCB8C27.9080703@123.net> Message-ID: <76458395.23338.1271630988545.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> This seems futile when the absolute minimum they can get by with in the short term is a /20. -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | V.P., IT Services | First Network Group, Inc. | Wapakoneta, OH | (419)739-9240, x1 -- ----- "Ryan Duda" wrote: > Randy, > > This is one road.. > > 1) Obtain an ASN, peer with Provider A and Provider B. > 2) When the justification is there request an additional /24 from > either > provider A or provider B. > 3) Have efficient utilization of the 2 /24's. > 4) Request a /22 from ARIN > > > Ryan Duda > 123.net > 24275 Northwestern Hwy. > Southfield, MI 48075 > Direct: 586.566.0564 > Fax: 586.620.8005 > NOC: 866.460.3503 > Email: rpd at 123.net > > > > Randy Carpenter wrote: > > They have a /24, but the ARIN policy states that if you need a /19, > you already have to have 50% of that size already fully in use. Our > specific situation is that the ISP was forced to use private IPs for > purposes that should have been public to begin with. > > > > > > -Randy > > > > -- > > | Randy Carpenter > > | V.P., IT Services > > | First Network Group, Inc. > > | Wapakoneta, OH > > | (419)739-9240, x1 > > -- > > > > > > ----- "Tony Hain" wrote: > > > >> IANAL ... but they already have public address space assigned by > >> their > >> provider. That may only be a /32, but that is still public, and it > is > >> assigned by their provider. It would likely help make the case if > it > >> were a > >> static assignment, but dhcp is an assignment mechanism. YMMV > >> > >> Tony > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > >>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter > >>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:56 PM > >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net > >>> Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum > >>> > >>> > >>> I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... > >>> > >>> They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider > wouldn't > >> (or > >>> couldn't) give them many addresses. > >>> They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their > network, > >>> which is causing problems for their end user customers. > >>> > >>> Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a solution > >> to > >>> get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They > have > >> 2 > >>> connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for > them > >> to > >>> have PI space. > >>> > >>> The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space > from > >>> ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was assigned > >> to > >>> you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN who > >> says > >>> there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, and > I > >>> cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers > >> refuse > >>> to give them any. > >>> > >>> What can be done about this? Would would there be a requirement > of > >>> already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That seems > >> like > >>> a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! > >>> > >>> -Randy > >>> > >>> -- > >>> | Randy Carpenter > >>> | V.P., IT Services > >>> | First Network Group, Inc. > >>> | RHCE > >>> | (419)739-9240, x1 > >>> -- > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage 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 rpd at 123.net Sun Apr 18 18:48:07 2010 From: rpd at 123.net (Ryan Duda) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:48:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <542026147.23328.1271627740151.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> References: <542026147.23328.1271627740151.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: <4BCB8C27.9080703@123.net> Randy, This is one road.. 1) Obtain an ASN, peer with Provider A and Provider B. 2) When the justification is there request an additional /24 from either provider A or provider B. 3) Have efficient utilization of the 2 /24's. 4) Request a /22 from ARIN Ryan Duda 123.net 24275 Northwestern Hwy. Southfield, MI 48075 Direct: 586.566.0564 Fax: 586.620.8005 NOC: 866.460.3503 Email: rpd at 123.net Randy Carpenter wrote: > They have a /24, but the ARIN policy states that if you need a /19, you already have to have 50% of that size already fully in use. Our specific situation is that the ISP was forced to use private IPs for purposes that should have been public to begin with. > > > -Randy > > -- > | Randy Carpenter > | V.P., IT Services > | First Network Group, Inc. > | Wapakoneta, OH > | (419)739-9240, x1 > -- > > > ----- "Tony Hain" wrote: > >> IANAL ... but they already have public address space assigned by >> their >> provider. That may only be a /32, but that is still public, and it is >> assigned by their provider. It would likely help make the case if it >> were a >> static assignment, but dhcp is an assignment mechanism. YMMV >> >> Tony >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter >>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:56 PM >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum >>> >>> >>> I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... >>> >>> They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider wouldn't >> (or >>> couldn't) give them many addresses. >>> They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, >>> which is causing problems for their end user customers. >>> >>> Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a solution >> to >>> get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They have >> 2 >>> connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for them >> to >>> have PI space. >>> >>> The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space from >>> ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was assigned >> to >>> you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN who >> says >>> there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, and I >>> cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers >> refuse >>> to give them any. >>> >>> What can be done about this? Would would there be a requirement of >>> already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That seems >> like >>> a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! >>> >>> -Randy >>> >>> -- >>> | Randy Carpenter >>> | V.P., IT Services >>> | First Network Group, Inc. >>> | RHCE >>> | (419)739-9240, x1 >>> -- >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 elevitt at endstream.com Sun Apr 18 19:02:30 2010 From: elevitt at endstream.com (Erik Levitt) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:02:30 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <76458395.23338.1271630988545.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> References: <4BCB8C27.9080703@123.net> <76458395.23338.1271630988545.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: <2647305108C9AE48AAEA321E0644448B0629DF02@EXVBE012-14.exch012.intermedia.net> Randy, ARIN should approve a /21 immediately if they are legitimately using it and it can be SWIPed properly. If you get 4 /24's from two providers in addition to the /21, then you have a /20 worth of addresses, which means you can apply for the /19. You can usually use private address space to justify public space with ISPs. Given that I work for a VoIP interconnections provider I sympathize about NAT. Although some suggest that NAT transversal is elegant, I would be to differ after watching customer after customer struggle to make it work. On the other end, given the lack of address space resources left I sympathize with ARINs policy. I wish that more people would adopt v6 faster as we can't go to v6 on our edge until every single one of our customers supports it, but I digress. Regards, Erik -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 6:50 PM To: Ryan Duda Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum This seems futile when the absolute minimum they can get by with in the short term is a /20. -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | V.P., IT Services | First Network Group, Inc. | Wapakoneta, OH | (419)739-9240, x1 -- ----- "Ryan Duda" wrote: > Randy, > > This is one road.. > > 1) Obtain an ASN, peer with Provider A and Provider B. > 2) When the justification is there request an additional /24 from > either > provider A or provider B. > 3) Have efficient utilization of the 2 /24's. > 4) Request a /22 from ARIN > > > Ryan Duda > 123.net > 24275 Northwestern Hwy. > Southfield, MI 48075 > Direct: 586.566.0564 > Fax: 586.620.8005 > NOC: 866.460.3503 > Email: rpd at 123.net > > > > Randy Carpenter wrote: > > They have a /24, but the ARIN policy states that if you need a /19, > you already have to have 50% of that size already fully in use. Our > specific situation is that the ISP was forced to use private IPs for > purposes that should have been public to begin with. > > > > > > -Randy > > > > -- > > | Randy Carpenter > > | V.P., IT Services > > | First Network Group, Inc. > > | Wapakoneta, OH > > | (419)739-9240, x1 > > -- > > > > > > ----- "Tony Hain" wrote: > > > >> IANAL ... but they already have public address space assigned by > >> their > >> provider. That may only be a /32, but that is still public, and it > is > >> assigned by their provider. It would likely help make the case if > it > >> were a > >> static assignment, but dhcp is an assignment mechanism. YMMV > >> > >> Tony > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > >>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter > >>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:56 PM > >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net > >>> Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum > >>> > >>> > >>> I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... > >>> > >>> They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider > wouldn't > >> (or > >>> couldn't) give them many addresses. > >>> They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their > network, > >>> which is causing problems for their end user customers. > >>> > >>> Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a solution > >> to > >>> get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They > have > >> 2 > >>> connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for > them > >> to > >>> have PI space. > >>> > >>> The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space > from > >>> ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was assigned > >> to > >>> you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN who > >> says > >>> there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, and > I > >>> cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers > >> refuse > >>> to give them any. > >>> > >>> What can be done about this? Would would there be a requirement > of > >>> already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That seems > >> like > >>> a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! > >>> > >>> -Randy > >>> > >>> -- > >>> | Randy Carpenter > >>> | V.P., IT Services > >>> | First Network Group, Inc. > >>> | RHCE > >>> | (419)739-9240, x1 > >>> -- > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 rcarpen at network1.net Sun Apr 18 19:18:18 2010 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:18:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <1972784404.23344.1271632635327.