From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Tue Jun 22 15:46:25 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:46:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers Message-ID: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit with the $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our members one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to cover it. (Thanks HE!) It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone v6 or we would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, private space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such a hassle we would have just abandoned it. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee waiver ISPs receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to encourage adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already been paid but if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be applied to everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". Aaron Kcix.net From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 22 17:12:58 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:12:58 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> Message-ID: +1 Owen On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit with the > $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our members > one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to cover > it. (Thanks HE!) > > It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone v6 or we > would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, private > space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such a hassle > we would have just abandoned it. > > It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee waiver ISPs > receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to encourage > adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already been paid but > if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be applied to > everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". > > Aaron > Kcix.net > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From kate at bway.net Tue Jun 22 17:19:07 2010 From: kate at bway.net (Kate Lynch) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> Message-ID: <20100622171851.L11635@shell.bway.net> I agree! (Lurker...) Thanks, Kate Lynch ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kate at bway.net http://www.bway.net (212) 982-9800 On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > +1 > > Owen > > On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > >> As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit with the >> $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our members >> one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to cover >> it. (Thanks HE!) >> >> It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone v6 or we >> would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, private >> space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such a hassle >> we would have just abandoned it. >> >> It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee waiver ISPs >> receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to encourage >> adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already been paid but >> if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be applied to >> everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". >> >> Aaron >> Kcix.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From marty at akamai.com Tue Jun 22 19:06:02 2010 From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:06:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> Message-ID: On 6/22/10 3:46 PM, "Aaron Wendel" wrote: > As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit with the > $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our members > one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to cover > it. (Thanks HE!) Which exchange is this related to? Best, -M< From springer at inlandnet.com Tue Jun 22 19:30:18 2010 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100622162913.B42089@mail.inlandnet.com> Kcix.net? John Springer On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, marty at akamai.com wrote: > > > > On 6/22/10 3:46 PM, "Aaron Wendel" wrote: > >> As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit with the >> $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our members >> one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to cover >> it. (Thanks HE!) > > Which exchange is this related to? > > Best, > > -M< > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Tue Jun 22 19:36:32 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:36:32 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <20100622162913.B42089@mail.inlandnet.com> References: <20100622162913.B42089@mail.inlandnet.com> Message-ID: <021501cb1263$bf4bf6c0$3de3e440$@net> That would be correct. Exchanges are considered end users under current ARIN policies. It seems to me that infrastructure like this should really be on the front lines of v6 adoption. And... it's the first time I think Owen and I have agreed on anything. :) Aaron -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Springer Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:30 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers Kcix.net? John Springer On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, marty at akamai.com wrote: > > > > On 6/22/10 3:46 PM, "Aaron Wendel" wrote: > >> As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit with the >> $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our members >> one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to cover >> it. (Thanks HE!) > > Which exchange is this related to? > > Best, > > -M< > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: 06/22/10 13:36:00 From bjohnson at drtel.com Tue Jun 22 19:30:37 2010 From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:30:37 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> Message-ID: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> Do you have IPv4 space now? How are/were you paying that fee? - Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:46 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit with > the > $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our > members > one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to > cover > it. (Thanks HE!) > > It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone v6 > or we > would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, > private > space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such a > hassle > we would have just abandoned it. > > It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee waiver > ISPs > receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to > encourage > adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already been > paid but > if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be applied > to > everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". > > Aaron > Kcix.net > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Jun 22 19:44:54 2010 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:44:54 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> Message-ID: <4C214AF6.2060803@gmail.com> End users normally only pay $100/year in ongoing maintenance fees. The $1250 fee is a one-time up-front cost for them (vs. a recurring annual fee for ISPs). -Scott On Tue 6/22/2010 4:30 PM, Brian Johnson wrote: > Do you have IPv4 space now? How are/were you paying that fee? > > > - Brian > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel >> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:46 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers >> >> As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit >> > with > >> the >> $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our >> members >> one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to >> cover >> it. (Thanks HE!) >> >> It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone v6 >> or we >> would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, >> private >> space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such a >> hassle >> we would have just abandoned it. >> >> It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee waiver >> ISPs >> receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to >> encourage >> adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already been >> paid but >> if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be applied >> to >> everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". >> >> Aaron >> Kcix.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Tue Jun 22 19:53:45 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:53:45 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> Message-ID: <021801cb1266$26fa67a0$74ef36e0$@net> We do. Got it a couple years ago when we first started up. A member paid the initial fee then as well and I pull the $100 out of my pocket every year to pay the ongoing ARIN Fees. Again, this isn't about my situation specifically. My bill is paid. This is about a barrier to entry for other end users that may not be able or willing to pony up for a v6 allocation that they don't see as "mission critical" at this point. Whether they should or not is another debate but I really feel that we need to look at any and all barriers to entry on the v6 side and see what we can do to make it, if not a zero-sum game then at least less painful. Aaron -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Johnson Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:31 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers Do you have IPv4 space now? How are/were you paying that fee? - Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:46 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit with > the > $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our > members > one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to > cover > it. (Thanks HE!) > > It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone v6 > or we > would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, > private > space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such a > hassle > we would have just abandoned it. > > It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee waiver > ISPs > receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to > encourage > adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already been > paid but > if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be applied > to > everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". > > Aaron > Kcix.net > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: 06/22/10 13:36:00 From ggiesen at akn.ca Tue Jun 22 19:43:18 2010 From: ggiesen at akn.ca (Gary Giesen) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:43:18 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Couldn't agree more. If we truly want to encourage adoption of IPv6, we should make it easy and affordable to get. And I think that given recent speculation that the free address pool will be depleted as soon as December *2010*, we need to move quickly on this. GG On 10-06-22 5:12 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > +1 > > Owen > > On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > >> As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit with the >> $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our members >> one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to cover >> it. (Thanks HE!) >> >> It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone v6 or we >> would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, private >> space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such a hassle >> we would have just abandoned it. >> >> It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee waiver ISPs >> receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to encourage >> adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already been paid but >> if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be applied to >> everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". >> >> Aaron >> Kcix.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From steve at ipv6canada.com Tue Jun 22 20:05:00 2010 From: steve at ipv6canada.com (Steve Bertrand) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:05:00 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> Message-ID: <4C214FAC.9010804@ipv6canada.com> On 2010.06.22 17:12, Owen DeLong wrote: > +1 The generosity is fantastic, but what if a precedent is set... 'he' got it for free, so I'm not doing it until I get it for free too... I'm not complaining. I nabbed up my v6 under the waiver myself. I just think that the $1250 one-time, and $100/yr is quite affordable. I'm afraid that applying little-to-no value on the resource could have the same impact as putting too much value on it. Steve From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Tue Jun 22 20:47:27 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:47:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <4C214FAC.9010804@ipv6canada.com> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <4C214FAC.9010804@ipv6canada.com> Message-ID: <021e01cb126d$a749fbd0$f5ddf370$@net> It's not free at this point. I believe the ISP waiver is about 50%. I'm not suggesting free. Just suggesting that the current fee waiver that is already in place for ISPs be extended to end users. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Bertrand [mailto:steve at ipv6canada.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 7:05 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: Aaron Wendel; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers On 2010.06.22 17:12, Owen DeLong wrote: > +1 The generosity is fantastic, but what if a precedent is set... 'he' got it for free, so I'm not doing it until I get it for free too... I'm not complaining. I nabbed up my v6 under the waiver myself. I just think that the $1250 one-time, and $100/yr is quite affordable. I'm afraid that applying little-to-no value on the resource could have the same impact as putting too much value on it. Steve No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: 06/22/10 13:36:00 From bjohnson at drtel.com Tue Jun 22 21:13:22 2010 From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:13:22 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <021801cb1266$26fa67a0$74ef36e0$@net> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> <021801cb1266$26fa67a0$74ef36e0$@net> Message-ID: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6006C@ex01.drtel.lan> Aaron, So maybe this is my misunderstanding, but I thought the fee was the same for the IPv6 as it is for IPv4 space... In fact it is (https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html). How do you only pay $100 when you have an allocation and the minimum charge for an allocation is $1250/yr? Is there a special way I can have my allocations for $100/yr. Where do I sign up? :) - Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Wendel [mailto:aaron at wholesaleinternet.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:54 PM > To: Brian Johnson; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > We do. Got it a couple years ago when we first started up. A member > paid > the initial fee then as well and I pull the $100 out of my pocket every > year > to pay the ongoing ARIN Fees. > > Again, this isn't about my situation specifically. My bill is paid. > This > is about a barrier to entry for other end users that may not be able or > willing to pony up for a v6 allocation that they don't see as "mission > critical" at this point. > > Whether they should or not is another debate but I really feel that we > need > to look at any and all barriers to entry on the v6 side and see what we > can > do to make it, if not a zero-sum game then at least less painful. > > Aaron > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Brian Johnson > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:31 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > Do you have IPv4 space now? How are/were you paying that fee? > > > - Brian > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > > bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:46 PM > > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > > > As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit > with > > the > > $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our > > members > > one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to > > cover > > it. (Thanks HE!) > > > > It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone v6 > > or we > > would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, > > private > > space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such a > > hassle > > we would have just abandoned it. > > > > It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee waiver > > ISPs > > receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to > > encourage > > adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already been > > paid but > > if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be applied > > to > > everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". > > > > Aaron > > Kcix.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: > 06/22/10 > 13:36:00 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Tue Jun 22 21:47:50 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:47:50 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6006C@ex01.drtel.lan> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> <021801cb1266$26fa67a0$74ef36e0$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6006C@ex01.drtel.lan> Message-ID: <023e01cb1276$16cc4dc0$4464e940$@net> Of course. Here is the section in the policy manual that deals with end users: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four3 Make sure you meet the qualifications there. Then refer to the fee schedule. https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html Scroll down past ISPs to end users and read the text before the fees. And... back to the topic at hand, here is the current fee waiver for initial v6 allocations to ISPs. https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers Aaron -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Johnson Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:13 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers Aaron, So maybe this is my misunderstanding, but I thought the fee was the same for the IPv6 as it is for IPv4 space... In fact it is (https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html). How do you only pay $100 when you have an allocation and the minimum charge for an allocation is $1250/yr? Is there a special way I can have my allocations for $100/yr. Where do I sign up? :) - Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Wendel [mailto:aaron at wholesaleinternet.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:54 PM > To: Brian Johnson; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > We do. Got it a couple years ago when we first started up. A member > paid > the initial fee then as well and I pull the $100 out of my pocket every > year > to pay the ongoing ARIN Fees. > > Again, this isn't about my situation specifically. My bill is paid. > This > is about a barrier to entry for other end users that may not be able or > willing to pony up for a v6 allocation that they don't see as "mission > critical" at this point. > > Whether they should or not is another debate but I really feel that we > need > to look at any and all barriers to entry on the v6 side and see what we > can > do to make it, if not a zero-sum game then at least less painful. > > Aaron > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Brian Johnson > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:31 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > Do you have IPv4 space now? How are/were you paying that fee? > > > - Brian > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > > bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:46 PM > > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > > > As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit > with > > the > > $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our > > members > > one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to > > cover > > it. (Thanks HE!) > > > > It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone v6 > > or we > > would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, > > private > > space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such a > > hassle > > we would have just abandoned it. > > > > It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee waiver > > ISPs > > receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to > > encourage > > adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already been > > paid but > > if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be applied > > to > > everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". > > > > Aaron > > Kcix.