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: <946569454.23346.1271632698109.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> I was told by an ARIN rep that our customer would not be able to get any addresses at all unless they were already using at least 50% of the requested amount in public addresses that were assigned by their upstreams. Even if it were possible to get the addresses from the upstreams, we would really prefer not to, as renumbering twice just seems silly. The facts are that this is a legitimate ISP that has been a victim of terrible policy by their upstream providers, and now that they are trying to fix their issues by getting a proper allocation, they are unable to. I understand the crunch caused by the depletion of addresses, but the specific requirement of having to already be using public addresses to get more is completely backwards. The need should be the only factor. The current policy wastes IPs by forcing ISPs to have an allocation from their upstream in addition to the provider-independent space. It could be years before an ISP is able to renumber all of their customers twice. -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | V.P., IT Services | First Network Group, Inc. | Wapakoneta, OH | (419)739-9240, x1 -- ----- "Erik Levitt" wrote: > Randy, > > ARIN should approve a /21 immediately if they are legitimately using > it > and it can be SWIPed properly. If you get 4 /24's from two providers > in > addition to the /21, then you have a /20 worth of addresses, which > means > you can apply for the /19. > > You can usually use private address space to justify public space > with > ISPs. > > Given that I work for a VoIP interconnections provider I sympathize > about NAT. Although some suggest that NAT transversal is elegant, I > would be to differ after watching customer after customer struggle to > make it work. On the other end, given the lack of address space > resources left I sympathize with ARINs policy. I wish that more > people > would adopt v6 faster as we can't go to v6 on our edge until every > single one of our customers supports it, but I digress. > > Regards, > > Erik > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 6:50 PM > To: Ryan Duda > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum > > > This seems futile when the absolute minimum they can get by with in > the > short term is a /20. > > > -Randy > > -- > | Randy Carpenter > | V.P., IT Services > | First Network Group, Inc. > | Wapakoneta, OH > | (419)739-9240, x1 > -- > > > ----- "Ryan Duda" wrote: > > > Randy, > > > > This is one road.. > > > > 1) Obtain an ASN, peer with Provider A and Provider B. > > 2) When the justification is there request an additional /24 from > > either > > provider A or provider B. > > 3) Have efficient utilization of the 2 /24's. > > 4) Request a /22 from ARIN > > > > > > Ryan Duda > > 123.net > > 24275 Northwestern Hwy. > > Southfield, MI 48075 > > Direct: 586.566.0564 > > Fax: 586.620.8005 > > NOC: 866.460.3503 > > Email: rpd at 123.net > > > > > > > > Randy Carpenter wrote: > > > They have a /24, but the ARIN policy states that if you need a > /19, > > you already have to have 50% of that size already fully in use. Our > > specific situation is that the ISP was forced to use private IPs > for > > purposes that should have been public to begin with. > > > > > > > > > -Randy > > > > > > -- > > > | Randy Carpenter > > > | V.P., IT Services > > > | First Network Group, Inc. > > > | Wapakoneta, OH > > > | (419)739-9240, x1 > > > -- > > > > > > > > > ----- "Tony Hain" wrote: > > > > > >> IANAL ... but they already have public address space assigned by > > >> their > > >> provider. That may only be a /32, but that is still public, and > it > > is > > >> assigned by their provider. It would likely help make the case > if > > it > > >> were a > > >> static assignment, but dhcp is an assignment mechanism. YMMV > > >> > > >> Tony > > >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > > >>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter > > >>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:56 PM > > >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net > > >>> Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... > > >>> > > >>> They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider > > wouldn't > > >> (or > > >>> couldn't) give them many addresses. > > >>> They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their > > network, > > >>> which is causing problems for their end user customers. > > >>> > > >>> Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a > solution > > >> to > > >>> get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They > > have > > >> 2 > > >>> connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for > > them > > >> to > > >>> have PI space. > > >>> > > >>> The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space > > from > > >>> ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was > assigned > > >> to > > >>> you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN > who > > >> says > > >>> there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, > and > > I > > >>> cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers > > >> refuse > > >>> to give them any. > > >>> > > >>> What can be done about this? Would would there be a > requirement > > of > > >>> already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That > seems > > >> like > > >>> a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! > > >>> > > >>> -Randy > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> | Randy Carpenter > > >>> | V.P., IT Services > > >>> | First Network Group, Inc. > > >>> | RHCE > > >>> | (419)739-9240, x1 > > >>> -- > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> ARIN-Discuss > > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ARIN-Discuss > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Sun Apr 18 20:34:39 2010 From: jradel at vantage.com (Jon Radel) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:34:39 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <946569454.23346.1271632698109.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> References: <946569454.23346.1271632698109.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: <4BCBA51F.9020801@vantage.com> On 4/18/10 7:18 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > I understand the crunch caused by the depletion of addresses, but the specific requirement of having to already be using public addresses to get more is completely backwards. The need should be the only factor. This is not exactly new to the crunch, although others here can better outline the full history. The problem I've always seen is that there is no way to even come close to proving future "need" to ARIN without incurring rather large expenses rigorously evaluating business plans, and even then it's a rather squishy concept. --Jon Radel From owen at delong.com Sun Apr 18 20:53:30 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:53:30 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <02da01cadf38$ad6572f0$083058d0$@net> References: <1367068459.22935.1271465775028.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> <02da01cadf38$ad6572f0$083058d0$@net> Message-ID: <76746DA9-D730-48EE-A0F5-DCA61516A42A@delong.com> Tony, The ARIN policy, as written, requires them to have a much larger chunk of space registered to them (SWIP or RWHOIS). It is a deficiency in the policy that does need to be addressed in my opinion. I think it is an unintended side-effect of language intended to accomplish a slightly different purpose. Owen On Apr 18, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > IANAL ... but they already have public address space assigned by their > provider. That may only be a /32, but that is still public, and it is > assigned by their provider. It would likely help make the case if it were a > static assignment, but dhcp is an assignment mechanism. YMMV > > Tony > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter >> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:56 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum >> >> >> I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... >> >> They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider wouldn't (or >> couldn't) give them many addresses. >> They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, >> which is causing problems for their end user customers. >> >> Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a solution to >> get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They have 2 >> connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for them to >> have PI space. >> >> The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space from >> ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was assigned to >> you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN who says >> there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, and I >> cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers refuse >> to give them any. >> >> What can be done about this? Would would there be a requirement of >> already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That seems like >> a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! >> >> -Randy >> >> -- >> | Randy Carpenter >> | V.P., IT Services >> | First Network Group, Inc. >> | RHCE >> | (419)739-9240, x1 >> -- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 myoung at genericconf.com Sun Apr 18 22:27:39 2010 From: myoung at genericconf.com (Michael Young) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:27:39 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <4BCB8C27.9080703@123.net> References: <542026147.23328.1271627740151.