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: > 06/22/10 > 13:36:00 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: 06/22/10 13:36:00 From rs at seastrom.com Tue Jun 22 21:51:42 2010 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:51:42 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6006C@ex01.drtel.lan> (Brian Johnson's message of "Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:13:22 -0500") References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> <021801cb1266$26fa67a0$74ef36e0$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6006C@ex01.drtel.lan> Message-ID: <868w66y0r5.fsf@seastrom.com> "Brian Johnson" writes: > Aaron, > > So maybe this is my misunderstanding, but I thought the fee was the same > for the IPv6 as it is for IPv4 space... In fact it is > (https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html). How do you only pay $100 > when you have an allocation and the minimum charge for an allocation is > $1250/yr? > > Is there a special way I can have my allocations for $100/yr. Where do I > sign up? :) It's really simple, actually. You pay $1250/year for an "allocation" - ISPs get allocations. That gets you voting ARIN membership too, btw. An exchange point is critical infrastructure. It does not get an "allocation" - it gets an "assignment" which is like an "allocation" but not for distribution to your users. The initial fee is $1250, with a $100/year consolidated db maintenance fee for all your allocations and ASNs. By the way, that doesn't get you ARIN membership. So no, there is no way for you to get your "allocation" for $100/year. If you qualify for an "assignment", you can get it for $100/year. See https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#end_users -r From steve at ipv6canada.com Tue Jun 22 22:38:43 2010 From: steve at ipv6canada.com (Steve Bertrand) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:38:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <021e01cb126d$a749fbd0$f5ddf370$@net> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <4C214FAC.9010804@ipv6canada.com> <021e01cb126d$a749fbd0$f5ddf370$@net> Message-ID: <4C2173B3.9040504@ipv6canada.com> On 2010.06.22 20:47, Aaron Wendel wrote: > It's not free at this point. capiche. It never really was 'free', even for ISPs ;) fwiw, the authoritative IPv6 waiver info for the ARIN region is found here: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers afaicr, and afaict, the waiver does not apply to anything but allocations (end-users receive 'assignments') as you suggest. However, an end-user must pay but $100 per year for their assignment. Do you not think that the maintenance of an end-user assignment costs ARIN probably the same in administration and maintenance as it does for my /32? (that statement/question is my own speculation). $50 off for a resi? why? I comprehend that you are trying to make things fair 'value-wise' for end-users. I appreciate that. However, if everyone can just get a /48 for 'free', how are you going to deal with filtering when your v6 table grows too large? There must be value placed on the $100 prefixes.. Otherwise, as has been discussed, there are other options (plug: he.net) Perhaps I'm thinking about this wrong. My strong personal belief is that ARIN must balance advocacy with income. Now that ARIN is (thankfully) becoming closer tied to the ops community, perhaps the ops community could share some insight into how they feel about free/cheap, random /48's floating around from everywhere. I know it will happen, and currently I personally accept all /48s. But please don't waiver $100/yr. That's like not drinking three coffees a month that can go toward helping ARIN's v6 outreach. Steve From marty at akamai.com Tue Jun 22 22:58:21 2010 From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:58:21 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <021e01cb126d$a749fbd0$f5ddf370$@net> Message-ID: But why for an IX? Nothing is free. Your members are all commercial entities, not non profits. Why can't they cough up a percentage of the fee? Looks like $100 per year per member Why should the rest of us subsidize your traffic exchange? It should be cheap, but free and then asking us to go along with a waiver for your space? I don't think that is reasonable. Do you have traffic stats publicly available for the IX? BTW: You have 0 members in peeringdb. You may want to fix that by having all of your peers register. That is free. Best, -M< On 6/22/10 8:47 PM, "Aaron Wendel" wrote: > It's not free at this point. I believe the ISP waiver is about 50%. I'm > not suggesting free. Just suggesting that the current fee waiver that is > already in place for ISPs be extended to end users. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Bertrand [mailto:steve at ipv6canada.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 7:05 PM > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: Aaron Wendel; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > On 2010.06.22 17:12, Owen DeLong wrote: >> +1 > > The generosity is fantastic, but what if a precedent is set... 'he' got > it for free, so I'm not doing it until I get it for free too... > > I'm not complaining. I nabbed up my v6 under the waiver myself. I just > think that the $1250 one-time, and $100/yr is quite affordable. > > I'm afraid that applying little-to-no value on the resource could have > the same impact as putting too much value on it. > > Steve > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: 06/22/10 > 13:36:00 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 steve at ipv6canada.com Tue Jun 22 23:10:44 2010 From: steve at ipv6canada.com (Steve Bertrand) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:10:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> On 2010.06.22 22:58, marty at akamai.com wrote: > > > But why for an IX? Nothing is free. Your members are all commercial > entities, not non profits. Why can't they cough up a percentage of the fee? > Looks like $100 per year per member Why should the rest of us subsidize your > traffic exchange? It should be cheap, but free and then asking us to go > along with a waiver for your space? I don't think that is reasonable. Amen. Commercial or not. $1250 + $1200 (initial + 1 yr) should be easy to finance for an IX. Although I've never worked in an IX, I can't see that fee being a problem if it has legitimate participants. > Do you have traffic stats publicly available for the IX? > > BTW: You have 0 members in peeringdb. You may want to fix that by having all > of your peers register. That is free. ...heh. cheers Marty, Steve From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 23 00:21:00 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:21:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> Message-ID: IPv4, once you have it is only $100/year to maintain. The IPv6 will be included in that annually. He's talking about the up-front one-time charge for getting your IPv6 space for an exchange. Owen On Jun 22, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Brian Johnson wrote: > Do you have IPv4 space now? How are/were you paying that fee? > > > - Brian > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel >> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:46 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers >> >> As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit > with >> the >> $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our >> members >> one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to >> cover >> it. (Thanks HE!) >> >> It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone v6 >> or we >> would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, >> private >> space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such a >> hassle >> we would have just abandoned it. >> >> It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee waiver >> ISPs >> receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to >> encourage >> adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already been >> paid but >> if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be applied >> to >> everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". >> >> Aaron >> Kcix.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 23 00:20:01 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:20:01 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <021501cb1263$bf4bf6c0$3de3e440$@net> References: <20100622162913.B42089@mail.inlandnet.com> <021501cb1263$bf4bf6c0$3de3e440$@net> Message-ID: Nah... We agree on more than we disagree about. It's just that our first few public interactions were on some of the few subjects where we disagree. ;-) Owen On Jun 22, 2010, at 4:36 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > That would be correct. Exchanges are considered end users under current > ARIN policies. It seems to me that infrastructure like this should really > be on the front lines of v6 adoption. > > And... it's the first time I think Owen and I have agreed on anything. :) > > Aaron > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of John Springer > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:30 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > Kcix.net? > > John Springer > > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, marty at akamai.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 6/22/10 3:46 PM, "Aaron Wendel" wrote: >> >>> As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit with > the >>> $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our > members >>> one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to > cover >>> it. (Thanks HE!) >> >> Which exchange is this related to? >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: 06/22/10 > 13:36:00 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jun 23 00:30:19 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:30:19 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <4C214FAC.9010804@ipv6canada.com> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <4C214FAC.9010804@ipv6canada.com> Message-ID: On Jun 22, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote: > On 2010.06.22 17:12, Owen DeLong wrote: >> +1 > > The generosity is fantastic, but what if a precedent is set... 'he' got > it for free, so I'm not doing it until I get it for free too... > That precedent was technically set some years ago. Nobody got it for free, but, I got mine for a one-time $500 instead of $1250. > I'm not complaining. I nabbed up my v6 under the waiver myself. I just > think that the $1250 one-time, and $100/yr is quite affordable. > Affordable is relative. If you're running an exchange that's a small member-based coop running on a shoestring in donated space from a colo, $100/year might be tough, but do-able. $1250 might seem insurmountable. There are all manner of IPv4 end-users out there. Many of them have been IPv4 users for so long that they got their IPv4 for free. I would not advocate giving any of them free IPv6 unless it was tied to getting an LRSA signed for their IPv4 space. (You want something from us, you have to join the fold and play by the rules... Seems fair to me.) > I'm afraid that applying little-to-no value on the resource could have > the same impact as putting too much value on it. > This isn't about valuing the resource. The fee is for the service of registering the resource, not for the resource itself. This is an important distinction. IP addresses are not sold or owned. They are not tangible assets. No matter how much fiction certain Ph.D.s try to spread on the subject, the fact of the matter remains that ARIN does not sell or rent IP addresses. Owen From rs at seastrom.com Wed Jun 23 00:34:25 2010 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:34:25 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: (Martin Hannigan's message of "Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:58:21 -0400") References: Message-ID: <86vd9a8izy.fsf@seastrom.com> Martin Hannigan , marty at akamai.com writes: > But why for an IX? Nothing is free. Your members are all commercial > entities, not non profits. Why can't they cough up a percentage of the fee? > Looks like $100 per year per member Why should the rest of us subsidize your > traffic exchange? It should be cheap, but free and then asking us to go > along with a waiver for your space? I don't think that is reasonable. Discuss all you want, but recommend you submit all serious suggestions for fee structure here: https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html as we have been informed in the past that the public policy process is not the right venue for arin pricing. -r From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 23 00:38:49 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:38:49 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6006C@ex01.drtel.lan> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> <021801cb1266$26fa67a0$74ef36e0$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6006C@ex01.drtel.lan> Message-ID: <8E06B6BA-623A-4416-9584-634CA311EBF6@delong.com> OK... I will attempt to explain the terms once again... He does not have an allocation. He has an assignment. Assignments are to end users. They can not be carved up into netblocks given out to other organizations. Exchange points are treated as end users because they generally issue single addresses on a network they maintain to their customers, rather than blocks of addresses to be used in networks maintained by their customers. Allocations are to ISPs (LIRs in the Internet Registry vernacular). Allocations can be subdivided into assignments and reallocations. Assignments are again to end users and indivisible. Reallocations are to ISPs (LIRs) that are customers of the allocating organization and can be treated just like an allocation by the subordinate organization with the exception that if they stop being a customer of the upstream LIR/ISP, they lose the block and have to renumber (including their customers) out of that block. End users pay high up-front fees for each new block they receive (which happens infrequently in most end-user cases). ISPs pay no up-front fees for each additional block they receive (which happens much more frequently in most cases). End users pay $100 recurring annual maintenance to keep their registrations in the databases. Their registrations are very simple. ISPs pay annual fees based on their maximum annual growth rate which covers both their additional applications for the year AND their records in the databases. Their registrations are much more complex since their records include data for all their customer allocations and assignments and perhaps even their customers customer allocations and assignments. Owen On Jun 22, 2010, at 6:13 PM, Brian Johnson wrote: > Aaron, > > So maybe this is my misunderstanding, but I thought the fee was the same > for the IPv6 as it is for IPv4 space... In fact it is > (https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html). How do you only pay $100 > when you have an allocation and the minimum charge for an allocation is > $1250/yr? > > Is there a special way I can have my allocations for $100/yr. Where do I > sign up? :) > > - Brian > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Aaron Wendel [mailto:aaron at wholesaleinternet.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:54 PM >> To: Brian Johnson; arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] fee waivers >> >> We do. Got it a couple years ago when we first started up. A member >> paid >> the initial fee then as well and I pull the $100 out of my pocket > every >> year >> to pay the ongoing ARIN Fees. >> >> Again, this isn't about my situation specifically. My bill is paid. >> This >> is about a barrier to entry for other end users that may not be able > or >> willing to pony up for a v6 allocation that they don't see as "mission >> critical" at this point. >> >> Whether they should or not is another debate but I really feel that we >> need >> to look at any and all barriers to entry on the v6 side and see what > we >> can >> do to make it, if not a zero-sum game then at least less painful. >> >> Aaron >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >> bounces at arin.net] >> On Behalf Of Brian Johnson >> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:31 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers >> >> Do you have IPv4 space now? How are/were you paying that fee? >> >> >> - Brian >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:46 PM >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers >>> >>> As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit >> with >>> the >>> $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our >>> members >>> one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee > to >>> cover >>> it. (Thanks HE!) >>> >>> It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone > v6 >>> or we >>> would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, >>> private >>> space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such a >>> hassle >>> we would have just abandoned it. >>> >>> It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee waiver >>> ISPs >>> receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to >>> encourage >>> adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already been >>> paid but >>> if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be > applied >>> to >>> everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". >>> >>> Aaron >>> Kcix.net >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: >> 06/22/10 >> 13:36:00 > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the > intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, > copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 vixie at isc.org Wed Jun 23 03:52:25 2010 From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:52:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:10:44 -0400." <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> Message-ID: <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> > Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:10:44 -0400 > From: Steve Bertrand > > Amen. Commercial or not. $1250 + $1200 (initial + 1 yr) should be easy > to finance for an IX. Although I've never worked in an IX, I can't see > that fee being a problem if it has legitimate participants. if there's a business there, yes. but if it's a garage band IX and no incorporation and $0 port fees then it can still be important internet infrastructure and yet getting address space and/or paying for it is a big question mark. (been there, done that, paid some stuff out of my own pocket sometimes just to avoid having to beg from the connectees.) but this case would be covered under "community networking" which had a separate policy process and the arin community already ruled against fee waivers in this case. i am not reraising that issue, dead is dead. however, it's worth keeping the record straight, an IX with legitimate participants can still in some cases have no bank account. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Jun 23 05:35:36 2010 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:35:36 +0100 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > but this case would be covered under "community networking" which had a > separate policy process and the arin community already ruled against > fee waivers in this case. i am not reraising that issue, dead is dead. > however, it's worth keeping the record straight, an IX with legitimate > participants can still in some cases have no bank account. Bottom line then is that most end users don't need a fee waiver because IPv6 is free from their ISP and they should have no problem getting a /48 even if the ISP normally hands out smaller prefixes. End users who really, really need to have a portable assignment can pay a one time fee to ARIN and that fee is already low enough that we don't consider it a barrier to IPv6 deployment. There are some few organizations that are in the position of a charitable endeavor of sorts, like community networks and small free IXes. ARIN already considered a special deal for them and decided against it. This is not really a barrier to IPv6 adoption because it affects few organizations. Also, the ISPs who use this IX for v4, don't absolutely have to use the IX in order to have functioning v6 service. Nobody expects the transition to v6 to be a smooth process full of sweetness and light so if your traffic has to go to Chicago and back that is not enough reason for ARIN to step in. And finally, ARIN doesn't run the Internet. ARIN is not in charge of the IPv6 transition. ARIN doesn't have to provide concessions for every category of problem related to the IPv6 transition. If the ISPs in question do not see any value in coughing up a few hundred bucks each to keep the IX functioning through the transition, then case closed. --Michael Dillon P.S. Nevertheless, the suggestion box is there. Perhaps someone might suggest that ARIN allocate one free block to every IX in the region that is registered in peeringdb just for goodwill and to give the IPv6 transition a bit of a kick and create a media event that can be used to publicise how close we are to IPv4 runout. If anyone cares about this then it is worth a try at the suggestion box From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Wed Jun 23 06:07:43 2010 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:07:43 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> Message-ID: <20100623100743.GA10452@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:06:02PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > On 6/22/10 3:46 PM, "Aaron Wendel" wrote: > > > As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit with the > > $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with our members > > one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee to cover > > it. (Thanks HE!) > Once, there was this little company that predated ARIN and provided IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes to exchanges at rates they set. It never made a pot'o'cash, but paid the bills ... and jumpstarted quite a few excahnges in its (now) 14 year history. Its no longer taking new customers, the mores the pity. --bill From bjohnson at drtel.com Wed Jun 23 09:08:36 2010 From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:08:36 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <023e01cb1276$16cc4dc0$4464e940$@net> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> <021801cb1266$26fa67a0$74ef36e0$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6006C@ex01.drtel.lan> <023e01cb1276$16cc4dc0$4464e940$@net> Message-ID: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6008A@ex01.drtel.lan> OK. So you are getting a better deal than any ISP, even with the discount we get for a short period. What is your complaint again? Let's say I got a small IPv6 allocation in '08: You Me --------------------------------------------- Initial Allocation 1250 225 Yr 2 Renewal 100 562.50 Yr 3 Renewal 100 1125 Yr 4 Renewal 100 1687.50 --------------------------------------------- 3 year total 1450 2600 And every year after this I will pay $2250 for my allocation, but you will only pay $100 for your assignment. Do you expect me to feel sorry for you or anyone in your situation? I see no reason to modify the policy at all. - Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Wendel [mailto:aaron at wholesaleinternet.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:48 PM > To: Brian Johnson; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > Of course. > > Here is the section in the policy manual that deals with end users: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four3 > > Make sure you meet the qualifications there. Then refer to the fee > schedule. > > https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html > > Scroll down past ISPs to end users and read the text before the fees. > > And... back to the topic at hand, here is the current fee waiver for > initial > v6 allocations to ISPs. > > https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers > > Aaron > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Brian Johnson > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:13 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > Aaron, > > So maybe this is my misunderstanding, but I thought the fee was the > same > for the IPv6 as it is for IPv4 space... In fact it is > (https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html). How do you only pay $100 > when you have an allocation and the minimum charge for an allocation is > $1250/yr? > > Is there a special way I can have my allocations for $100/yr. Where do > I > sign up? :) > > - Brian > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Aaron Wendel [mailto:aaron at wholesaleinternet.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:54 PM > > To: Brian Johnson; arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > > > We do. Got it a couple years ago when we first started up. A member > > paid > > the initial fee then as well and I pull the $100 out of my pocket > every > > year > > to pay the ongoing ARIN Fees. > > > > Again, this isn't about my situation specifically. My bill is paid. > > This > > is about a barrier to entry for other end users that may not be able > or > > willing to pony up for a v6 allocation that they don't see as > "mission > > critical" at this point. > > > > Whether they should or not is another debate but I really feel that > we > > need > > to look at any and all barriers to entry on the v6 side and see what > we > > can > > do to make it, if not a zero-sum game then at least less painful. > > > > Aaron > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > > bounces at arin.net] > > On Behalf Of Brian Johnson > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:31 PM > > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > > > Do you have IPv4 space now? How are/were you paying that fee? > > > > > > - Brian > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > > > bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:46 PM > > > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > > > Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > > > > > As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit > > with > > > the > > > $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with > our > > > members > > > one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee > to > > > cover > > > it. (Thanks HE!) > > > > > > It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone > v6 > > > or we > > > would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, > > > private > > > space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such > a > > > hassle > > > we would have just abandoned it. > > > > > > It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee > waiver > > > ISPs > > > receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to > > > encourage > > > adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already been > > > paid but > > > if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be > applied > > > to > > > everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". > > > > > > Aaron > > > Kcix.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ARIN-Discuss > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: > > 06/22/10 > > 13:36:00 > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, > is > for the sole use of the > intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged > information. Any unauthorized review, > copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the > intended recipient, please > contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the > original > message. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: > 06/22/10 > 13:36:00 From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 23 13:22:11 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:22:11 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: On Jun 23, 2010, at 2:35 AM, wrote: >> but this case would be covered under "community networking" which had > a >> separate policy process and the arin community already ruled against >> fee waivers in this case. i am not reraising that issue, dead is dead. >> however, it's worth keeping the record straight, an IX with legitimate >> participants can still in some cases have no bank account. > > Bottom line then is that most end users don't need a fee waiver > because IPv6 is free from their ISP and they should have no > problem getting a /48 even if the ISP normally hands out smaller > prefixes. > > End users who really, really need to have a portable assignment > can pay a one time fee to ARIN and that fee is already low enough > that we don't consider it a barrier to IPv6 deployment. > Let me paraphrase that a little: Bottom line: End users should be treated as second class citizens. If they don't want to be second class citizens, it's OK for us to require a certain level of wealth in order to treat them otherwise. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 23 13:44:11 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:44:11 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6008A@ex01.drtel.lan> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> <021801cb1266$26fa67a0$74ef36e0$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6006C@ex01.drtel.lan> <023e01cb1276$16cc4dc0$4464e940$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6008A@ex01.drtel.lan> Message-ID: <2B7EB52D-9B74-47F2-8FF1-A6B62F532763@delong.com> On Jun 23, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Brian Johnson wrote: > OK. So you are getting a better deal than any ISP, even with the > discount we get for a short period. What is your complaint again? > > Let's say I got a small IPv6 allocation in '08: > > You Me > --------------------------------------------- > Initial Allocation 1250 225 > Yr 2 Renewal 100 562.50 > Yr 3 Renewal 100 1125 > Yr 4 Renewal 100 1687.50 > --------------------------------------------- > 3 year total 1450 2600 > Not necessarily... First, that's a 4 year total, not a 3-year total for the ISP column. The end user column would be 1550 for 4 years. So you're not even comparing the same number of years in your table. The three year totals would be: 1450 vs. 1912.50 Let's look at it a little closer: Potential records in database: ISP /32: 65,000+ (/48s) or perhaps 16+Million (/56s) I'll use 65,000 to be conservative. End user /48: 1 3 year total per record (ISP): <$0.03 3 year total per record (End User): $1,450 Oh, and, ARIN membership: ISP: $0 -- End User: $500/year. Space with membership: Initial: ISP $225 EU $1750 Yr2: ISP $562.5 EU $ 600 Yr3: ISP $1125 EU $ 600 3 Yr. Total: ISP: $1912.5 EU: $2950 > And every year after this I will pay $2250 for my allocation, but you > will only pay $100 for your assignment. Do you expect me to feel sorry > for you or anyone in your situation? > I'm seeing less reason to preserve the ISP fee waivers to be honest. Owen > I see no reason to modify the policy at all. > > - Brian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Aaron Wendel [mailto:aaron at wholesaleinternet.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:48 PM >> To: Brian Johnson; arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] fee waivers >> >> Of course. >> >> Here is the section in the policy manual that deals with end users: >> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four3 >> >> Make sure you meet the qualifications there. Then refer to the fee >> schedule. >> >> https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html >> >> Scroll down past ISPs to end users and read the text before the fees. >> >> And... back to the topic at hand, here is the current fee waiver for >> initial >> v6 allocations to ISPs. >> >> https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers >> >> Aaron >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >> bounces at arin.net] >> On Behalf Of Brian Johnson >> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:13 PM >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers >> >> Aaron, >> >> So maybe this is my misunderstanding, but I thought the fee was the >> same >> for the IPv6 as it is for IPv4 space... In fact it is >> (https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html). How do you only pay > $100 >> when you have an allocation and the minimum charge for an allocation > is >> $1250/yr? >> >> Is there a special way I can have my allocations for $100/yr. Where do >> I >> sign up? :) >> >> - Brian >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Aaron Wendel [mailto:aaron at wholesaleinternet.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:54 PM >>> To: Brian Johnson; arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] fee waivers >>> >>> We do. Got it a couple years ago when we first started up. A > member >>> paid >>> the initial fee then as well and I pull the $100 out of my pocket >> every >>> year >>> to pay the ongoing ARIN Fees. >>> >>> Again, this isn't about my situation specifically. My bill is paid. >>> This >>> is about a barrier to entry for other end users that may not be able >> or >>> willing to pony up for a v6 allocation that they don't see as >> "mission >>> critical" at this point. >>> >>> Whether they should or not is another debate but I really feel that >> we >>> need >>> to look at any and all barriers to entry on the v6 side and see what >> we >>> can >>> do to make it, if not a zero-sum game then at least less painful. >>> >>> Aaron >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >>> bounces at arin.net] >>> On Behalf Of Brian Johnson >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:31 PM >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers >>> >>> Do you have IPv4 space now? How are/were you paying that fee? >>> >>> >>> - Brian >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- >>>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:46 PM >>>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers >>>> >>>> As the operator of a small, free exchange point I was recently hit >>> with >>>> the >>>> $1250 fee for an IPv6 allocation. After several go arounds with >> our >>>> members >>>> one of them stepped up to the plate and generously donated the fee >> to >>>> cover >>>> it. (Thanks HE!) >>>> >>>> It made me think though. Without this help we would not have gone >> v6 >>>> or we >>>> would have had to implement some work around: space from a member, >>>> private >>>> space, etc. that wouldn't have been optimum and may have been such >> a >>>> hassle >>>> we would have just abandoned it. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that it would be a good idea to extend the fee >> waiver >>>> ISPs >>>> receive to end users for a time, on the current sliding scale, to >>>> encourage >>>> adoption of v6 by everyone, not just ISPs. My fee has already > been >>>> paid but >>>> if we're really trying to push adoption, incentives should be >> applied >>>> to >>>> everyone on the same plane and not just a single "class". >>>> >>>> Aaron >>>> Kcix.net >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: >>> 06/22/10 >>> 13:36:00 >> >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any > attachments, >> is >> for the sole use of the >> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged >> information. Any unauthorized review, >> copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are > not >> the >> intended recipient, please >> contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the >> original >> message. Thank you. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage 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: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: >> 06/22/10 >> 13:36:00 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Wed Jun 23 14:31:40 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:31:40 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> Once again, and to my continued astonishment, I'm in complete agreement with Owen. This is not about my exchange, or me not wanting to pay a fee or even about whether those fees are justified. One of my members stepped up to the plate and paid the fee. It's over and done with. My intent here was to bring up a point that I believe has merit. There is a fee waiver in place for initial allocations to ISPs because we want ISPs to adopt IPv6. Don't we want end users to adopt IPv6? ISPs have more of an incentive because they're growing and need additional space ongoing. They need a migration plan. What about Bob's Pizza that qualified for a /20 years ago and will never need more IPs? What is his incentive to move to v6? If large chunks of network space don't adopt v6 then it removes the incentive for everyone else to as well. I see a lot of momentum being generated by the "everyone is doing it" clause. I understand that fee's are not a matter of policy. That's why I submitted my suggestion/question/out loud thought to the discuss list and not PPML and I thought this was the appropriate place to "discuss" it. Aaron -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:22 PM To: Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers On Jun 23, 2010, at 2:35 AM, wrote: >> but this case would be covered under "community networking" which had > a >> separate policy process and the arin community already ruled against >> fee waivers in this case. i am not reraising that issue, dead is dead. >> however, it's worth keeping the record straight, an IX with legitimate >> participants can still in some cases have no bank account. > > Bottom line then is that most end users don't need a fee waiver > because IPv6 is free from their ISP and they should have no > problem getting a /48 even if the ISP normally hands out smaller > prefixes. > > End users who really, really need to have a portable assignment > can pay a one time fee to ARIN and that fee is already low enough > that we don't consider it a barrier to IPv6 deployment. > Let me paraphrase that a little: Bottom line: End users should be treated as second class citizens. If they don't want to be second class citizens, it's OK for us to require a certain level of wealth in order to treat them otherwise. 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2957 - Release Date: 06/23/10 01:36:00 From bjohnson at drtel.com Wed Jun 23 14:49:05 2010 From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:49:05 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <2B7EB52D-9B74-47F2-8FF1-A6B62F532763@delong.com> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> <021801cb1266$26fa67a0$74ef36e0$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6006C@ex01.drtel.lan> <023e01cb1276$16cc4dc0$4464e940$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6008A@ex01.drtel.lan> <2B7EB52D-9B74-47F2-8FF1-A6B62F532763@delong.com> Message-ID: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F600C7@ex01.drtel.lan> Replying in-line... > > On Jun 23, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Brian Johnson wrote: > > > OK. So you are getting a better deal than any ISP, even with the > > discount we get for a short period. What is your complaint again? > > > > Let's say I got a small IPv6 allocation in '08: > > > > You Me > > --------------------------------------------- > > Initial Allocation 1250 225 > > Yr 2 Renewal 100 562.50 > > Yr 3 Renewal 100 1125 > > Yr 4 Renewal 100 1687.50 > > --------------------------------------------- > > 3 year total 1450 2600 > > > Not necessarily... > > First, that's a 4 year total, not a 3-year total for the ISP column. > The end user column would be 1550 for 4 years. So you're > not even comparing the same number of years in your table. > > The three year totals would be: > > 1450 vs. 1912.50 > Sorry, I was doing math too fast while preparing to leave for a long trip. :) > Let's look at it a little closer: > > Potential records in database: > ISP /32: 65,000+ (/48s) or perhaps 16+Million (/56s) I'll use 65,000 > to be conservative. > End user /48: 1 > > 3 year total per record (ISP): <$0.03 > 3 year total per record (End User): $1,450 > This assumes a lot about my operations don't you think. I'm glad other people are there to tell me how to do assignments out of my blocks. Maybe we should have a per assignment fee for ISPs instead of the current idea of spreading the wealth around. (How would I go about suggesting this to ARIN?) > Oh, and, ARIN membership: ISP: $0 -- End User: $500/year. > > Space with membership: > > Initial: ISP $225 EU $1750 > Yr2: ISP $562.5 EU $ 600 > Yr3: ISP $1125 EU $ 600 > > 3 Yr. Total: ISP: $1912.5 EU: $2950 Year 4 inverts this! A good time to stop for your argument. > > > And every year after this I will pay $2250 for my allocation, but you > > will only pay $100 for your assignment. Do you expect me to feel > sorry > > for you or anyone in your situation? > > > I'm seeing less reason to preserve the ISP fee waivers to be honest. Agreed, but for completely different reasons. I get your point, but it's a little to my point more than the original posters. Sorry for the bad math, but my point is made that as time progresses an allocation holder will pay EXCESSIVELY more than an assignment holder. Let's say we have no waivers at all (a position I would have supported). A small ALLOCATION would have been $2250/year. The same for a small ASSIGNMENT would have been $2250 for the first year, but only $600 every year thereafter. So at year 2 the ISP would be paying 3.75x as much each year as the other. I run an ISP where we serve customers, but do very little, actually none as of right now, assignment of space. I have as much of an impact on ARIN operations as an assignment has. Should I qualify for an assignment instead of my allocation under this structure? If so, is there a way to transition between the two? Just my $0.02. - Brian CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jun 23 15:01:31 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:01:31 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> Message-ID: <4C225A0B.3020508@ipinc.net> Aaron, Frankly I've never understood how ARIN arrived at the fee AMOUNTS in the first place, and the fact that those fees have NOT increased along with inflation pretty much points to the notion that they are, to put it bluntly, arbitrary. So yes, I can understand that a $1250 one-time wack out of the blue seems pretty stunning. However I have to side with Paul, Michael & Steve on this one, this is a dead issue, it's been fought before, I've even been involved in fighting those battles myself, with little sympathy. And I do also feel that there must be SOME bar to entry to IPv6 or we are going to have everyone and their dog signing up for direct assignments/allocations/whatever from ARIN rather than going to their upstream ISP. When it gets down to brass tacks, $1250 isn't THAT high. You cannot even buy a running used car that doesn't have a whole lot of hidden crash damage or the engine ready to fall out for that kind of money. And Apple Computers seems to have absolutely no trouble collecting that for their (in my opinion ridiculously overpriced) laptops. (they look cool, though) What I think gives people pause is that the $1250 figure is high enough to NOT be able to slip in under a $500 limit on an expense report - so you cannot spend it WITHOUT having a big discussion with the check signers, a discussion that I think most admins would rather NOT have - yet it is not so high that the CEO is going to put the kibosh on the IPv6 rollout project. In a short phrase, it's an expense that has to be budgeted - whether your org is a shoestring org and you have to go beg it from someone, or a rich oil company org that spends more than that on scented toilet paper every month. And after 20+ years of experience in high tech, working with other admins and accountants, I know damn well that most normal admins out there would rather have a root canal than deal with budgeting. Ted On 6/23/2010 11:31 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > Once again, and to my continued astonishment, I'm in complete agreement with > Owen. > > This is not about my exchange, or me not wanting to pay a fee or even about > whether those fees are justified. One of my members stepped up to the plate > and paid the fee. It's over and done with. > > My intent here was to bring up a point that I believe has merit. There is a > fee waiver in place for initial allocations to ISPs because we want ISPs to > adopt IPv6. Don't we want end users to adopt IPv6? ISPs have more of an > incentive because they're growing and need additional space ongoing. They > need a migration plan. What about Bob's Pizza that qualified for a /20 > years ago and will never need more IPs? What is his incentive to move to > v6? If large chunks of network space don't adopt v6 then it removes the > incentive for everyone else to as well. I see a lot of momentum being > generated by the "everyone is doing it" clause. > > I understand that fee's are not a matter of policy. That's why I submitted > my suggestion/question/out loud thought to the discuss list and not PPML and > I thought this was the appropriate place to "discuss" it. > > Aaron > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:22 PM > To: > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > > On Jun 23, 2010, at 2:35 AM, > wrote: > >>> but this case would be covered under "community networking" which had >> a >>> separate policy process and the arin community already ruled against >>> fee waivers in this case. i am not reraising that issue, dead is dead. >>> however, it's worth keeping the record straight, an IX with legitimate >>> participants can still in some cases have no bank account. >> >> Bottom line then is that most end users don't need a fee waiver >> because IPv6 is free from their ISP and they should have no >> problem getting a /48 even if the ISP normally hands out smaller >> prefixes. >> >> End users who really, really need to have a portable assignment >> can pay a one time fee to ARIN and that fee is already low enough >> that we don't consider it a barrier to IPv6 deployment. >> > Let me paraphrase that a little: > > Bottom line: End users should be treated as second class citizens. > If they don't want to be second class citizens, it's OK for us to require > a certain level of wealth in order to treat them otherwise. > > > 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. > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2957 - Release Date: 06/23/10 > 01:36:00 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Wed Jun 23 15:17:52 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:17:52 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <4C225A0B.3020508@ipinc.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <4C225A0B.3020508@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <00c701cb1308$cc9f7720$65de6560$@net> I simply suggested that we apply the current fee waiver over both classes of IP holders and not just one. I would classify the lack of a disincentive to be an incentive. There are SOOO many market forces moving against v6 right now. I've heard of accountants at GE working to put a value on v4 space to borrow against it. The lack of v6 adoption makes v4 more valuable. There are so many disincentives for large space holders to implement IPv6 I just felt that any of the barriers that could be removed for everyone should. Aaron -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:02 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers Aaron, Frankly I've never understood how ARIN arrived at the fee AMOUNTS in the first place, and the fact that those fees have NOT increased along with inflation pretty much points to the notion that they are, to put it bluntly, arbitrary. So yes, I can understand that a $1250 one-time wack out of the blue seems pretty stunning. However I have to side with Paul, Michael & Steve on this one, this is a dead issue, it's been fought before, I've even been involved in fighting those battles myself, with little sympathy. And I do also feel that there must be SOME bar to entry to IPv6 or we are going to have everyone and their dog signing up for direct assignments/allocations/whatever from ARIN rather than going to their upstream ISP. When it gets down to brass tacks, $1250 isn't THAT high. You cannot even buy a running used car that doesn't have a whole lot of hidden crash damage or the engine ready to fall out for that kind of money. And Apple Computers seems to have absolutely no trouble collecting that for their (in my opinion ridiculously overpriced) laptops. (they look cool, though) What I think gives people pause is that the $1250 figure is high enough to NOT be able to slip in under a $500 limit on an expense report - so you cannot spend it WITHOUT having a big discussion with the check signers, a discussion that I think most admins would rather NOT have - yet it is not so high that the CEO is going to put the kibosh on the IPv6 rollout project. In a short phrase, it's an expense that has to be budgeted - whether your org is a shoestring org and you have to go beg it from someone, or a rich oil company org that spends more than that on scented toilet paper every month. And after 20+ years of experience in high tech, working with other admins and accountants, I know damn well that most normal admins out there would rather have a root canal than deal with budgeting. Ted On 6/23/2010 11:31 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > Once again, and to my continued astonishment, I'm in complete agreement with > Owen. > > This is not about my exchange, or me not wanting to pay a fee or even about > whether those fees are justified. One of my members stepped up to the plate > and paid the fee. It's over and done with. > > My intent here was to bring up a point that I believe has merit. There is a > fee waiver in place for initial allocations to ISPs because we want ISPs to > adopt IPv6. Don't we want end users to adopt IPv6? ISPs have more of an > incentive because they're growing and need additional space ongoing. They > need a migration plan. What about Bob's Pizza that qualified for a /20 > years ago and will never need more IPs? What is his incentive to move to > v6? If large chunks of network space don't adopt v6 then it removes the > incentive for everyone else to as well. I see a lot of momentum being > generated by the "everyone is doing it" clause. > > I understand that fee's are not a matter of policy. That's why I submitted > my suggestion/question/out loud thought to the discuss list and not PPML and > I thought this was the appropriate place to "discuss" it. > > Aaron > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:22 PM > To: > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > > On Jun 23, 2010, at 2:35 AM, > wrote: > >>> but this case would be covered under "community networking" which had >> a >>> separate policy process and the arin community already ruled against >>> fee waivers in this case. i am not reraising that issue, dead is dead. >>> however, it's worth keeping the record straight, an IX with legitimate >>> participants can still in some cases have no bank account. >> >> Bottom line then is that most end users don't need a fee waiver >> because IPv6 is free from their ISP and they should have no >> problem getting a /48 even if the ISP normally hands out smaller >> prefixes. >> >> End users who really, really need to have a portable assignment >> can pay a one time fee to ARIN and that fee is already low enough >> that we don't consider it a barrier to IPv6 deployment. >> > Let me paraphrase that a little: > > Bottom line: End users should be treated as second class citizens. > If they don't want to be second class citizens, it's OK for us to require > a certain level of wealth in order to treat them otherwise. > > > 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. > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2957 - Release Date: 06/23/10 > 01:36:00 > > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2957 - Release Date: 06/23/10 01:36:00 From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Jun 23 15:00:29 2010 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:00:29 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> Message-ID: <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 01:31:40PM -0500, Aaron Wendel wrote: > My intent here was to bring up a point that I believe has merit. There is a > fee waiver in place for initial allocations to ISPs because we want ISPs to > adopt IPv6. Don't we want end users to adopt IPv6? ISPs have more of an > incentive because they're growing and need additional space ongoing. They > need a migration plan. What about Bob's Pizza that qualified for a /20 > years ago and will never need more IPs? What is his incentive to move to > v6? If large chunks of network space don't adopt v6 then it removes the > incentive for everyone else to as well. I see a lot of momentum being > generated by the "everyone is doing it" clause. A fee waver is a (temporary) removal of a disincentive to adopt IPv6. A fee waver is in no way an incetive. If you have no reason to adopt IPv6, then the removal of the fee will still leave you with no reason to adopt IPv6. Bob's Pizza will soon have an incentive. In the not too distant future some ISP will roll out IPv6 only users. They will then complain they can't get to Bob's Pizza's web site to order. Bob's Pizza will upgrade to IPv6 to service these users when there is critical mass. If the lost business isn't well more than the fee, then Bob's Pizza hasn't reached the tipping point yet. The existance, or lack of fees will, statistically speaking, make absolutely zero difference in when that occurs. I support fee wavers for two, and only two reasons: 1) To support experimentation and learning. 10 years ago we needed fee wavers for IPv6 so lab rats could play with it and develop the protocol without huge budget hassles. That reason is all but gone. It may exist again, in the future, for specific protocols, resources, or other narrow use cases. Speaking of, it would be nice if "experimental" resources were fee-waved.... 2) Qualified non-profts operating in the pubic benefit. Disclaimer, I work for a non-profit, but I don't actually want the waver for my company. The community exchange set up as a non-profit is actually a better model. In this case I don't think the fee should ever be zero, but rather very, very low. If any "for proft" company can't afford the fee that really means they don't have sufficient income to justify it. In which case they don't have a significant enough business to be getting Internet resources direct from ARIN. Lastly, it seems to me a lot of folks want to force IPv6 adoption in a faster time frame, for reasons I do not understand. There's an urgency to cajole others into doing IPv6 sooner, but I have no idea for what end. People will do it when they need it, stop trying to manipulate them into doing it sooner, no one likes that. IPv6 will happen, on it's own schedule. Take a deep breath. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 23 15:24:21 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:24:21 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F600C7@ex01.drtel.lan> References: <011301cb1243$997e9670$cc7bc350$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F60067@ex01.drtel.lan> <021801cb1266$26fa67a0$74ef36e0$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6006C@ex01.drtel.lan> <023e01cb1276$16cc4dc0$4464e940$@net> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F6008A@ex01.drtel.lan> <2B7EB52D-9B74-47F2-8FF1-A6B62F532763@delong.com> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F600C7@ex01.drtel.lan> Message-ID: <2480F161-A030-4BBF-A051-1926DFD93163@delong.com> On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Brian Johnson wrote: > Replying in-line... > > >> >> On Jun 23, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Brian Johnson wrote: >> >>> OK. So you are getting a better deal than any ISP, even with the >>> discount we get for a short period. What is your complaint again? >>> >>> Let's say I got a small IPv6 allocation in '08: >>> >>> You Me >>> --------------------------------------------- >>> Initial Allocation 1250 225 >>> Yr 2 Renewal 100 562.50 >>> Yr 3 Renewal 100 1125 >>> Yr 4 Renewal 100 1687.50 >>> --------------------------------------------- >>> 3 year total 1450 2600 >>> >> Not necessarily... >> >> First, that's a 4 year total, not a 3-year total for the ISP column. >> The end user column would be 1550 for 4 years. So you're >> not even comparing the same number of years in your table. >> >> The three year totals would be: >> >> 1450 vs. 1912.50 >> > > Sorry, I was doing math too fast while preparing to leave for a long > trip. :) > >> Let's look at it a little closer: >> >> Potential records in database: >> ISP /32: 65,000+ (/48s) or perhaps 16+Million (/56s) I'll use 65,000 >> to be conservative. >> End user /48: 1 >> >> 3 year total per record (ISP): <$0.03 >> 3 year total per record (End User): $1,450 >> > > This assumes a lot about my operations don't you think. I'm glad other > people are there to tell me how to do assignments out of my blocks. > Well, it's hard to do that math without making some assumptions. I tried to choose the most conservative guideline (a /48 per average end-user you (or your downstream LIRs) assign to). There are 65,536 /48s in a /32. I'm assuming as an ISP you got at least a /32 (there's no ARIN policy to give you less). > Maybe we should have a per assignment fee for ISPs instead of the > current idea of spreading the wealth around. (How would I go about > suggesting this to ARIN?) > There's always the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process, or you can always discuss it here on arin-discuss or at open mic. at the members meeting. >> Oh, and, ARIN membership: ISP: $0 -- End User: $500/year. >> >> Space with membership: >> >> Initial: ISP $225 EU $1750 >> Yr2: ISP $562.5 EU $ 600 >> Yr3: ISP $1125 EU $ 600 >> >> 3 Yr. Total: ISP: $1912.5 EU: $2950 > > Year 4 inverts this! A good time to stop for your argument. > 4 yr. total: ISP $4,162.5 EU: $3,550 Yes, it inverts it, but, not by all that much. On a time-value of money calculation, you're still actually ahead. Some other things to consider: 1. ISPs are almost always in the business of providing IP services to make a profit. The more customers an ISP has, the more IP resources an ISP needs to meet the needs of their customers. 2. Many end users are NOT for profit organizations or use IP resources as ancillary tool to their core business. Their need of resources is often independent of their number or size of customers. I stopped here because it was where you chose to stop in your original statement, not because I felt my position would be weakened by continuing out to year 4 as you did. >> >>> And every year after this I will pay $2250 for my allocation, but > you >>> will only pay $100 for your assignment. Do you expect me to feel >> sorry >>> for you or anyone in your situation? >>> >> I'm seeing less reason to preserve the ISP fee waivers to be honest. > > Agreed, but for completely different reasons. > > I get your point, but it's a little to my point more than the original > posters. Sorry for the bad math, but my point is made that as time > progresses an allocation holder will pay EXCESSIVELY more than an > assignment holder. > Define Excessive. It's not at all uncommon for business entities using something to increase their profits to pay higher fees for that thing than casual users. Additionally, since what you are paying for is registration services, it is assumed that for an LIR, that is an on-going fluid process that continues long after each allocation is issued. Assuming your network continues to grow, you will get additional allocations and may not be paying any additional fees for those allocations. End users pay for each and every assignment they get from ARIN, so, it's not even necessarily true that they pay less over time. On the other hand, end users that do pay less over time are also consuming far less resources at ARIN over time. They are generally fire-and-forget for the most part, save for the annual bill they receive for $100. ISPs, on the other hand continue to update all kinds of customer records and are far more likely to result in ARIN having to handle complaints about their customer's use of space at some level. > Let's say we have no waivers at all (a position I would have supported). > A small ALLOCATION would have been $2250/year. The same for a small > ASSIGNMENT would have been $2250 for the first year, but only $600 every > year thereafter. So at year 2 the ISP would be paying 3.75x as much each > year as the other. > I'm not seeing a problem there. > I run an ISP where we serve customers, but do very little, actually none > as of right now, assignment of space. I have as much of an impact on > ARIN operations as an assignment has. Should I qualify for an assignment > instead of my allocation under this structure? If so, is there a way to > transition between the two? > If you're not assigning space to your customers, then, yes, you could get an assignment and do just fine. The purpose of an allocation is for assignment of address space to customers. There's no reason to get one if that's not what you are doing. > Just my $0.02. > I'll see your $0.02 and raise you $0.05. Owen > - Brian > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the > intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, > copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. Isn't this pretty dumb on something you post to a public mailing list? I do not agree to your contract and do not feel myself bound by it's terms or conditions. The message you submitted is public data by virtue of the list to which you posted. There is no valid expectation of confidentiality. From bjohnson at drtel.com Wed Jun 23 15:41:40 2010 From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:41:40 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com><41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com><28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net><009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F600D4@ex01.drtel.lan> > > Lastly, it seems to me a lot of folks want to force IPv6 adoption > in a faster time frame, for reasons I do not understand. There's > an urgency to cajole others into doing IPv6 sooner, but I have no > idea for what end. People will do it when they need it, stop trying > to manipulate them into doing it sooner, no one likes that. > > IPv6 will happen, on it's own schedule. Take a deep breath. > > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Bingo Leo! I agree with your whole post, but this really is the meat of the matter (especially the last sentence). - Brian CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 23 15:58:35 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:58:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <4C225A0B.3020508@ipinc.