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> <4BCB8C27.9080703@123.net> Message-ID: <000d01cadf67$e36f7b00$aa4e7100$@com> Ryan, You would think that would work. However, my company tried exactly that, and both providers refused to accept the other provider's block via BGP announcements. We had a /24 from both. Neither provider would SWIP those blocks and show that we were assigned them. Both required the other provider to provide, in writing, authorization for us to announce the other provider's block. Neither provider would give a written authorization (although both required one). We went round and round and round. The damage done to my business was not insignificant. I'm not going to name names, but the providers involved are both major Tier 1 US-based ISPs. I know this will spark a round of "they can't\shouldn't\don't do that" emails from this list.... but they can and do. I certainly sympathize with Mr. Carpenter. I was forced to go buy an internet pipe I didn't need for a year just to get a /23 from a third provider. I ended up renumbering my network three times in the span of six months. This cost us thousands of dollars in time and lost customers. And each time I tried to explain my situation to someone at ARIN the response was the same: "Well, that's the policy. We can't help you. Talk to your upstream provider." Michael Young Generic Conferencing LLC -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ryan Duda Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 5:48 PM To: Randy Carpenter Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum Randy, This is one road.. 1) Obtain an ASN, peer with Provider A and Provider B. 2) When the justification is there request an additional /24 from either provider A or provider B. 3) Have efficient utilization of the 2 /24's. 4) Request a /22 from ARIN Ryan Duda 123.net 24275 Northwestern Hwy. Southfield, MI 48075 Direct: 586.566.0564 Fax: 586.620.8005 NOC: 866.460.3503 Email: rpd at 123.net Randy Carpenter wrote: > They have a /24, but the ARIN policy states that if you need a /19, you already have to have 50% of that size already fully in use. Our specific situation is that the ISP was forced to use private IPs for purposes that should have been public to begin with. > > > -Randy > > -- > | Randy Carpenter > | V.P., IT Services > | First Network Group, Inc. > | Wapakoneta, OH > | (419)739-9240, x1 > -- > > > ----- "Tony Hain" wrote: > >> IANAL ... but they already have public address space assigned by >> their >> provider. That may only be a /32, but that is still public, and it is >> assigned by their provider. It would likely help make the case if it >> were a >> static assignment, but dhcp is an assignment mechanism. YMMV >> >> Tony >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter >>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:56 PM >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum >>> >>> >>> I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... >>> >>> They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider wouldn't >> (or >>> couldn't) give them many addresses. >>> They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, >>> which is causing problems for their end user customers. >>> >>> Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a solution >> to >>> get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They have >> 2 >>> connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for them >> to >>> have PI space. >>> >>> The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space from >>> ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was assigned >> to >>> you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN who >> says >>> there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, and I >>> cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers >> refuse >>> to give them any. >>> >>> What can be done about this? Would would there be a requirement of >>> already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That seems >> like >>> a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! >>> >>> -Randy >>> >>> -- >>> | Randy Carpenter >>> | V.P., IT Services >>> | First Network Group, Inc. >>> | RHCE >>> | (419)739-9240, x1 >>> -- >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2818 - Release Date: 04/18/10 13:31:00 From rcarpen at network1.net Sun Apr 18 23:13:29 2010 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:13:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <000d01cadf67$e36f7b00$aa4e7100$@com> Message-ID: <382371131.996.1271646809038.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> The SWIP issue you experienced is interesting. If they assign you the space, they are required to SWIP it. Whether or not there is any real action ARIN is going to take regarding that, I am not sure. I have also never heard of tier-1 providers not providing the appropriate authorization for BGP. We and our customer have done this numerous times with many different providers. -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | V.P., IT Services | First Network Group, Inc. | Wapakoneta, OH | (419)739-9240, x1 -- ----- "Michael Young" wrote: > Ryan, > > You would think that would work. However, my company tried exactly > that, and > both providers refused to accept the other provider's block via BGP > announcements. > > We had a /24 from both. Neither provider would SWIP those blocks and > show > that we were assigned them. Both required the other provider to > provide, in > writing, authorization for us to announce the other provider's block. > Neither provider would give a written authorization (although both > required > one). We went round and round and round. The damage done to my > business was > not insignificant. > > I'm not going to name names, but the providers involved are both major > Tier > 1 US-based ISPs. > > I know this will spark a round of "they can't\shouldn't\don't do > that" > emails from this list.... but they can and do. I certainly sympathize > with > Mr. Carpenter. I was forced to go buy an internet pipe I didn't need > for a > year just to get a /23 from a third provider. I ended up renumbering > my > network three times in the span of six months. This cost us thousands > of > dollars in time and lost customers. > > And each time I tried to explain my situation to someone at ARIN the > response was the same: "Well, that's the policy. We can't help you. > Talk to > your upstream provider." > > Michael Young > Generic Conferencing LLC > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Ryan Duda > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 5:48 PM > To: Randy Carpenter > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum > > Randy, > > This is one road.. > > 1) Obtain an ASN, peer with Provider A and Provider B. > 2) When the justification is there request an additional /24 from > either > provider A or provider B. > 3) Have efficient utilization of the 2 /24's. > 4) Request a /22 from ARIN > > > Ryan Duda > 123.net > 24275 Northwestern Hwy. > Southfield, MI 48075 > Direct: 586.566.0564 > Fax: 586.620.8005 > NOC: 866.460.3503 > Email: rpd at 123.net > > > > Randy Carpenter wrote: > > They have a /24, but the ARIN policy states that if you need a /19, > you > already have to have 50% of that size already fully in use. Our > specific > situation is that the ISP was forced to use private IPs for purposes > that > should have been public to begin with. > > > > > > -Randy > > > > -- > > | Randy Carpenter > > | V.P., IT Services > > | First Network Group, Inc. > > | Wapakoneta, OH > > | (419)739-9240, x1 > > -- > > > > > > ----- "Tony Hain" wrote: > > > >> IANAL ... but they already have public address space assigned by > >> their > >> provider. That may only be a /32, but that is still public, and it > is > >> assigned by their provider. It would likely help make the case if > it > >> were a > >> static assignment, but dhcp is an assignment mechanism. YMMV > >> > >> Tony > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > >>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter > >>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:56 PM > >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net > >>> Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum > >>> > >>> > >>> I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... > >>> > >>> They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider > wouldn't > >> (or > >>> couldn't) give them many addresses. > >>> They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their > network, > >>> which is causing problems for their end user customers. > >>> > >>> Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a solution > >> to > >>> get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They > have > >> 2 > >>> connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for > them > >> to > >>> have PI space. > >>> > >>> The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space > from > >>> ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was assigned > >> to > >>> you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN who > >> says > >>> there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, and > I > >>> cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers > >> refuse > >>> to give them any. > >>> > >>> What can be done about this? Would would there be a requirement > of > >>> already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That seems > >> like > >>> a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! > >>> > >>> -Randy > >>> > >>> -- > >>> | Randy Carpenter > >>> | V.P., IT Services > >>> | First Network Group, Inc. > >>> | RHCE > >>> | (419)739-9240, x1 > >>> -- > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ARIN-Discuss > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2818 - Release Date: > 04/18/10 > 13:31:00 > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Sun Apr 18 23:16:51 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:16:51 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <000d01cadf67$e36f7b00$aa4e7100$@com> References: <542026147.23328.1271627740151.