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <4C225A0B.3020508@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <10AA3FDD-036B-43CC-A067-A76DE4B756FA@arin.net> On Jun 23, 2010, at 9:01 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Frankly I've never understood how ARIN arrived at the fee AMOUNTS in > the first place,and the fact that those fees have NOT increased along > with inflation pretty much points to the notion that they are, to put > it bluntly, arbitrary. Ted - For reference, the fee structure was put in place back at ARIN's origin in order to provide a scaled distribution of costs across a wide variety of different sized service providers and end user organizations. We've tried to keep the fees relatively "fair", i.e. the fee schedule increases with size of resource usage but not linearly, as ARIN's costs are greater for larger resource applications but do not increase in a linear fashion. With respect to the lack of increases in the fees, we've managed to successfully lower fees numerous times as the total number of members has increased, as the additional members are far greater factor than inflation in the overall budget. (I'd also like to note that this was reducing fees while also developing a 1 to 2 year operating reserve as is prudent to organization like ARIN). So, the fees are not directly tied to the underlying cost of specific services, but instead reflect an attempt to provide for proportional contribution from the community as a whole. Given the underlying reasoning of the fee schedule, I myself would not characterize it as arbitrary. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From drw at cimtel.net Wed Jun 23 15:49:29 2010 From: drw at cimtel.net (Danny Whittenburg) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:49:29 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F600D4@ex01.drtel.lan> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com><41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com><28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net><009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F600D4@ex01.drtel.lan> Message-ID: LOL.....I receive these daily and usually laugh at all the remarks going back and forth, but for once someone actually makes sense. Yes, it will happen at its own sweet time. Danny Whittenburg Director of IT Services Cimarron Telephone Company 101 Cimarron St. Mannford, OK 74044 (B) 918-865-6111 (C) 918-694-0138 drw at cimtel.net www.cimtel.net CimarronLogoforWeb -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Johnson Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:42 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > Lastly, it seems to me a lot of folks want to force IPv6 adoption > in a faster time frame, for reasons I do not understand. There's > an urgency to cajole others into doing IPv6 sooner, but I have no > idea for what end. People will do it when they need it, stop trying > to manipulate them into doing it sooner, no one likes that. > > IPv6 will happen, on it's own schedule. Take a deep breath. > > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Bingo Leo! I agree with your whole post, but this really is the meat of the matter (especially the last sentence). - Brian CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. NOTE: This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. NOTE: This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. From bjohnson at drtel.com Wed Jun 23 16:02:25 2010 From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:02:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <86lja5r0ii.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com><41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com><28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net><009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net><20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org><29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F600D4@ex01.drtel.lan> <86lja5r0ii.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F600D7@ex01.drtel.lan> First, I think it's stupid too. I live in the real world. Fighting this with my company is prioritized lower than scraping gum off the bottom of school desks. Second, if you read the "notice", the message is sent to the list. As such, the list membership is the intended recipients. The list is publicly available. As such, the message has an expectation of confidentiality with the world. Connect the dots. Now I have wasted too much time explaining why you didn't need to point this out, but thanks for laughing at my organization. :) - Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:rs at seastrom.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:51 PM > To: Brian Johnson > Cc: rs at seastrom.com > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > > "Brian Johnson" writes: > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any > > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and > > may contain confidential and privileged information. Any > > unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is > > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact > > the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original > > message. Thank you. > > More than twice as long as your message, serves no purpose, and > unintentionally makes a bit of a laughingstock of you and/or your > organization when posted to a public mailing list. Sorry to be the > bearer of bad news here. > > -r > Here it comes again for your viewing pleasure. From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Wed Jun 23 16:17:59 2010 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:17:59 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com><41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com><28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net><009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net><20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org><29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701F600D4@ex01.drtel.lan> Message-ID: Well, I have witnessed in other times that when a technology is clearly on its way out....and the new 'nirvana' is clearly on the way in....but not yet in....then a vacuum begins to build in the marketplace and all sorts of bandaid and point-source solutions get sucked in. When (and in some case if) the new and improved technology lands, it is only one of many solutions. This lack of standards transition in a timely fashion ends up creating a lot of tension in the marketplace causing some chaos and forcing entities to choose more carefully....or just delay their decisions to ensure that don't make the wrong choices among many. So I think the motivation to encourage people to transition to IPv6 as soon as possible attempts to circumvent this situation, to help ensure that nested nats or some such does't become the de facto standard. In vain it probably is, but I feel the motivation is blameless. bd > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Danny Whittenburg > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:49 PM > To: Brian Johnson; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > LOL.....I receive these daily and usually laugh at all the > remarks going back and forth, but for once someone actually > makes sense. Yes, it will happen at its own sweet time. > > > Danny Whittenburg > Director of IT Services > Cimarron Telephone Company > 101 Cimarron St. > Mannford, OK 74044 > (B) 918-865-6111 > (C) 918-694-0138 > drw at cimtel.net > www.cimtel.net > CimarronLogoforWeb > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Johnson > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:42 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > > > > > > Lastly, it seems to me a lot of folks want to force IPv6 > adoption in a > > faster time frame, for reasons I do not understand. There's an > > urgency to cajole others into doing IPv6 sooner, but I have no idea > > for what end. People will do it when they need it, stop trying to > > manipulate them into doing it sooner, no one likes that. > > > > IPv6 will happen, on it's own schedule. Take a deep breath. > > > > -- > > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > > > Bingo Leo! > > I agree with your whole post, but this really is the meat of > the matter (especially the last sentence). > > - Brian > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any > unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or > distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > NOTE: This message may contain information that is > privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under > law. If you believe that you have received this message in > error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and > delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Any > views or opinions presented are solely those of the author > and do not necessarily represent those of the company. > > NOTE: This message may contain information that is > privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under > law. If you believe that you have received this message in > error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and > delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Any > views or opinions presented are solely those of the author > and do not necessarily represent those of the company. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Thu Jun 24 12:30:42 2010 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Leo Bicknell > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers > > Lastly, it seems to me a lot of > folks want to force IPv6 adoption > in a faster time frame, for reasons I do > not understand. There's > an urgency to cajole others into doing IPv6 > sooner, but I have no > idea for what end. People will do it when they > need it, stop trying > to manipulate them into doing it sooner, no one likes > that. > > IPv6 will happen, on it's own schedule. Take a deep > breath. Once an organization is unable to receive allocations of IPv4 from ARIN, it will have to either stop the business requiring new addresses, use IPv6, or lean on an address market, NAT444, dual-stack lite, or AFT (possibly in combination with IPv6). A market is likely to be messy, and in several scenarios leads to filtering, such that there are hosts unable to reach other hosts on the Internet. The other mechanisms break some applications. Until all hosts use IPv6, IPv6 also has an unreachability problem. Therefore, the organization with unmet IPv4 need is likely to have connectivity problems, until everyone else supports IPv6. This causes some people concern, and is why some people are encouraging others to start now. This is not a Board position, just a Lee Howard position. Lee From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jun 24 15:19:43 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:19:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> On 6/24/2010 9:30 AM, Lee Howard wrote: > > ----- Original Message > ---- >> From: Leo Bicknell >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers >> > >> Lastly, it seems to me a lot of >> folks want to force IPv6 adoption >> in a faster time frame, for reasons I do >> not understand. There's >> an urgency to cajole others into doing IPv6 >> sooner, but I have no >> idea for what end. People will do it when they >> need it, stop trying >> to manipulate them into doing it sooner, no one likes >> that. >> >> IPv6 will happen, on it's own schedule. Take a deep >> breath. > > Once an organization is unable to receive allocations of > IPv4 from ARIN, it will have to either stop the business > requiring new addresses, use IPv6, or lean on an > address market, NAT444, dual-stack lite, or AFT > (possibly in combination with IPv6). I believe many organizations can self-fulfill their own IPv4 address requests. For example a customer of ours just got a T1 from Verizon back east. (out of our service area) It was delivered with a /29 and IP Unnumbered on the serial link. I have helped this customer get T1's before from Verizon and they have always been delivered with a public /30 on the serial link. It's easy to see that if Verizon were to convert 2 T1's going to customers to IP Unnumbered, that they would produce a /29 that they could use for a new customer. Thus they can self-fulfill IPv4 to increase their T1 customer base by 1/3 again the size that it is today. Or they could get even more radical and assign a /30 by default for the ethernet interface of their customers router (with the expectation that the customer would use a NAT or some such) and thus harvesting could double the size of their customer base. (incidentally, in this customers case I split the /29 and used half of it internally within the router on a loopback interface so I could reach the router from the outside and manage it remotely, but that's another story) Now I'm not saying Verizon has done anything wrong or illegal or bad network practice or any of that, with their prior assignments. Yes I agree that harvesting IPv4 from infrastructure is going to be difficult for many orgs. But the fact is that this IPv4 is there, it exists within the infrastructure, and to harvest it merely requires the ISP to talk to the customer and work something out. I've renumbered customers before on my ISP when we got our allocation and there were a lot, and the renumbering took a year, and there were still issues a few years later. But, time solves those things. Also, I believe that the IPv6/IPv4 implications are going to be felt differently in the United States vs the rest of the world. As this is an English-language mailing list I suspect the majority of posters are from the US. In the US the ISP market is at saturation, it has matured and nobody is really growing unless someone else is shrinking. It is inevitable that the shrinking orgs are going to either release IPv4 back to ARIN to save money, or sell Legacy on the commercial transfer market. I can easily imagine a scenario where the rest of the world ends up moving to IPv6 and sells it's IPv4 back to ISP's in the US via the transfer market. That would probably satisfy the IP addressing needs of the US for many years. And it really wouldn't make much difference to most Ma and Pa Kettle SOHO and residential customers in the US who's Internet experience consists mainly of accessing Hulu, Ebay, and CNN, since clearly the content providers are going to be the very last ones to go to IPv6-only. I'm not saying this is optimal by any means. Ted > A market is likely > to be messy, and in several scenarios leads to filtering, > such that there are hosts unable to reach other hosts on > the Internet. The other mechanisms break some > applications. > > Until all hosts use IPv6, IPv6 also has an unreachability > problem. Therefore, the organization with unmet IPv4 > need is likely to have connectivity problems, until > everyone else supports IPv6. This causes some people > concern, and is why some people are encouraging others > to start now. > > This is not a Board position, just a Lee Howard position. > > Lee > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jun 24 15:23:57 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:23:57 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] ARIN's RESTful Whois Directory Service Available 26 June In-Reply-To: <4C238F3A.1030200@arin.net> References: <4C238F3A.1030200@arin.net> Message-ID: <4C23B0CD.4020408@ipinc.net> "...ARIN will continue to maintain services for the NICNAME/WHOIS protocol on TCP/43. This is achieved by using a proxy service to translate traditional ARIN Whois queries into Whois-RWS queries. However,..." Can we get the source for this proxy code, please? Thanks, Ted On 6/24/2010 10:00 AM, Member Services wrote: > ARIN is deploying an improved Whois service called Whois-RWS on 26 June > 2010. Included in the deployment are the following services that provide > the general public with access to ARIN's registration data. > > * a RESTful Web Service (RWS) > * a NICNAME/WHOIS port 43 service > * a user-friendly web site (http://whois.arin.net) > > When using Whois-RWS you will notice some differences in behavior for > certain queries and corresponding result sets on the NICNAME/WHOIS TCP > port 43 service. These minor differences are documented at: > > https://www.arin.net/resources/whoisrws/whois_diff.html > > ARIN?s Directory Service for registration data has used the > NICNAME/WHOIS protocol since its inception. The limitations of the > NICNAME/WHOIS protocol are well known and documented in RFC3912. > Whois-RWS was created as an alternative to the ARIN Whois and will > provide much richer functionality and capability to the community. > > Whois-RWS can easily be integrated into command line scripts, or it can > be used with a web browser, which makes it applicable for programmatic > consumption and accessible for interactive use. ARIN will continue to > maintain services for the NICNAME/WHOIS protocol on TCP/43. This is > achieved by using a proxy service to translate traditional ARIN Whois > queries into Whois-RWS queries. However, ARIN recommends use of the > RESTful Web Service. > > Those who choose to use the Whois-RWS Proxy will find it has many > features unavailable over the existing Whois service, including: > > * Support for new query types such as CIDR queries > * Better feedback for ambiguous queries > * More finely scoped record type queries > * Options for NICNAME/WHOIS clients that re-interpret traditional > parameters used by ARIN's service. > * RESTful URL references, useful for embedding into documents and e-mail > * Better grouping of record types and delineation of results > > Another major benefit is that data from ARIN?s registration database is > distributed to the Whois-RWS servers many times throughout the day, > versus the once-a-day update of ARIN?s previous Whois service. Changes > will be reflected more quickly through Whois-RWS, so query results will > be more current than the previous Whois service. > > ARIN continues to welcome community participation on the Whois-RWS > mailing list, and we invite you to subscribe and provide feedback to: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-whoisrws > > Regards, > > > Mark Kosters > Chief Technical Officer > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Announce > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net Thu Jun 24 15:48:09 2010 From: nate.lyon at nfldwifi.net (Nathaniel B. Lyon) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:48:09 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E0105F52D8F@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> I have a question, and I apologize if this has been asked before. We are in the process of changing out one of our upstream's with another carrier. That carrier (I won't name names) said to me, "you can have as many IP's (IPv4) as you want, as long as you can show justification". I of course said no we have our own direct allocations from ARIN, thanks though. This got me thinking. I understand ARIN is running on empty when it