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> <4BCB8C27.9080703@123.net> <000d01cadf67$e36f7b00$aa4e7100$@com> Message-ID: > We had a /24 from both. Neither provider would SWIP those blocks and show > that we were assigned them. Both required the other provider to provide, in > writing, authorization for us to announce the other provider's block. > Neither provider would give a written authorization (although both required > one). We went round and round and round. The damage done to my business was > not insignificant. > If you have a provider in the ARIN region that assigns you a block and refuses to SWIP it or put it in their RWHOIS server, you should contact ARIN. Assuming they are using ARIN issued space, the policy under which they received that space clearly states that they are required to register it accordingly. If they refuse, then, they have violated their RSA. > > I know this will spark a round of "they can't\shouldn't\don't do that" > emails from this list.... but they can and do. I certainly sympathize with > Mr. Carpenter. I was forced to go buy an internet pipe I didn't need for a > year just to get a /23 from a third provider. I ended up renumbering my > network three times in the span of six months. This cost us thousands of > dollars in time and lost customers. > I know this happens, but, until someone hands ARIN the smoking gun, there's little that can be done about it. Hence, I'm saying "Talk to ARIN about it" rather than "Then can't/shouldn't do that" (which is obvious). > And each time I tried to explain my situation to someone at ARIN the > response was the same: "Well, that's the policy. We can't help you. Talk to > your upstream provider." > If you explained to ARIN that they were refusing to SWIP the space to you, ARIN should have been able to do something about that. Feel free to contact me off list or use the "Fraud Reporting" link on the ARIN web site to try and get something done. Owen > Michael Young > Generic Conferencing LLC > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Ryan Duda > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 5:48 PM > To: Randy Carpenter > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum > > Randy, > > This is one road.. > > 1) Obtain an ASN, peer with Provider A and Provider B. > 2) When the justification is there request an additional /24 from either > provider A or provider B. > 3) Have efficient utilization of the 2 /24's. > 4) Request a /22 from ARIN > > > Ryan Duda > 123.net > 24275 Northwestern Hwy. > Southfield, MI 48075 > Direct: 586.566.0564 > Fax: 586.620.8005 > NOC: 866.460.3503 > Email: rpd at 123.net > > > > Randy Carpenter wrote: >> They have a /24, but the ARIN policy states that if you need a /19, you > already have to have 50% of that size already fully in use. Our specific > situation is that the ISP was forced to use private IPs for purposes that > should have been public to begin with. >> >> >> -Randy >> >> -- >> | Randy Carpenter >> | V.P., IT Services >> | First Network Group, Inc. >> | Wapakoneta, OH >> | (419)739-9240, x1 >> -- >> >> >> ----- "Tony Hain" wrote: >> >>> IANAL ... but they already have public address space assigned by >>> their >>> provider. That may only be a /32, but that is still public, and it is >>> assigned by their provider. It would likely help make the case if it >>> were a >>> static assignment, but dhcp is an assignment mechanism. YMMV >>> >>> Tony >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >>>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter >>>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:56 PM >>>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum >>>> >>>> >>>> I am working with a new customer who is in a bit of a pickle... >>>> >>>> They are an ISP and VoIP provider whose upstream provider wouldn't >>> (or >>>> couldn't) give them many addresses. >>>> They resorted to using NATed private IPs for most of their network, >>>> which is causing problems for their end user customers. >>>> >>>> Now that we are working with them, I am trying to find a solution >>> to >>>> get them public IPs. They are also soon to be multi-homed (They have >>> 2 >>>> connections, but no BGP yet). As an ISP, it would be best for them >>> to >>>> have PI space. >>>> >>>> The issue is that one of the requirements for getting PI space from >>>> ARIN is that you are already using Public space that was assigned >>> to >>>> you from an upstream provider. I spoke with someone from ARIN who >>> says >>>> there is no way around this. The need around a /19 of space, and I >>>> cannot find any way to get it for them. The upstream providers >>> refuse >>>> to give them any. >>>> >>>> What can be done about this? Would would there be a requirement of >>>> already using someone else's IP space to get your own? That seems >>> like >>>> a complete waste of time, effort, money, and IPs! >>>> >>>> -Randy >>>> >>>> -- >>>> | Randy Carpenter >>>> | V.P., IT Services >>>> | First Network Group, Inc. >>>> | RHCE >>>> | (419)739-9240, x1 >>>> -- >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2818 - Release Date: 04/18/10 > 13:31:00 > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 owen at delong.com Mon Apr 19 23:03:24 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:03:24 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: <20100419231839.GB6110@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <542026147.23328.1271627740151.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> <4BCB8C27.9080703@123.net> <000d01cadf67$e36f7b00$aa4e7100$@com> <20100419231839.GB6110@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: On Apr 19, 2010, at 4:18 PM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 08:16:51PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> We had a /24 from both. Neither provider would SWIP those blocks and show >>> that we were assigned them. Both required the other provider to provide, in >>> writing, authorization for us to announce the other provider's block. >>> Neither provider would give a written authorization (although both required >>> one). We went round and round and round. The damage done to my business was >>> not insignificant. >>> >> If you have a provider in the ARIN region that assigns you a block and refuses >> to SWIP it or put it in their RWHOIS server, you should contact ARIN. Assuming >> they are using ARIN issued space, the policy under which they received that >> space clearly states that they are required to register it accordingly. If they >> refuse, then, they have violated their RSA. > > that might be true for a big chunk of current policy. > that is not true for all space under the ARIN management framework > and it is whitewashing to futz accuracy here. > Bill, It is true for EVERY provider that issued you space they received from ARIN as an ISP. If they received the space from ARIN, but, not as an ISP, then, ARIN should know about that, too, but, the issue is the reassignment, not the lack of a SWIP. As such, I stand by my statement. If they received the space FROM ARIN, the statement holds true, as it is subject to the RSA. Owen From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Tue Apr 20 11:34:09 2010 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:34:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv4 allocation conundrum In-Reply-To: References: <542026147.23328.1271627740151.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> <4BCB8C27.9080703@123.net> <000d01cadf67$e36f7b00$aa4e7100$@com> <20100419231839.GB6110@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <20100420153409.GB18048@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 08:03:24PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Apr 19, 2010, at 4:18 PM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 08:16:51PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> We had a /24 from both. Neither provider would SWIP those blocks and show > >>> that we were assigned them. Both required the other provider to provide, in > >>> writing, authorization for us to announce the other provider's block. > >>> Neither provider would give a written authorization (although both required > >>> one). We went round and round and round. The damage done to my business was > >>> not insignificant. > >>> > >> If you have a provider in the ARIN region that assigns you a block and refuses > >> to SWIP it or put it in their RWHOIS server, you should contact ARIN. Assuming > >> they are using ARIN issued space, the policy under which they received that > >> space clearly states that they are required to register it accordingly. If they > >> refuse, then, they have violated their RSA. > > > > that might be true for a big chunk of current policy. > > that is not true for all space under the ARIN management framework > > and it is whitewashing to futz accuracy here. > > > Bill, > It is true for EVERY provider that issued you space they received from ARIN > as an ISP. If they received the space from ARIN, but, not as an ISP, then, ARIN should > know about that, too, but, the issue is the reassignment, not the lack of a SWIP. > As such, I stand by my statement. If they received the space FROM ARIN, the > statement holds true, as it is subject to the RSA. > > Owen from ARIN.. Hello Bill, It was nice talking with you this morning. As promised, I have talked with other ARIN staff members who have been with the