comes to IPv4 addresses. What percentage is the ISP/Carrier community at? Meaning if you take all the IP's that ARIN has handed out to all the ISP's, carrier's and etc, what utilization percentage would that be at? Is it 60%, is it 80%? I know way back in the day, some entities were given /8's and are nowhere near even coming close to utilizing them. Could it be that some of these entities have more than enough IPv4 addresses to last a while? Could that be why adoption is slow to go from a crawl to a walk, to a run? -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:20 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 On 6/24/2010 9:30 AM, Lee Howard wrote: > > ----- Original Message > ---- >> From: Leo Bicknell >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers >> > >> Lastly, it seems to me a lot of >> folks want to force IPv6 adoption >> in a faster time frame, for reasons I do >> not understand. There's >> an urgency to cajole others into doing IPv6 >> sooner, but I have no >> idea for what end. People will do it when they >> need it, stop trying >> to manipulate them into doing it sooner, no one likes >> that. >> >> IPv6 will happen, on it's own schedule. Take a deep >> breath. > > Once an organization is unable to receive allocations of > IPv4 from ARIN, it will have to either stop the business > requiring new addresses, use IPv6, or lean on an > address market, NAT444, dual-stack lite, or AFT > (possibly in combination with IPv6). I believe many organizations can self-fulfill their own IPv4 address requests. For example a customer of ours just got a T1 from Verizon back east. (out of our service area) It was delivered with a /29 and IP Unnumbered on the serial link. I have helped this customer get T1's before from Verizon and they have always been delivered with a public /30 on the serial link. It's easy to see that if Verizon were to convert 2 T1's going to customers to IP Unnumbered, that they would produce a /29 that they could use for a new customer. Thus they can self-fulfill IPv4 to increase their T1 customer base by 1/3 again the size that it is today. Or they could get even more radical and assign a /30 by default for the ethernet interface of their customers router (with the expectation that the customer would use a NAT or some such) and thus harvesting could double the size of their customer base. (incidentally, in this customers case I split the /29 and used half of it internally within the router on a loopback interface so I could reach the router from the outside and manage it remotely, but that's another story) Now I'm not saying Verizon has done anything wrong or illegal or bad network practice or any of that, with their prior assignments. Yes I agree that harvesting IPv4 from infrastructure is going to be difficult for many orgs. But the fact is that this IPv4 is there, it exists within the infrastructure, and to harvest it merely requires the ISP to talk to the customer and work something out. I've renumbered customers before on my ISP when we got our allocation and there were a lot, and the renumbering took a year, and there were still issues a few years later. But, time solves those things. Also, I believe that the IPv6/IPv4 implications are going to be felt differently in the United States vs the rest of the world. As this is an English-language mailing list I suspect the majority of posters are from the US. In the US the ISP market is at saturation, it has matured and nobody is really growing unless someone else is shrinking. It is inevitable that the shrinking orgs are going to either release IPv4 back to ARIN to save money, or sell Legacy on the commercial transfer market. I can easily imagine a scenario where the rest of the world ends up moving to IPv6 and sells it's IPv4 back to ISP's in the US via the transfer market. That would probably satisfy the IP addressing needs of the US for many years. And it really wouldn't make much difference to most Ma and Pa Kettle SOHO and residential customers in the US who's Internet experience consists mainly of accessing Hulu, Ebay, and CNN, since clearly the content providers are going to be the very last ones to go to IPv6-only. I'm not saying this is optimal by any means. Ted > A market is likely > to be messy, and in several scenarios leads to filtering, > such that there are hosts unable to reach other hosts on > the Internet. The other mechanisms break some > applications. > > Until all hosts use IPv6, IPv6 also has an unreachability > problem. Therefore, the organization with unmet IPv4 > need is likely to have connectivity problems, until > everyone else supports IPv6. This causes some people > concern, and is why some people are encouraging others > to start now. > > This is not a Board position, just a Lee Howard position. > > Lee > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jun 24 15:53:31 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:53:31 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <10AA3FDD-036B-43CC-A067-A76DE4B756FA@arin.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <4C225A0B.3020508@ipinc.net> <10AA3FDD-036B-43CC-A067-A76DE4B756FA@arin.net> Message-ID: <4C23B7BB.6070908@ipinc.net> On 6/23/2010 12:58 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 23, 2010, at 9:01 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> Frankly I've never understood how ARIN arrived at the fee AMOUNTS in >> the first place,and the fact that those fees have NOT increased along >> with inflation pretty much points to the notion that they are, to put >> it bluntly, arbitrary. > > Ted - > > For reference, the fee structure was put in place back at ARIN's > origin in order to provide a scaled distribution of costs across > a wide variety of different sized service providers and end user > organizations. We've tried to keep the fees relatively "fair", > i.e. the fee schedule increases with size of resource usage but > not linearly, as ARIN's costs are greater for larger resource > applications but do not increase in a linear fashion. > > With respect to the lack of increases in the fees, we've managed > to successfully lower fees numerous times as the total number of > members has increased, as the additional members are far greater > factor than inflation in the overall budget. (I'd also like to > note that this was reducing fees while also developing a 1 to 2 > year operating reserve as is prudent to organization like ARIN). > You deserve kudos for that and I won't deny that. > So, the fees are not directly tied to the underlying cost of > specific services, but instead reflect an attempt to provide > for proportional contribution from the community as a whole. > Given the underlying reasoning of the fee schedule, I myself > would not characterize it as arbitrary. John, you and I have discussed this before - the fact is that with the exception of content providers, every ISP on the Internet merely reassigns those IP numbers they are getting from ARIN out to customers. If you want to make the claim that ARIN is trying to track fees to it's internal costs that's fine, but the fact is that doing it this way greatly favors the large ISPs over the small ISP's because both the large and small ISP are forced by market competitiveness to charge customers the SAME amount for those IP addresses, and the price-per-IP is much much smaller the larger the ISP. Thus the small ISP bears much more of the expense of the IP since they cannot pass most of their cost of it along to their customer. Within ARIN's own little world of it's non-profit company the IP fee may not be arbitrary. But on the Internet since we don't have the detailed operational visibility of ARIN's expenses (and yes I've looked at the posted financials, and no they don't have operational detail) the fees look arbitrary. But at this time, you and I are engaged in an accounting discussion on a list where I'd guess that 90% of the readers don't even do their own personal income taxes (they use HR block) let alone corporate taxes so I strongly suspect that most have long since fallen asleep reading this. And also, IPv6 changes most of this since most ISP's are going to get the minimum IPv6 allocation and never come back for more numbers, thus I am contended for now with the fact that despite what ARIN does with regards to fees, in 20 years or so most ISPs will be paying the same amount. Ted > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jun 24 16:21:06 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:21:06 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E0105F52D8F@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <24F349B8030E5A47A8BDC2FE0E13D13E0105F52D8F@nfldnet6.NFLDWIFI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <4C23BE32.9050305@ipinc.net> On 6/24/2010 12:48 PM, Nathaniel B. Lyon wrote: > I have a question, and I apologize if this has been asked before. We > are in the process of changing out one of our upstream's with another > carrier. That carrier (I won't name names) said to me, "you can have > as many IP's (IPv4) as you want, as long as you can show > justification". I of course said no we have our own direct > allocations from ARIN, thanks though. > > This got me thinking. I understand ARIN is running on empty when it > comes to IPv4 addresses. What percentage is the ISP/Carrier > community at? Meaning if you take all the IP's that ARIN has handed > out to all the ISP's, carrier's and etc, what utilization percentage > would that be at? Is it 60%, is it 80%? I know way back in the day, > some entities were given /8's and are nowhere near even coming close > to utilizing them. > ARIN has been picking that fruit for many years, most if not all of those /8's were traded in a long time ago. ANY entity that is GROWING and obtaining additional allocations MUST be at 80% utilization, that's a requirement of getting more numbers. But 80% utilization includes the notion that an ISP customer can get a /29 with little justification, and few ISP's charge customers more money who need more numbers - unless those customers are only paying a pittance for connectivity in the first place (ie: broadband). The other unspoken assumption here is that ALL ISP's that are obtaining IP addressing are growing. But the fact is that growth is not a business requirement for profit. Unfortunately in business over the last 40 years in the investment community there has been a trend for companies to stop paying dividends and this forces the stockholders to only realize any kind of investment income from stock by selling the stock. Thus, they want the stock prices to go up, and that only happens if the company is getting bigger. So the general public (and a lot of poorly-educated businessmen I'm afraid) have this notion that businesses aren't doing well and aren't profitable unless they are growing. Some of the smarter ones of these people have very recently pulled their heads out as a result of the economic depression of 2007-2008 but the unfortunate fact is that the ARIN rules on IP assignments were made right during the height of this misguided belief. ARIN figured they could exert all the control they would ever need over the IPv4-holding community by keeping control of new assignments. No concern or thought was given to auditing existing holdings - note that section 3.6.1 was only added to the NRPM quite recently, for example, and the Legacy RSA (LRSA) was also another recent invention along the same vein. To it's credit there's been a mental shift at ARIN and within the ARIN community, all of us I think have come to the understanding that ARIN will be managing IPv4 long after IANA stops handing it out. Thus there's a need for more IPv4 control mechanisms than just being the gatekeeper of new IPv4 assignments. IPv6, of course, is so vast that we really COULD give everyone and their dog an allocation, many many times over, thus the control issues are much different. With IPv6, the critical thing is making sure we know who has what, since there's so many numbers. > Could it be that some of these entities have more than enough IPv4 > addresses to last a while? Could that be why adoption is slow to go > from a crawl to a walk, to a run? > I believe that with the exception of the true hacker admins, and the very large professional admins at huge networks, that for the rest IPv6 adoption will mainly be driven by customer demand for Ipv6. And that will be only driven by content providers offering content in IPv6 ONLY. Not dual-stacked content, IPv6 ONLY content. Ted > > -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:20 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 > > > > On 6/24/2010 9:30 AM, Lee Howard wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Leo Bicknell Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] >>> fee waivers >>> >> >>> Lastly, it seems to me a lot of folks want to force IPv6 >>> adoption in a faster time frame, for reasons I do not understand. >>> There's an urgency to cajole others into doing IPv6 sooner, but I >>> have no idea for what end. People will do it when they need it, >>> stop trying to manipulate them into doing it sooner, no one >>> likes that. >>> >>> IPv6 will happen, on it's own schedule. Take a deep breath. >> >> Once an organization is unable to receive allocations of IPv4 from >> ARIN, it will have to either stop the business requiring new >> addresses, use IPv6, or lean on an address market, NAT444, >> dual-stack lite, or AFT (possibly in combination with IPv6). > > I believe many organizations can self-fulfill their own IPv4 address > requests. > > For example a customer of ours just got a T1 from Verizon back east. > (out of our service area) It was delivered with a /29 and IP > Unnumbered on the serial link. I have helped this customer get T1's > before from Verizon and they have always been delivered with a public > /30 on the serial link. > > It's easy to see that if Verizon were to convert 2 T1's going to > customers to IP Unnumbered, that they would produce a /29 that they > could use for a new customer. Thus they can self-fulfill IPv4 to > increase their T1 customer base by 1/3 again the size that it is > today. Or they could get even more radical and assign a /30 by > default for the ethernet interface of their customers router (with > the expectation that the customer would use a NAT or some such) and > thus harvesting could double the size of their customer base. > > (incidentally, in this customers case I split the /29 and used half > of it internally within the router on a loopback interface so I could > reach the router from the outside and manage it remotely, but that's > another story) > > Now I'm not saying Verizon has done anything wrong or illegal or bad > network practice or any of that, with their prior assignments. > > Yes I agree that harvesting IPv4 from infrastructure is going to be > difficult for many orgs. But the fact is that this IPv4 is there, it > exists within the infrastructure, and to harvest it merely requires > the ISP to talk to the customer and work something out. I've > renumbered customers before on my ISP when we got our allocation and > there were a lot, and the renumbering took a year, and there were > still issues a few years later. But, time solves those things. > > Also, I believe that the IPv6/IPv4 implications are going to be felt > differently in the United States vs the rest of the world. As this > is an English-language mailing list I suspect the majority of posters > are from the US. In the US the ISP market is at saturation, it has > matured and nobody is really growing unless someone else is > shrinking. It is inevitable that the shrinking orgs are going to > either release IPv4 back to ARIN to save money, or sell Legacy on the > commercial transfer market. > > I can easily imagine a scenario where the rest of the world ends up > moving to IPv6 and sells it's IPv4 back to ISP's in the US via the > transfer market. That would probably satisfy the IP addressing needs > of the US for many years. And it really wouldn't make much > difference to most Ma and Pa Kettle SOHO and residential customers in > the US who's Internet experience consists mainly of accessing Hulu, > Ebay, and CNN, since clearly the content providers are going to be > the very last ones to go to IPv6-only. I'm not saying this is > optimal by any means. > > Ted > >> A market is likely to be messy, and in several scenarios leads to >> filtering, such that there are hosts unable to reach other hosts >> on the Internet. The other mechanisms break some applications. >> >> Until all hosts use IPv6, IPv6 also has an unreachability problem. >> Therefore, the organization with unmet IPv4 need is likely to have >> connectivity problems, until everyone else supports IPv6. This >> causes some people concern, and is why some people are encouraging >> others to start now. >> >> This is not a Board position, just a Lee Howard position. >> >> Lee >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You >> are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or >> manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact >> info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are > receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or > manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact > info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 24 23:13:48 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:13:48 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <4C23B7BB.6070908@ipinc.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <4C225A0B.3020508@ipinc.net> <10AA3FDD-036B-43CC-A067-A76DE4B756FA@arin.net> <4C23B7BB.6070908@ipinc.net> Message-ID: On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:53 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > And also, IPv6 changes most of this since most ISP's are going to > get the minimum IPv6 allocation and never come back for more numbers, > thus I am contended for now with the fact that despite what ARIN > does with regards to fees, in 20 years or so most ISPs will be > paying the same amount. How do you believe the fees should be structured 20 years from now with respect to IPv6? If one presumes that 98% of the ISPs will be obtaining a single /32 allocation, should the fees be the same for all of these organizations or would you advocate a different model? /John From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Fri Jun 25 14:38:42 2010 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Sent: Thu, June 24, 2010 3:19:43 PM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 > > In the US the ISP > market is at saturation, it has > matured and nobody is really > growing unless someone else is shrinking. The Caribbean is growing at a good pace. See also any statistics about growth, and make sure to include devices with IP capabilities (handhelds, consoles, etc.). > I can easily imagine a scenario where the rest of the > world ends up moving to IPv6 and sells it's IPv4 back to ISP's in > the US via the transfer market. Potential transfer recipients in the US will be competing against potential recipients within the region of origin. > Internet experience > consists mainly of accessing Hulu, Ebay, and CNN, > since clearly > the content providers are going to be the very last ones > to go to IPv6-only. I believe Hulu is owned by NBC Universal, in process of being acquired by Comcast, which is deploying IPv6. "The public-facing eBay Web site will be upgraded for what's called dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 access in 2011. " http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/020410-ipv6-web-sites.html?page=1 CNN is served by a CDN, so it will be available when the CDN is. It is not clear that content providers will be last. There are good reasons for content providers to prefer IPv6 over the alternatives. Lee Again, not a Board opinion, just mine. From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Jun 25 14:48:48 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:48:48 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <4C225A0B.3020508@ipinc.net> <10AA3FDD-036B-43CC-A067-A76DE4B756FA@arin.net> <4C23B7BB.6070908@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <4C24FA10.80400@ipinc.net> On 6/24/2010 8:13 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:53 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >> And also, IPv6 changes most of this since most ISP's are going to >> get the minimum IPv6 allocation and never come back for more numbers, >> thus I am contended for now with the fact that despite what ARIN >> does with regards to fees, in 20 years or so most ISPs will be >> paying the same amount. > > How do you believe the fees should be