company for longer than me. They have confirmed that we have had an RSA since ARIN's began so all ARIN issued resources would be covered. ------ You are correct. The discrepency is that not all IP space under ARIN management was issued by ARIN. --bill From steve at ibctech.ca Wed Apr 21 18:53:02 2010 From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:53:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] A statement following ARIN XXV Message-ID: <1063.69.49.38.10.1271890382.squirrel@webmail.ibctech.ca> Hi all, My plan is to recollect my thoughts tonight while they are still fresh in my mind and write them down for later, so, I won't go into much detail here. Normally, when I make a public statement, I try really hard not to think about it too much in advance. However, I did miss out on one *very* key point while making my appreciation statement, and after a little thought, I felt that the community needs to hear the extension to what I said during the open mike portion of today's session. So, officially: I want to thank Marla Azinger (Frontier Communications), a member of the AC, who was my mentor. Marla was incredibly informative and helpful throughout the meeting, and I feel that she was instrumental to me all the way throughout. She was constantly feeding me information, and was able to answer every question that I had to a degree that I understood, and more importantly, felt comfortable with. As I've already said, I don't want to get into too much detail here, but I will say this... Marla showed me by example that it is ok to speak against the grain no matter what, and to voice one's opinion no matter who is looking at you. Proof is in the pudding... I voted in contrast to her in at least a couple of proposals, and she didn't sick her hubby on me, nor did she blow me up with her M203 ;) Cheers, and Marla, thank you ever so much, Steve From steve at ibctech.ca Thu Apr 22 21:44:45 2010 From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 21:44:45 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website Message-ID: <4BD0FB8D.7080805@ibctech.ca> There were a few people who were curious and asked me about what the effects would be for ISPs that delayed their IPv6 implementation until after the v4 runout during the ARIN meeting. So, I decided to actually get my IPv6-only domain online so those people can get first hand experience of a situation of trying to visit a website of a new content provider that can only get IPv6 address space. This is not a simulation... it is the real thing. The domain is onlyv6.com, and I've documented the prereqs to view it in my blog: http://ipv6canada.com/?p=92 Configuring a v6 only domain did not come without challenges. Although it was trivial to do, there were many steps along the way that I really had to step back and focus much effort on, particularly because I literally was fighting an IPv4 mindset that has been prevalent for years. Cheers, Steve From steve at ibctech.ca Thu Apr 22 23:52:08 2010 From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:52:08 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website In-Reply-To: <4BD0FB8D.7080805@ibctech.ca> References: <4BD0FB8D.7080805@ibctech.ca> Message-ID: <4BD11968.70508@ibctech.ca> On 2010.04.22 21:44, Steve Bertrand wrote: > There were a few people who were curious and asked me about what the > effects would be for ISPs that delayed their IPv6 implementation until > after the v4 runout during the ARIN meeting. Speaking to myself, I seem to have found another issue regarding IPv6 only sites. If the following website: http://www.hscripts.com/tools/HDNT/dns-record.php ...is not correct in claiming this against my domain: "No AAAA records exist for onlyv6.com" ...it means that they are lying to me, and they must be basing this conclusion on not being able to *see* my AAAA records (due to the fact that their resolvers are relying on me having both v4 AND v6 connectivity on my authoritative servers). Can someone with more DNS knowledge than I have do some troubleshooting for me on the onlyv6.com domain and let me know if I'm on the right track here? Steve ps. sorry to have taken this list operational, but I do want to provide a reliable test site as I promised I would. From rcarpen at network1.net Fri Apr 23 00:07:38 2010 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:07:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website In-Reply-To: <1039891855.6469.1271995573835.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: <1704876266.6471.1271995658983.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> It looks like your DNS servers are only accessible via IPv6. It would be best for at least DNS to be accessible via v4, even if you only have AAAA records. Many people will have v6 connectivity, but only access to v4 name servers. -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | V.P., IT Services | First Network Group, Inc. | Wapakoneta, OH | (419)739-9240, x1 -- ----- "Steve Bertrand" wrote: > On 2010.04.22 21:44, Steve Bertrand wrote: > > There were a few people who were curious and asked me about what > the > > effects would be for ISPs that delayed their IPv6 implementation > until > > after the v4 runout during the ARIN meeting. > > Speaking to myself, I seem to have found another issue regarding IPv6 > only sites. > > If the following website: > > http://www.hscripts.com/tools/HDNT/dns-record.php > > ...is not correct in claiming this against my domain: > > "No AAAA records exist for onlyv6.com" > > ...it means that they are lying to me, and they must be basing this > conclusion on not being able to *see* my AAAA records (due to the > fact > that their resolvers are relying on me having both v4 AND v6 > connectivity on my authoritative servers). > > Can someone with more DNS knowledge than I have do some > troubleshooting > for me on the onlyv6.com domain and let me know if I'm on the right > track here? > > Steve > > ps. sorry to have taken this list operational, but I do want to > provide > a reliable test site as I promised I would. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Fri Apr 23 00:24:28 2010 From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:24:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website In-Reply-To: <1704876266.6471.1271995658983.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> References: <1704876266.6471.1271995658983.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: <4BD120FC.2090102@ibctech.ca> On 2010.04.23 00:07, Randy Carpenter wrote: > > It looks like your DNS servers are only accessible via IPv6. It would be best for at least DNS to be accessible via v4, even if you only have AAAA records. Many people will have v6 connectivity, but only access to v4 name servers. My v6 only test domain DNS is not accessible via v4 for a reason. It is truly designed to show people that when v4 runout happens, and sites go online with no choice but to truly be v6 only, there will be breakage. I'm trying to use this example for a few reasons: - gain first hand knowledge and experience for myself what I can expect from the content provider/ISP side of things after runout - learn how to troubleshoot connectivity issues - be able to educate people (other ISPs and content providers) on what is wrong with their network, what to look for, and how to fix it My test has been implemented with the exact intent intact, and I have had that verified off-list. Cheers, and have fun ;) Steve From pcarlson at guam.net Fri Apr 23 00:25:48 2010 From: pcarlson at guam.net (Paul Carlson) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:25:48 +1000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website In-Reply-To: <1704876266.6471.1271995658983.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> References: <1704876266.6471.1271995658983.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: <85F67737-809C-4B71-8700-453A269474C7@guam.net> I think that was part of what Steve was exploring. A new network would not necessarily have access to any IPV4 addresses after v4 exhaustion. If v4 addresses were required to function in a v6 world then it would certainly change allocation rules for the last of the addresses. Paul Carlson VP Network Administration Guam Cablevision, LLC. On Apr 23, 2010, at 2:07 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > > It looks like your DNS servers are only accessible via IPv6. It would be best for at least DNS to be accessible via v4, even if you only have AAAA records. Many people will have v6 connectivity, but only access to v4 name servers. > > > -Randy > > -- > | Randy Carpenter > | V.P., IT Services > | First Network Group, Inc. > | Wapakoneta, OH > | (419)739-9240, x1 > -- > > > ----- "Steve Bertrand" wrote: > >> On 2010.04.22 21:44, Steve Bertrand wrote: >>> There were a few people who were curious and asked me about what >> the >>> effects would be for ISPs that delayed their IPv6 implementation >> until >>> after the v4 runout during the ARIN meeting. >> >> Speaking to myself, I seem to have found another issue regarding IPv6 >> only sites. >> >> If the following website: >> >> http://www.hscripts.com/tools/HDNT/dns-record.php >> >> ...is not correct in claiming this against my domain: >> >> "No AAAA records exist for onlyv6.com" >> >> ...it means that they are lying to me, and they must be basing this >> conclusion on not being able to *see* my AAAA records (due to the >> fact >> that their resolvers are relying on me having both v4 AND v6 >> connectivity on my authoritative servers). >> >> Can someone with more DNS knowledge than I have do some >> troubleshooting >> for me on the onlyv6.com domain and let me know if I'm on the right >> track here? >> >> Steve >> >> ps. sorry to have taken this list operational, but I do want to >> provide >> a reliable test site as I promised I would. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2343 bytes Desc: not available URL: From steve at ibctech.ca Fri Apr 23 01:24:00 2010 From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 01:24:00 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website In-Reply-To: <85F67737-809C-4B71-8700-453A269474C7@guam.net> References: <1704876266.6471.1271995658983.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> <85F67737-809C-4B71-8700-453A269474C7@guam.net> Message-ID: <4BD12EF0.3080305@ibctech.ca> On 2010.04.23 00:25, Paul Carlson wrote: > > > I think that was part of what Steve was exploring. A new network would not necessarily have access to any IPV4 addresses after v4 exhaustion. If v4 addresses were required to function in a v6 world then it would certainly change allocation rules for the last of the addresses. Thanks for clarifying. You are 100% correct. This exploration test is not designed to be a simulation of what might happen... in fact, it is purely a real-world non-simulation configuration setup of what *will* happen. It's fair to assume that I am an IPv6 advocate, and for those who are really putting effort into v6 implementation but are having vendor issues, I hope they get resolved soon. Steve From owen at delong.com Fri Apr 23 01:32:06 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:32:06 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website In-Reply-To: <4BD11968.70508@ibctech.ca> References: <4BD0FB8D.7080805@ibctech.ca> <4BD11968.70508@ibctech.ca> Message-ID: <0966FB5E-86DA-4200-B616-53E5DE034CD0@delong.com> On Apr 22, 2010, at 8:52 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote: > On 2010.04.22 21:44, Steve Bertrand wrote: >> There were a few people who were curious and asked me about what the >> effects would be for ISPs that delayed their IPv6 implementation until >> after the v4 runout during the ARIN meeting. > > Speaking to myself, I seem to have found another issue regarding IPv6 > only sites. > > If the following website: > > http://www.hscripts.com/tools/HDNT/dns-record.php > > ...is not correct in claiming this against my domain: > > "No AAAA records exist for onlyv6.com" > > ...it means that they are lying to me, and they must be basing this > conclusion on not being able to *see* my AAAA records (due to the fact > that their resolvers are relying on me having both v4 AND v6 > connectivity on my authoritative servers). > > Can someone with more DNS knowledge than I have do some troubleshooting > for me on the onlyv6.com domain and let me know if I'm on the right > track here? > Hard to troubleshoot from afar. My guess would be that perhaps: 1. Your nameservers for that zone are IPv6 only, not just the web site. (nothing wrong with this) 2. Their resolver is not ready for an IPv6-only nameserver. It's like XP... it'll get a quad-A, but, it won't get anything over IPv6. I suggest contacting the site administrators and asking them exactly the question you have above: "Why don't my perfectly valid AAAA records for onlyv6.com show up on your site?" Owen From steve at ibctech.ca Fri Apr 23 01:43:19 2010 From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 01:43:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website In-Reply-To: <0966FB5E-86DA-4200-B616-53E5DE034CD0@delong.com> References: <4BD0FB8D.7080805@ibctech.ca> <4BD11968.70508@ibctech.ca> <0966FB5E-86DA-4200-B616-53E5DE034CD0@delong.com> Message-ID: <4BD13377.4090104@ibctech.ca> On 2010.04.23 01:32, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2010, at 8:52 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote: > >> On 2010.04.22 21:44, Steve Bertrand wrote: >>> There were a few people who were curious and asked me about what the >>> effects would be for ISPs that delayed their IPv6 implementation until >>> after the v4 runout during the ARIN meeting. >> >> Speaking to myself, I seem to have found another issue regarding IPv6 >> only sites. >> >> If the following website: >> >> http://www.hscripts.com/tools/HDNT/dns-record.php >> >> ...is not correct in claiming this against my domain: >> >> "No AAAA records exist for onlyv6.com" >> >> ...it means that they are lying to me, and they must be basing this >> conclusion on not being able to *see* my AAAA records (due to the fact >> that their resolvers are relying on me having both v4 AND v6 >> connectivity on my authoritative servers). >> >> Can someone with more DNS knowledge than I have do some troubleshooting >> for me on the onlyv6.com domain and let me know if I'm on the right >> track here? >> > Hard to troubleshoot from afar. My guess would be that perhaps: > > 1. Your nameservers for that zone are IPv6 only, not just the web site. > (nothing wrong with this) > > 2. Their resolver is not ready for an IPv6-only nameserver. > It's like XP... it'll get a quad-A, but, it won't get anything over IPv6. I think you missed some of the previous posts I made, which had documented your two situations (in fact, the site itself describes them). > I suggest contacting the site administrators and asking them > exactly the question you have above: In this case, I think that I will do exactly that. It will be a fantastic learning experience for me to see how well I can do on my first IPv6 outreach attempt with someone that I came across thanks to Google, and I have no idea who they are whatsoever. I'll document the conversation, as I'm sure it will get interesting :) Steve From johnb at infinitie.net Fri Apr 23 04:27:23 2010 From: johnb at infinitie.net (johnb at infinitie.net) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:27:23 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website In-Reply-To: <0966FB5E-86DA-4200-B616-53E5DE034CD0@delong.com> References: <4BD0FB8D.7080805@ibctech.ca> <4BD11968.70508@ibctech.ca><0966FB5E-86DA-4200-B616-53E5DE034CD0@delong.com> Message-ID: <462269744-1272011241-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1145527554-@bda168.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Hey all. New to this forum. I am curious. We have our ipv6 allocation and really want to push ipv6 but most of our upstreams aren't supporting it. We want to be ready when ipv4 runs out but don't really have a way of announcing these ips successfully. What do you recommend? Sincerely, John W. B. Infinitie Customer Support Account Executive -------------------------------- Infinitie Networks The Online Network American's Trust(sm) http://www.infinitie.net -----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:32:06 To: Steve Bertrand Cc: Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website On Apr 22, 2010, at 8:52 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote: > On 2010.04.22 21:44, Steve Bertrand wrote: >> There were a few people who were curious and asked me about what the >> effects would be for ISPs that delayed their IPv6 implementation until >> after the v4 runout during the ARIN meeting. > > Speaking to myself, I seem to have found another issue regarding IPv6 > only sites. > > If the following website: > > http://www.hscripts.com/tools/HDNT/dns-record.php > > ...is not correct in claiming this against my domain: > > "No AAAA records exist for onlyv6.com" > > ...it means that they are lying to me, and they must be basing this > conclusion on not being able to *see* my AAAA records (due to the fact > that their resolvers are relying on me having both v4 AND v6 > connectivity on my authoritative servers). > > Can someone with more DNS knowledge than I have do some troubleshooting > for me on the onlyv6.com domain and let me know if I'm on the right > track here? > Hard to troubleshoot from afar. My guess would be that perhaps: 1. Your nameservers for that zone are IPv6 only, not just the web site. (nothing wrong with this) 2. Their resolver is not ready for an IPv6-only nameserver. It's like XP... it'll get a quad-A, but, it won't get anything over IPv6. I suggest contacting the site administrators and asking them exactly the question you have above: "Why don't my perfectly valid AAAA records for onlyv6.com show up on your site?" 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 steve at ibctech.ca Fri Apr 23 04:55:58 2010 From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:55:58 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website In-Reply-To: <462269744-1272011241-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1145527554-@bda168.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <4BD0FB8D.7080805@ibctech.ca> <4BD11968.70508@ibctech.ca><0966FB5E-86DA-4200-B616-53E5DE034CD0@delong.com> <462269744-1272011241-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1145527554-@bda168.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <4BD1609E.20507@ibctech.ca> On 2010.04.23 04:27, johnb at infinitie.net wrote: > Hey all. > > New to this forum. I am curious. We have our ipv6 allocation and really want to push ipv6 but most of our upstreams aren't supporting it. > > We want to be ready when ipv4 runs out but don't really have a way of announcing these ips successfully. > > What do you recommend? You have an AS number, yes? What you need to do is contact a tunnel broker and advertise your address allocation to them via BGP. In many cases, this is free to do. I *highly* recommend he.net: http://he.net/ They have all the details, but if you need anything further, I will gladly help you out with implementation details (including initial configuration). I am in the same situation you are... my primary v6 transit is over an ipip tunnel to HE. Cheers, Steve From johnb at infinitie.net Fri Apr 23 05:29:00 2010 From: johnb at infinitie.net (johnb at infinitie.net) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:29:00 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website Message-ID: <468448321-1272014939-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-548216622-@bda168.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Hey Yup and we have a Cisco 6509. We aren't announcing BGP at the moment because our colo facility is statically announcing our CIDRs for IPv4 via BGP. But we want to start doing BGP and peering ourselves now since they are becoming a pain in the ass to deal with. Definitely would love to start getting ipv6 on the roll since its going to be a gong show once ipv4 runs out and other provides are left scrambling ------Original Message------ From: Steve Bertrand To: johnb at infinitie.net Cc: Owen DeLong Cc: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website Sent: Apr 23, 2010 1:55 AM On 2010.04.23 04:27, johnb at infinitie.net wrote: > Hey all. > > New to this forum. I am curious. We have our ipv6 allocation and really want to push ipv6 but most of our upstreams aren't supporting it. > > We want to be ready when ipv4 runs out but don't really have a way of announcing these ips successfully. > > What do you recommend? You have an AS number, yes? What you need to do is contact a tunnel broker and advertise your address allocation to them via BGP. In many cases, this is free to do. I *highly* recommend he.net: http://he.net/ They have all the details, but if you need anything further, I will gladly help you out with implementation details (including initial configuration). I am in the same situation you are... my primary v6 transit is over an ipip tunnel to HE. Cheers, Steve Sincerely, John W. B. Infinitie Customer Support Account Executive -------------------------------- Infinitie Networks The Online Network American's Trust(sm) http://www.infinitie.net From steve at ibctech.ca Fri Apr 23 06:04:24 2010 From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 06:04:24 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website In-Reply-To: <468448321-1272014939-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-548216622-@bda168.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <468448321-1272014939-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-548216622-@bda168.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <4BD170A8.1060009@ibctech.ca> On 2010.04.23 05:29, johnb at infinitie.net wrote: > Hey > > Yup and we have a Cisco 6509. We aren't announcing BGP at the moment because our colo facility is statically announcing our CIDRs for IPv4 via BGP. Well my friend, it's a smaller boat than I originally thought. My upstream statically routes *my* /21 to me, and announce it out of their AS. Repeated pushing has got me nowhere, but it's at the point where I just can't have it anymore (ie. I have been evaluating alternate bandwidth providers and I am very, very close to having to move). Thankfully, v6 can be transparently announced and routed regardless of what your colo is doing with your v4. It is no where near preferable, but so long as a few things are in order, it is far better than nothing. > But we want to start doing BGP and peering ourselves now since they are becoming a pain in the ass to deal with. See above. I won't comment further. > Definitely would love to start getting ipv6 on the roll since its going to be a gong show once ipv4 runs out and other provides are left scrambling I attended the ARIN meeting that concluded this week. It was my first one. There was more than one person who informed me that I got involved meeting-wise at an unprecedented time. Personally, I currently look at v6 as a form of insurance policy... yes, it has up front costs, but if you don't do it now, your premiums are going to go up exponentially the longer you wait (imho). IPv6 is relatively easy. The numbers look a bit different, but other than that, it comes down to numbering. I assure you that there are numerous people who are very willing to help aid new entrants with v6 deployment. If you haven't done so already, take an inventory of your gear. Depending on the size of your network, you'll want to note whether the gear can handle v6 in hardware, and whether you'll be able to implement the same style of routing/security policy configuration in v6 like you do in v4. In parallel to the inventory stage, get a tunnel with he.net, throw your tie-down route on a lab box, and let me see your prefix ;) Steve From rs at seastrom.com Fri Apr 23 08:56:50 2010 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:56:50 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website In-Reply-To: <4BD12EF0.3080305@ibctech.ca> (Steve Bertrand's message of "Fri, 23 Apr 2010 01:24:00 -0400") References: <1704876266.6471.1271995658983.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> <85F67737-809C-4B71-8700-453A269474C7@guam.net> <4BD12EF0.3080305@ibctech.ca> Message-ID: <867hnytjhp.fsf@seastrom.com> Steve Bertrand writes: > On 2010.04.23 00:25, Paul Carlson wrote: >> >> >> I think that was part of what Steve was exploring. A new network >> would not necessarily have access to any IPV4 addresses after v4 >> exhaustion. If v4 addresses were required to function in a v6 >> world then it would certainly change allocation rules for the last >> of the addresses. > > Thanks for clarifying. > > You are 100% correct. > > This exploration test is not designed to be a simulation of what might > happen... in fact, it is purely a real-world non-simulation > configuration setup of what *will* happen. I'm not sure this is a valid simulation or configuration setup, unless you're trying to show what will happen when naive sysadmins fail to configure DNS zones for greatest reachability, for the greatest number of customers (which can obviously be done today if one wishes!). This zone is, however, quite useful for sussing out whether a particular cacheing recursive server you're talking to is dual-stack (as suspected, BIND anyway will return SERVFAIL instead of NOERROR as it tries to follow the delegation chain into address space that it doesn't know about). So thanks for setting it up. OpenDNS, Google and Level(3) folks, please pick up the white courtesy phone... Consider two things: 1) Even if your ISP doesn't have IPv4 addresses at all, it is reasonable to postulate the evolution of public resolvers along the lines of 208.67.220.220, 208.67.220.222, 4.2.2.1 and 8.8.8.8 (none of which is apparently currently dual-stacked) to be dual-stacked and so be queryable from the v6 side as well as the v4 side and able resolve records where the authoritative nameservers are in either or both address spaces. 2) If you're looking for a place to host your own DNS records and have no v4 address of your own, there are already places that are dirt cheap to free (perhaps your registrar already offers this service?) to host DNS records. Just make sure that they offer at least one v6 address in the mix and voila, all is well; you are reachable even for people whose cacheing resolver is v4-only. Could you elucidate how this relates to a post-depletion scenario, except by way of illustrating what is possibly a future common error? Thanks! -r PS: works fine for me: onlyv6.com. 3600 IN SOA ns1.onlyv6.com. admin.onlyv6.com. 2010031102 7200 3600 1728000 172800 From steve at ibctech.ca Sat Apr 24 16:06:28 2010 From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:06:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6-only website In-Reply-To: <867hnytjhp.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <1704876266.6471.1271995658983.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net> <85F67737-809C-4B71-8700-453A269474C7@guam.net> <4BD12EF0.3080305@ibctech.ca> <867hnytjhp.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <4BD34F44.1040601@ibctech.ca> On 2010.04.23 08:56, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Steve Bertrand writes: > >> On 2010.04.23 00:25, Paul Carlson wrote: >>> >>> >>> I think that was part of what Steve was exploring. A new network >>> would not necessarily have access to any IPV4 addresses after v4 >>> exhaustion. If v4 addresses were required to function in a v6 >>> world then it would certainly change allocation rules for the last >>> of the addresses. >> >> Thanks for clarifying. >> >> You are 100% correct. >> >> This exploration test is not designed to be a simulation of what might >> happen... in fact, it is purely a real-world non-simulation >> configuration setup of what *will* happen. > > This zone is, however, quite useful for sussing out whether a > particular cacheing recursive server you're talking to is dual-stack > (as suspected, BIND anyway will return SERVFAIL instead of NOERROR as > it tries to follow the delegation chain into address space that it > doesn't know about). So thanks for setting it up. OpenDNS, Google > and Level(3) folks, please pick up the white courtesy phone... ...just getting back to email now, I have more email in my _personal_ inbox today than I've ever had to deal with in a 48 hour period (900). I thank you Rob for your insight. I'll review your message along with all of the other ones over the coming days. This is more-or-less just a 'thank-you' message to let everyone know that I am very appreciative of the overwhelming response that I have received thus far. I especially want to thank those who provided feedback to ensure my test was off the ground, and had proper technical merit. Cheers! Steve From owen at delong.com Fri Apr 30 12:17:13 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:17:13 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6 In-Reply-To: <2B842A75-E1E6-4B8F-820D-DA3C25148C62@delong.com> References: <50EE5968-A41E-4BBD-92FE-6F025765E5F2@delong.com> <327D7E22-D689-4F39-9B62-80439653D126@delong.com> <2B842A75-E1E6-4B8F-820D-DA3C25148C62@delong.com> Message-ID: As a data point, there are currently 866* x-small IPv4 ISP organizations in the ARIN region. There are a total of 3,562* ISP organizations in the ARIN region (including IPv4 and IPv6). x-small IPv4 providers as such, constitute about 1/4 of the total ARIN ISP constituency. The maximum revenue impact of an IPv6 waiver for them (removing the $1,000 surcharge for IPv6 /32 pricing) would be $833,000 per year, increasing as the number of organizations affected by the waiver increased. This information is provided strictly as a data point and not in the interests of pushing the discussion in either direction. Owen *The data I used to produce these numbers comes from ARIN staff and is current as of earlier April 29, 2010. ARIN will be publishing the data to their statistics page in the next few days. Please don't blame staff for the publication delay. I asked for the numbers late last night and they have been extremely responsive in getting the data to me and have taken the additional initiative to publish it as quickly as they can within their process. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Apr 30 14:53:43 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:53:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <50EE5968-A41E-4BBD-92FE-6F025765E5F2@delong.com> <327D7E22-D689-4F39-9B62-80439653D126@delong.com> <2B842A75-E1E6-4B8F-820D-DA3C25148C62@delong.com> Message-ID: <4BDB2737.70400@ipinc.net> Owen, Now just hold on there. This $833,000 figure is POTENTIAL revenue. You cannot have a "revenue impact" on revenue you have not collected and are not expected to collect. Further ARIN is a non-profit. It is ILLEGAL for it to NOT hand that money back to the customer base - and it must do it by LOWERING FEES. Your terminology is ASSUMING that if the waiver expires in 2012 that all of the x-small IPv4 holders will pony up the $1000 for IPv6. If that happens ARIN realizes an extra $833,000 - and any waiver we do would then have an $833,000 "revenue impact" But the liklihood is they will NOT pony that money up. Thus ARIN is NEVER going to realize that extra $833,000 and thus cannot "lose" it if we put in a waiver. If you really want to know the true revenue impact in 2012 then here's how to find it out. fist, you have to ask the ARIN staff to break the 866 x-small ISP's down into ISP's that have x-small Legacy holdings and thus currently pay -nothing- to ARIN and x-small ISP's that are paying the $1250.00 a year. Reason being is that the freeloaders ARE NEVER going to go to IPv6 unless we waive it down to nothing for them. And I don't think that ANYONE (except for the Legacy holders) wants to perpetuate the "free if you got your IP before the Dinosaurs lived" business in IPv6. Any waiver of 2011 and 2012 would ONLY affect the x-small IPv4 holders paying the $1250.00 right now - by definition, NON legacy x-small IPv4 holders. Secondly, even with a modification of the current waiver to 50% for 2011 and 50% for 2012 for the Small /32 IPv6 category, (which is what -I- have been advocating) a lot of those x-small ISPs will STILL NOT go to IPv6 before 2012. Thus the only "revenue impacts" would be for the ones that WENT FOR IT. If 76 out of the 866 x-small ISP's took advantage of a 50% waiver in 2011 and 2012 the unrealized income to ARIN would be $42,000 in 2011 and $76,000 in 2012 Lastly, there is also the chance to phase this in much more gradually. To do this we have to face the following facts: The inevitability of IPv6 means the x-small ISPs are eventually going to all have to be paying the $2250 for the Small IPv6 allocation. This means the Legacy x-small holders who are paying nothing now, are going to have to pay the $2250 and the non-legacy x-smalls are going to have to pay an extra $1000 This represents a permanent income increase to ARIN. You have named off a figure of .8 million a year. OK whatever. I think it will be higher but without x-small Legacy holder figures I'll go with the .8 million. Right now ARIN doesen't have this .8 million - but when the day comes that the x-smalls HAVE to have IPv6 then it WILL have the .8 million. Let's rub the crystal ball a moment and assume that this date will be 2015 - 3 years after the "end of virgin RIR assignments" If the waiver is allowed to disappear then few x-smalls will go to IPv6 before this "must have" date. That represents an .8 mil a year loss to ARIN commencing from 2012 to the "must have" date of 2015 - using your logic of "it's ours before we have it" financial analysis. :-) ARIN can say "well if we drop the waiver to 40% how many additonal x-smalls will sign up and what money do we make" These are the same "what-if" games that retailers play when they set store "It's the blow-out 50% off sale" prices. I don't have experience with those but they obviously work. The additional revenue ARIN collects must go towards lowering fees - thus if we waive it now, and more x-smalls buy in, then the price they buy-in at drops. Obviously this all goes away on the "must have" date. If the x-smalls can't hack it then, then they never will. But until that date, the pricing for this category should be set in a manner as to encourage the x-smalls to get into IPv6 as much as possible. Ted On 4/30/2010 9:17 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > As a data point, there are currently 866* x-small IPv4 ISP organizations in the ARIN region. > > There are a total of 3,562* ISP organizations in the ARIN region (including IPv4 and IPv6). > > x-small IPv4 providers as such, constitute about 1/4 of the total ARIN ISP constituency. > > The maximum revenue impact of an IPv6 waiver for them (removing the $1,000 surcharge > for IPv6 /32 pricing) would be $833,000 per year, increasing as the number of organizations > affected by the waiver increased. > > This information is provided strictly as a data point and not in the interests of pushing > the discussion in either direction. > > Owen > > > *The data I used to produce these numbers comes from ARIN staff and is current as of > earlier April 29, 2010. ARIN will be publishing the data to their statistics page in the next few > days. Please don't blame staff for the publication delay. I asked for the numbers late > last night and they have been extremely responsive in getting the data to me and have > taken the additional initiative to publish it as quickly as they can within their process. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Fri Apr 30 18:52:06 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:52:06 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4BDB2737.70400@ipinc.net> References: <50EE5968-A41E-4BBD-92FE-6F025765E5F2@delong.com> <327D7E22-D689-4F39-9B62-80439653D126@delong.com> <2B842A75-E1E6-4B8F-820D-DA3C25148C62@delong.com> <4BDB2737.70400@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <7578A3B7-6ECA-4E5B-ABF5-6605B5329BD2@delong.com> Ted, I attempted to present some numerical facts for the community's consideration. I was not pushing one position or the other, merely providing the results of research. There are 866 x-small IPv4 ISPs that do not have IPv6. Those are the current set of providers that could be subject to a meaningful fee waiver beyond 2012. As things currently stand, the 50% fee waiver for them would make IPv6 free for 2011 and 2012 anyway, since 50% of 2250 is more than the $1,000 difference between what they pay for IPv4 now and what they would pay for IPv6. Thus, they would still pay the larger of $1,250 (what they pay now) and $1,125 (50% of the IPv6 fees). If we want to consider an extended or permanent fee waiver for those organizations, the maximum possible impact to ARIN revenue would be a waiver of up to $866,000 (with adjustment for new x-small organizations that might get added). I'm neither speaking for or against such a waiver at this time, merely trying to provide a clear view of the facts and potential impacts of such a waiver and the number of organizations that could benefit from such a waiver. Owen From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Apr 30 20:17:43 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:17:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6 In-Reply-To: <7578A3B7-6ECA-4E5B-ABF5-6605B5329BD2@delong.com> References: <50EE5968-A41E-4BBD-92FE-6F025765E5F2@delong.com> <327D7E22-D689-4F39-9B62-80439653D126@delong.com> <2B842A75-E1E6-4B8F-820D-DA3C25148C62@delong.com> <4BDB2737.70400@ipinc.net> <7578A3B7-6ECA-4E5B-ABF5-6605B5329BD2@delong.com> Message-ID: <4BDB7327.6070406@ipinc.net> On 4/30/2010 3:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Ted, > I attempted to present some numerical facts for the community's > consideration. I was not pushing one position or the other, merely > providing the results of research. > > There are 866 x-small IPv4 ISPs that do not have IPv6. > > Those are the current set of providers that could be subject > to a meaningful fee waiver beyond 2012. > > As things currently stand, the 50% fee waiver for them would > make IPv6 free for 2011 and 2012 anyway, since 50% of 2250 is > more than the $1,000 difference between what they pay for IPv4 > now and what they would pay for IPv6. Thus, they would still pay > the larger of $1,250 (what they pay now) and $1,125 (50% of the > IPv6 fees). > Right, that is what I've advocated in the past. The current fee waiver for IPv6 goes to 25% next year then 0% the year after, however. > If we want to consider an extended or permanent fee waiver > for those organizations, the maximum possible impact to ARIN > revenue would be a waiver of up to $866,000 (with adjustment > for new x-small organizations that might get added). > Yes, but you failed to mention that this is offset against the additional $866,000 that ARIN would take in if all those orgs for IPv6 with no waiver. > I'm neither speaking for or against such a waiver at this time, > merely trying to provide a clear view of the facts and potential > impacts of such a waiver and the number of organizations that > could benefit from such a waiver. > But ultimately there are no impacts (financial at any rate) As I thought I explained, the "missing" .8 Mil is something that if nothing is done, is additional fees ARIN will make in the future when the x-smalls are forced to go to IPv6. If something is done, then ARIN does not make those additional fees and instead merely makes the same fees they are making now. Also since ARIN is duty-bound to return that .8 Mil in the form of fee DECREASES then the real argument is this, do we want the ultimate revenue ARIN takes in to NOT increase as a result of IPv6 or do we want it to DECREASE so we all (ISPs who are NOT x-smalls) can get a nice break on our own fees? You made it sound like the community is losing money if we do a waiver which is definitely not the case. The transition to IPv6 means more numbers handed out to the same fishes, which due to the current fee structure results in a bonus for ARIN. It does not increase the number of fishes and as you have constantly harped on in the past ARIN sets fees based on how many fishes they have to keep track of, not how much IP numbers they have handed out. So if your going to be consistent with what you have beaten me over the head with in the past, you should not be making the financials seem like a revenue loss to continue to do a IPv6 waiver for the x-small IPv4 set. With financials it's all in the presentation. Ted > Owen >