structured 20 years > from now with respect to IPv6? If one presumes that 98% > of the ISPs will be obtaining a single /32 allocation, > should the fees be the same for all of these organizations > or would you advocate a different model? > I would advocate the larger ISPs (larger meaning more users) pay more for the same exact reason the US Government's income tax system is progressive. The larger operators gain far more financial benefit from the existence of ARIN to keep things orderly than the smaller operators do, just like people making a lot of money in the US have far more interest in a government that preserves order and puts thieves in jail and repairs the roads and all of that, then poor people who have nothing worth stealing and no car. :-) However the problem is one of visibility and definition and how do you determine how large an org is. At the current time, ISP's are essentially forced to publically report their customer counts to each other. That is, if I as an ISP know that ISP X has just obtained an allocation from ARIN, since all their allocations are public, I can roughly calculate their customer base size by the 80% rule. It's easy to base a fee scheme on size this way since everyone knows what's what and nobody can accuse ARIN of collusion with certain networks since everyone's dirty laundry is on the table and we can all see it. Under IPv6, ISP's are now going to be afforded a privacy about their internal operations that they never had. Under IPv6 only I cannot calculate what any of my competitors sizes are because few to none of them will ever request multiple IPv6 allocations and thus I won't know if they are at 2% or 80% of their IPv6 allocation. Granted, I can query whois but because the whois database is such a mess right now, that data isn't trustworthy. And even when it finally becomes trustworthy when ARIN finishes cleaning out the garbage POC entries, since ISP's today only really feel the pressure to insert whois data in order to be able to justify for more IPv4 addresses, under IPv6 if they aren't ever planning on obtaining another IPv6 allocation it's easy to see that there will be little incentive for them to add records into whois. So that data will be highly underreported except by the very largest ISPs who will be getting more than the minimum IPv6 allocations and will thus be forced to report accurately to meet the 80% rule. My guess is when most ISP's start to understand this, they will be extremely uninterested in changing it. This is competitive data, ya know. And without visibility of the ISP's actual size and utilization, fee schemes based on the size of the allocation (such as the current one) will be essentially unworkable. Sure, ARIN can faddle and fardle around with a progressive scheme by trying to get ISP's to privately report utilization to them but that's just opening the door to a lot of cranks to accuse ARIN of favoritism. Not to mention the compliance will be horrendous unless ARIN does 3rd party auditing which will drive costs sky high. ARIN is likely to see a big fee squeeze in the next decade. ISPs will not want to report utilization data to ARIN or to each other and will want to have everyone pay the same flat fee - but I suspect that in order to fund ARIN this flat fee will be even more regressive than the ARIN fees are now. To maintain it ARIN will have to raise fees and that will push even more of the small ISPs out of the game. The small ISP's will fight this and ARIN will be pressured to keep fees low - and since (as you I believe have pointed out before) the small ISP's have the voting power in numbers within ARIN, they will get their way. Besides, we aren't dumb and we all know that Internet innovation comes from the smaller operators and ARIN would be doing a huge disservice to the Internet to do anything to push more of them out of business. I'd have to ask you this. How many ISP's who are CURRENTLY running on an IPv4 Medium/Large/X-Large allocation will be able to switch to a IPv6 /32 Small allocation once IPv6 is in force - and once they start dropping their IPv4 allocations they will be moving DOWN the fee scale. How many customers can an ISP serve off of a /18 of IPv4 - and can they serve that same number off a /32 IPv6? I would think that they can, wouldn't you? Ted > /John > > From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Jun 25 14:57:51 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:57:51 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> On 6/25/2010 11:38 AM, Lee Howard wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Ted Mittelstaedt >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Sent: Thu, June 24, 2010 3:19:43 PM >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 >> >> In the US the ISP >> market is at saturation, it has >> matured and nobody is really >> growing unless someone else is shrinking. > > The Caribbean is growing at a good pace. > See also any statistics about growth, and make sure > to include devices with IP capabilities (handhelds, > consoles, etc.). > > >> I can easily imagine a scenario where the rest of the >> world ends up moving to IPv6 and sells it's IPv4 back to ISP's in >> the US via the transfer market. > > Potential transfer recipients in the US will be > competing against potential recipients within the > region of origin. > >> Internet experience >> consists mainly of accessing Hulu, Ebay, and CNN, >> since clearly >> the content providers are going to be the very last ones >> to go to IPv6-only. > > I believe Hulu is owned by NBC Universal, in process > of being acquired by Comcast, which is deploying IPv6. > "The public-facing eBay Web site will be upgraded for what's called > dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 access in 2011. > " > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/020410-ipv6-web-sites.html?page=1 > CNN is served by a CDN, so it will be available when the CDN is. > > It is not clear that content providers will be last. There > are good reasons for content providers to prefer IPv6 over > the alternatives. > If the content providers are getting any money for providing content (ie: advertising revenue) then they will definitely be last to drop IPv4. Think Beta vs VHS, and think Records vs CD's. As long as there were significant numbers of customers who wanted to buy their movies on Beta, stores sold Beta tapes. Record stores loved CD's and pushed them (less retail space) but they didn't get rid of records until customers stopped buying them. And even today I picked up a coupon page from the daily newspaper and the local 5 and dime is STILL ADVERTISING brand new blank VHS tape. Are there still people out there recording TV shows on VHS? Obviously enough of them for a retailer to pay money advertising VHS tape! THAT one really floored me. Ted > Lee > > Again, not a Board opinion, just mine. > > > From sysop at iptelligent.com Fri Jun 25 16:16:08 2010 From: sysop at iptelligent.com (IPTelligent SysOp) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:16:08 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification Message-ID: Friends, This may have raised here in the past, but since I couldn't find anything in a search, I'm bringing it to you here. What are the accepted justifications (by ARIN) for justified use of a block assignment? It raised today on the following WHT thread: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=959073 a) Generally, is (end-user) VPN usage sufficient justification under ARIN's eyes (even if users are inside the region or on the same country)? If yes, which policies would it fall under? b) In this specific case, the user wants IP blocks for VPNs that will circumvent "the Great Firewall of China". I can understand that this is a noble attempt in order to make information freely available to inside the communist regime of China and void their attempts to block network neutrality and freedom of speech; it would be even a humanitary aid (IMHO) to offer such service to them. But, won't this create a political issue on government level, or a political issue between ARIN and APNIC? What would be the consequences if that was issued? What's ARIN's exact position on this? Regards, Rafael Cresci From martin at belairinternet.com Fri Jun 25 16:25:13 2010 From: martin at belairinternet.com (Martin Madsen) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:25:13 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All, I guess the same question applies when it comes to VPN use, but the goal is not quite as noble, in the case of VPNs for P2P traffic. Services like these are being offered in order to hide the identity when downloading copyrighted content illegally. However I do not know if any of these services have requested space from ARIN. Regards, Martin Madsen Bel Air Internet Ph: 8184492626 Fx: 8183808175 http://www.belairinternet.com "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of IPTelligent SysOp Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 1:16 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification Friends, This may have raised here in the past, but since I couldn't find anything in a search, I'm bringing it to you here. What are the accepted justifications (by ARIN) for justified use of a block assignment? It raised today on the following WHT thread: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=959073 a) Generally, is (end-user) VPN usage sufficient justification under ARIN's eyes (even if users are inside the region or on the same country)? If yes, which policies would it fall under? b) In this specific case, the user wants IP blocks for VPNs that will circumvent "the Great Firewall of China". I can understand that this is a noble attempt in order to make information freely available to inside the communist regime of China and void their attempts to block network neutrality and freedom of speech; it would be even a humanitary aid (IMHO) to offer such service to them. But, won't this create a political issue on government level, or a political issue between ARIN and APNIC? What would be the consequences if that was issued? What's ARIN's exact position on this? Regards, Rafael Cresci _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From berger at shout.net Fri Jun 25 16:42:12 2010 From: berger at shout.net (Mike Berger) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:42:12 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C2514A4.8040703@shout.net> Political issues aside, how do you justify the request without already having something in place, in which case you probably already have an allocation from your upstream provider? And somebody still has to pay the fees. ARIN doesn't have any special allowance for getting space specifically to circumvent firewalls or security, so you still need the standard justifications, and the reason behind it is just a red herring. You also get into a pretty ambiguous area. What you call a "noble attempt" is someone elses subversion. On 6/25/10 3:16 PM, IPTelligent SysOp wrote: > Friends, > > This may have raised here in the past, but since I couldn't find > anything in a search, I'm bringing it to you here. > > What are the accepted justifications (by ARIN) for justified use of a > block assignment? > It raised today on the following WHT thread: > http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=959073 > > a) Generally, is (end-user) VPN usage sufficient justification under > ARIN's eyes (even if users are inside the region or on the same > country)? If yes, which policies would it fall under? > b) In this specific case, the user wants IP blocks for VPNs that will > circumvent "the Great Firewall of China". I can understand that this is > a noble attempt in order to make information freely available to inside > the communist regime of China and void their attempts to block network > neutrality and freedom of speech; it would be even a humanitary aid > (IMHO) to offer such service to them. But, won't this create a > political issue on government level, or a political issue between ARIN > and APNIC? What would be the consequences if that was issued? > > What's ARIN's exact position on this? > > Regards, > Rafael Cresci > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Jun 25 16:46:48 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:46:48 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification In-Reply-To: <4C2514A4.8040703@shout.net> References: <4C2514A4.8040703@shout.net> Message-ID: <4C2515B8.20704@ipinc.net> On 6/25/2010 1:42 PM, Mike Berger wrote: > Political issues aside, how do you justify the request without already > having something in place, in which case you probably already have an > allocation from your upstream provider? And somebody still has to pay > the fees. ARIN doesn't have any special allowance for getting space > specifically to circumvent firewalls or security, so you still need the > standard justifications, and the reason behind it is just a red herring. > > You also get into a pretty ambiguous area. What you call a "noble > attempt" is someone elses subversion. > What if the VPN's were IPv6 VPNs with a V6-V4 proxy on the "free" end? Ted > On 6/25/10 3:16 PM, IPTelligent SysOp wrote: >> Friends, >> >> This may have raised here in the past, but since I couldn't find >> anything in a search, I'm bringing it to you here. >> >> What are the accepted justifications (by ARIN) for justified use of a >> block assignment? >> It raised today on the following WHT thread: >> http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=959073 >> >> a) Generally, is (end-user) VPN usage sufficient justification under >> ARIN's eyes (even if users are inside the region or on the same >> country)? If yes, which policies would it fall under? >> b) In this specific case, the user wants IP blocks for VPNs that will >> circumvent "the Great Firewall of China". I can understand that this is >> a noble attempt in order to make information freely available to inside >> the communist regime of China and void their attempts to block network >> neutrality and freedom of speech; it would be even a humanitary aid >> (IMHO) to offer such service to them. But, won't this create a >> political issue on government level, or a political issue between ARIN >> and APNIC? What would be the consequences if that was issued? >> >> What's ARIN's exact position on this? >> >> Regards, >> Rafael Cresci >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 sysop at iptelligent.com Fri Jun 25 16:51:49 2010 From: sysop at iptelligent.com (IPTelligent SysOp) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:51:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification In-Reply-To: <4C2514A4.8040703@shout.net> Message-ID: Mike, The fees and prerequisites are not the target of the question, but whether VPN usage is accepted under ARIN's scrutiny process as "valid justification" for issuing an ISP a new (second) address block. The fact is that ISPs (at least in the ARIN area, as in RIPE area looks like they are far more open to allowing VPNs as a justifiable use) will turn down the customers if they can't preemptively justify the allocations, so that the ISP itself hasn't the trouble later when they need more addresses and them blam! get denied because they issued, say, a /23 or /22 our of their /20 to a downlink customer that uses these addresses for VPNs. The political aspect side I mentioned is just adding more spice to the discussion, as it may be a catalyst on the decision why or why not accepting it as a justifiable reason. Regards, Rafael ------ Original Message ------ From: "Mike Berger" To: arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: 6/25/2010 5:42:12 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification >Political issues aside, how do you justify the request without already >having something in place, in which case you probably already have an >allocation from your upstream provider? And somebody still has to pay >the fees. ARIN doesn't have any special allowance for getting space >specifically to circumvent firewalls or security, so you still need >the >standard justifications, and the reason behind it is just a red >herring. > >You also get into a pretty ambiguous area. What you call a "noble >attempt" is someone elses subversion. > >On 6/25/10 3:16 PM, IPTelligent SysOp wrote: >>Friends, >> >>This may have raised here in the past, but since I couldn't find >>anything in a search, I'm bringing it to you here. >> >>What are the accepted justifications (by ARIN) for justified use of a >>block assignment? >>It raised today on the following WHT thread: >>http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=959073 >> >>a) Generally, is (end-user) VPN usage sufficient justification under >>ARIN's eyes (even if users are inside the region or on the same >>country)? If yes, which policies would it fall under? >>b) In this specific case, the user wants IP blocks for VPNs that will >>circumvent "the Great Firewall of China". I can understand that this >>is >>a noble attempt in order to make information freely available to >>inside >>the communist regime of China and void their attempts to block >>network >>neutrality and freedom of speech; it would be even a humanitary aid >>(IMHO) to offer such service to them. But, won't this create a >>political issue on government level, or a political issue between >>ARIN >>and APNIC? What would be the consequences if that was issued? >> >>What's ARIN's exact position on this? >> >>Regards, >>Rafael Cresci >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ARIN-Discuss >>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage 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 aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Fri Jun 25 16:52:10 2010 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:52:10 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04a001cb14a8$485c9780$d915c680$@net> ARIN does not specify technical uses for IP address space. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of IPTelligent SysOp Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:16 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification Friends, This may have raised here in the past, but since I couldn't find anything in a search, I'm bringing it to you here. What are the accepted justifications (by ARIN) for justified use of a block assignment? It raised today on the following WHT thread: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=959073 a) Generally, is (end-user) VPN usage sufficient justification under ARIN's eyes (even if users are inside the region or on the same country)? If yes, which policies would it fall under? b) In this specific case, the user wants IP blocks for VPNs that will circumvent "the Great Firewall of China". I can understand that this is a noble attempt in order to make information freely available to inside the communist regime of China and void their attempts to block network neutrality and freedom of speech; it would be even a humanitary aid (IMHO) to offer such service to them. But, won't this create a political issue on government level, or a political issue between ARIN and APNIC? What would be the consequences if that was issued? What's ARIN's exact position on this? Regards, Rafael Cresci _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2957 - Release Date: 06/25/10 01:35:00 From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Jun 25 16:59:03 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:59:03 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Fwd: Re: Policy clarification Message-ID: <4C251897.6000201@ipinc.net> The whole issue of the VPN is meaningless IMHO. If I'm travelling out of the ARIN region and I VPN into my office then I'm using ARIN numbers in a non-ARIN geographic region. Whoo hoo. Ted PS Yes, my office net is publically numbered. I work at an ISP, for god's sake! From sysop at iptelligent.com Fri Jun 25 17:04:40 2010 From: sysop at iptelligent.com (IPTelligent SysOp) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:04:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification In-Reply-To: <04a001cb14a8$485c9780$d915c680$@net> Message-ID: Aaron, Then I wonder why, last time I requested a second address block for the company, I was asked for technical justification for all the reassigned and reallocated blocks that were equal to or higher than a /24, based exactly on SWIP information? Don't remember the exact words now, but I was asked "Why did you allocate a /23 to company X, what was the justification they provided" and how much equipment is connected to that block, how many hosts, how many shared webhosting, how many etc, what are the reverse hostnames for each of those IPs? Isn't that technical use justification, or it's just for statistics (and then why not mention it's optional)? For a customer that I had reassigned space from the carrier (and so I couldn't reallocate to the end user), I had to submit a long customer list with the subnetting that was made, per customer (not much work as the customer collaborated to it, but then, I had to reformat all the list). Would it be completely unnecessary? Regards, Rafael ------ Original Message ------ From: "Aaron Wendel" To: "IPTelligent SysOp" ;arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: 6/25/2010 5:52:10 PM Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification >ARIN does not specify technical uses for IP address space. From owen at delong.com Sat Jun 26 01:52:34 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:52:34 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> Message-ID: On Jun 25, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > On 6/25/2010 11:38 AM, Lee Howard wrote: >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Sent: Thu, June 24, 2010 3:19:43 PM >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 >>> >>> In the US the ISP >>> market is at saturation, it has >>> matured and nobody is really >>> growing unless someone else is shrinking. >> >> The Caribbean is growing at a good pace. >> See also any statistics about growth, and make sure >> to include devices with IP capabilities (handhelds, >> consoles, etc.). >> >> >>> I can easily imagine a scenario where the rest of the >>> world ends up moving to IPv6 and sells it's IPv4 back to ISP's in >>> the US via the transfer market. >> >> Potential transfer recipients in the US will be >> competing against potential recipients within the >> region of origin. >> >>> Internet experience >>> consists mainly of accessing Hulu, Ebay, and CNN, >>> since clearly >>> the content providers are going to be the very last ones >>> to go to IPv6-only. >> >> I believe Hulu is owned by NBC Universal, in process >> of being acquired by Comcast, which is deploying IPv6. >> "The public-facing eBay Web site will be upgraded for what's called >> dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 access in 2011. >> " >> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/020410-ipv6-web-sites.html?page=1 >> CNN is served by a CDN, so it will be available when the CDN is. >> >> It is not clear that content providers will be last. There >> are good reasons for content providers to prefer IPv6 over >> the alternatives. >> > > If the content providers are getting any money for providing > content (ie: advertising revenue) then they will definitely be > last to drop IPv4. > Who cares... Dropping IPv4 is irrelevant. What counts is when they add IPv6. They will be among the first to add IPv6. The larger and smarter ones already are. Owen From owen at delong.com Sat Jun 26 01:50:28 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:50:28 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <4C24FA10.80400@ipinc.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <4C225A0B.3020508@ipinc.net> <10AA3FDD-036B-43CC-A067-A76DE4B756FA@arin.net> <4C23B7BB.6070908@ipinc.net> <4C24FA10.80400@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <475EC4CA-0C3D-414B-B03D-E7C56E912CAA@delong.com> On Jun 25, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > On 6/24/2010 8:13 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:53 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>> >>> And also, IPv6 changes most of this since most ISP's are going to >>> get the minimum IPv6 allocation and never come back for more numbers, >>> thus I am contended for now with the fact that despite what ARIN >>> does with regards to fees, in 20 years or so most ISPs will be >>> paying the same amount. >> >> How do you believe the fees should be structured 20 years >> from now with respect to IPv6? If one presumes that 98% >> of the ISPs will be obtaining a single /32 allocation, >> should the fees be the same for all of these organizations >> or would you advocate a different model? >> > > I would advocate the larger ISPs (larger meaning more users) > pay more for the same exact > reason the US Government's income tax system is progressive. Interesting... I would advocate overhauling the US Government Income Tax system and replacing it with a flat tax along the lines of Malcolm Forbes "Fair Tax" proposal for much the same reason I think the current system of fees at ARIN is reasonable and just. > The larger operators gain far more financial benefit from the > existence of ARIN to keep things orderly than the smaller operators > do, just like people making a lot of money in the US have far > more interest in a government that preserves order and puts > thieves in jail and repairs the roads and all of that, then > poor people who have nothing worth stealing and no car. :-) > I actually don't buy this argument. Absent such a government, the very wealthy have little trouble hiring their own private armed security willing to do far more than the police are able to do to protect their interest. In fact, statistically, people of lesser financial means are far more likely to be victims of such crimes than people of significant means and the government is rarely able to effectively prosecute the kind of crimes that do usually befall people of means (mostly committed by other people of means, amusingly enough). > Under IPv6, ISP's are now going to be afforded a privacy about > their internal operations that they never had. Under IPv6 only > I cannot calculate what any of my competitors sizes are because > few to none of them will ever request multiple IPv6 allocations > and thus I won't know if they are at 2% or 80% of their IPv6 > allocation. > Good actors are still required to publish Whois records for their delegations. > Granted, I can query whois but because the whois database is > such a mess right now, that data isn't trustworthy. And even > when it finally becomes trustworthy when ARIN finishes > cleaning out the garbage POC entries, since ISP's today only The good news is there isn't much IPv6 cruft in there yet, so, the IPv6 cleanup should be relatively easy. The majority of the mess is historic and IPv4 related. > really feel the pressure to insert whois data in order to > be able to justify for more IPv4 addresses, under IPv6 if > they aren't ever planning on obtaining another IPv6 allocation > it's easy to see that there will be little incentive for them > to add records into whois. So that data will be highly > underreported except by the very largest ISPs who will be > getting more than the minimum IPv6 allocations and will > thus be forced to report accurately to meet the 80% rule. > Perhaps we need policy allowing allocations to be reduced or revoked if there are not enough SWIP entries to justify the space, or, in cases where there is documented verifiable underreporting? > My guess is when most ISP's start to understand this, they will > be extremely uninterested in changing it. This is competitive > data, ya know. > Fortunately, ISPs are not the majority of orgs receiving resources from ARIN these days. I do not know if they constitute a majority of the membership any more, or not. Certainly it would be relatively easy to overcome that fact if they do. > ARIN is likely to see a big fee squeeze in the next decade. ISPs > will not want to report utilization data to ARIN or to each other > and will want to have everyone pay the same flat fee - but I > suspect that in order to fund ARIN this flat fee will be even > more regressive than the ARIN fees are now. To maintain it ARIN > will have to raise fees and that will push even more of the > small ISPs out of the game. The small ISP's will fight this and > ARIN will be pressured to keep fees low - and since (as you I > believe have pointed out before) the small ISP's have the voting > power in numbers within ARIN, they will get their way. Besides, > we aren't dumb and we all know that Internet innovation comes > from the smaller operators and ARIN would be doing a huge disservice > to the Internet to do anything to push more of them out of business. > If it is, as you say, then, the small ISPs could, theoretically make the jumps in fees as you go up in size even larger. However, I don't think most small ISPs feel the need to do this. > I'd have to ask you this. How many ISP's who are CURRENTLY running > on an IPv4 Medium/Large/X-Large allocation will be able to switch > to a IPv6 /32 Small allocation once IPv6 is in force - and once > they start dropping their IPv4 allocations they will be moving I would suspect very few given that I know of at least one ISP that just transitioned from the IPv4 small to IPv4 medium to IPv4 large and has nearly exhausted most of their IPv6 /32 and is looking at applying for additional IPv6 space today. > DOWN the fee scale. How many customers can an ISP serve off of > a /18 of IPv4 - and can they serve that same number off a /32 IPv6? > I would think that they can, wouldn't you? > Assuming business customers where /29 is the smallest practical assignment (even if you just do it as 2 /30s for a point-to-point and a CPE router+PC) you have 11 bits = 2048 theoretical customers without allowing for infrastructure and other overhead. A /32 gives you 65,536 /48 sized customers or 16.7Million /56 customers. A /32 really is equivalent to at least a /16, and, much more like a /8 in the IPv4 world, but, IPv6 customers will be inherently larger consumers of addresses, so, there's not really a valid comparison there. If I were to guess where things will settle out: All x-small and small IPv4 ISPs will probably survive fine as IPv6 small. Some medium IPv4 will probably be OK in IPv6 small, some will probably need to be medium, a few may become large or even x-large. Most large IPv4 ISPs will likely become IPv6 large or possibly x-large in the near future, possibly even entering the xx-large category. Most x-large IPv4 ISPs will be x-Large IPv6 ISPs fairly quickly, possibly even xx-large. I know the ISP I mentioned above is likely to become an X-Large IPv6 ISP on their next application to ARIN. Owen From ndavis at arin.net Sat Jun 26 11:14:47 2010 From: ndavis at arin.net (Nate Davis) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:14:47 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] ARIN's RESTful Whois Directory Service Available 26 June In-Reply-To: <4C23B0CD.4020408@ipinc.net> References: <4C238F3A.1030200@arin.net> <4C23B0CD.4020408@ipinc.net> Message-ID: Ted, The code used for this particular application is closely tied to the internal workings of ARIN and would not be of much use externally to someone who wants to set up a proxy service themselves. However.. One of the main components that is required in building a service is the XSLT which performs the transform between the raw XML provided by the Whois-RWS to the legacy format served up in port 43. The XSLT can be used to understand the mapping between the new and old formats. We plan on adding more XSLT examples to the Whois-RWS API documentation beyond the POC example that exists today. If this does not address your issue and you believe that ARIN should consider building a public domain software package for this type of thing, your suggestion is welcome via the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) located at, https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/ Regards, Nate Davis Chief Operating Officer ARIN -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:24 PM To: arin-whoisrws at arin.net Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] ARIN's RESTful Whois Directory Service Available 26 June "...ARIN will continue to maintain services for the NICNAME/WHOIS protocol on TCP/43. This is achieved by using a proxy service to translate traditional ARIN Whois queries into Whois-RWS queries. However,..." Can we get the source for this proxy code, please? Thanks, Ted On 6/24/2010 10:00 AM, Member Services wrote: > ARIN is deploying an improved Whois service called Whois-RWS on 26 June > 2010. Included in the deployment are the following services that provide > the general public with access to ARIN's registration data. > > * a RESTful Web Service (RWS) > * a NICNAME/WHOIS port 43 service > * a user-friendly web site (http://whois.arin.net) > > When using Whois-RWS you will notice some differences in behavior for > certain queries and corresponding result sets on the NICNAME/WHOIS TCP > port 43 service. These minor differences are documented at: > > https://www.arin.net/resources/whoisrws/whois_diff.html > > ARIN?s Directory Service for registration data has used the > NICNAME/WHOIS protocol since its inception. The limitations of the > NICNAME/WHOIS protocol are well known and documented in RFC3912. > Whois-RWS was created as an alternative to the ARIN Whois and will > provide much richer functionality and capability to the community. > > Whois-RWS can easily be integrated into command line scripts, or it can > be used with a web browser, which makes it applicable for programmatic > consumption and accessible for interactive use. ARIN will continue to > maintain services for the NICNAME/WHOIS protocol on TCP/43. This is > achieved by using a proxy service to translate traditional ARIN Whois > queries into Whois-RWS queries. However, ARIN recommends use of the > RESTful Web Service. > > Those who choose to use the Whois-RWS Proxy will find it has many > features unavailable over the existing Whois service, including: > > * Support for new query types such as CIDR queries > * Better feedback for ambiguous queries > * More finely scoped record type queries > * Options for NICNAME/WHOIS clients that re-interpret traditional > parameters used by ARIN's service. > * RESTful URL references, useful for embedding into documents and e-mail > * Better grouping of record types and delineation of results > > Another major benefit is that data from ARIN?s registration database is > distributed to the Whois-RWS servers many times throughout the day, > versus the once-a-day update of ARIN?s previous Whois service. Changes > will be reflected more quickly through Whois-RWS, so query results will > be more current than the previous Whois service. > > ARIN continues to welcome community participation on the Whois-RWS > mailing list, and we invite you to subscribe and provide feedback to: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-whoisrws > > Regards, > > > Mark Kosters > Chief Technical Officer > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Announce > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jun 28 11:44:13 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:44:13 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C28C34D.8010401@ipinc.net> This is the first time you mentioned an allocation as large as a /23 in conjunction with this "circumventation "the Great Firewall of China" project" Is that project intending to use a /23? You know you can get an -authoritative- reading by e-mailing the specific details of this project to "hostmaster at arin.net" and by posting here you also know you want opinions in response. And as for throwing in all of the "political issue on government level" rubbish in your original post, it seems evident that your just trolling here. As I privately explained to you and as others explained, this scheme isn't going to represent a significant problem for the Chinese admins to block. You have ignored those comments and are just attempting to stir the pot, more evidence of trolling. As for Aaron's comment, the definition of "technical uses" is subjective, so at face value his black-and-white statement is wrong, anyone can see that who has read the NRPM or gone through an address block request. Is your goal to throw out random statements until you get someone making a short, incorrect one-liner like Aaron then sit back and watch the firefight? That's trolling. If you have something to say about ARIN, then say it. If this circumvention project is real, then post the specific details, how many addresses is it going to use, what platform, etc. It is a fact that not much gear out there will terminate 500 -simultaneous- VPN sessions without rolling over and dying, not to mention pass multiple megabits per sec. of data over all 500 of them simultaneously. And who has the bandwidth for that? Not many. The more comments you make about this "circumvention" project the more obvious it is technically impractical, thus non-existent. Ted On 6/25/2010 2:04 PM, IPTelligent SysOp wrote: > Aaron, > > Then I wonder why, last time I requested a second address block for the > company, I was asked for technical justification for all the reassigned > and reallocated blocks that were equal to or higher than a /24, based > exactly on SWIP information? Don't remember the exact words now, but I > was asked "Why did you allocate a /23 to company X, what was the > justification they provided" and how much equipment is connected to > that block, how many hosts, how many shared webhosting, how many etc, > what are the reverse hostnames for each of those IPs? > Isn't that technical use justification, or it's just for statistics > (and then why not mention it's optional)? > For a customer that I had reassigned space from the carrier (and so I > couldn't reallocate to the end user), I had to submit a long customer > list with the subnetting that was made, per customer (not much work as > the customer collaborated to it, but then, I had to reformat all the > list). Would it be completely unnecessary? > Regards, > Rafael > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Aaron Wendel" > To: "IPTelligent SysOp";arin-discuss at arin.net > Sent: 6/25/2010 5:52:10 PM > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification >> ARIN does not specify technical uses for IP address space. > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jun 28 12:22:13 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:22:13 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] fee waivers In-Reply-To: <475EC4CA-0C3D-414B-B03D-E7C56E912CAA@delong.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <4C225A0B.3020508@ipinc.net> <10AA3FDD-036B-43CC-A067-A76DE4B756FA@arin.net> <4C23B7BB.6070908@ipinc.net> <4C24FA10.80400@ipinc.net> <475EC4CA-0C3D-414B-B03D-E7C56E912CAA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4C28CC35.60809@ipinc.net> On 6/25/2010 10:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > Interesting... I would advocate overhauling the US Government > Income Tax system and replacing it with a flat tax along the lines > of Malcolm Forbes "Fair Tax" proposal for much the same reason > I think the current system of fees at ARIN is reasonable and just. > Yep, you and the rest of the Libertarians and their reincarnation as tea party come from the same page. > I actually don't buy this argument. Absent such a government, the > very wealthy have little trouble hiring their own private armed security > willing to do far more than the police are able to do to protect their > interest. Why should they when it's cheaper to have the taxpayers do it for them? > In fact, statistically, people of lesser financial means are > far more likely to be victims of such crimes than people of significant > means and the government is rarely able to effectively prosecute > the kind of crimes that do usually befall people of means (mostly > committed by other people of means, amusingly enough). > It would take 200 years of ripping off car stereos at the current rate to equal the amount of money that Bernie Madoff made off with. The rich have far, far, far more to lose. Far more. But, we could probably have a lot of fun debating politics for the next week or so. Getting back to the topic: >> Under IPv6, ISP's are now going to be afforded a privacy about >> their internal operations that they never had. Under IPv6 only >> I cannot calculate what any of my competitors sizes are because >> few to none of them will ever request multiple IPv6 allocations >> and thus I won't know if they are at 2% or 80% of their IPv6 >> allocation. >> > Good actors are still required to publish Whois records for their > delegations. > Right, but I'm talking about assumptions that you can depend on. Take for example mandatory car insurance. I live in a state with mandatory auto insurance. My own insurance policy has a section called "uninsured motorist coverage" that covers me in case I get hit by a driver without insurance. The COST of raising limits on that section is VERY SMALL compared to the other sections of the policy, such as personal injury. Why? Because the insurance company knows that everyone in my state has a vested interest in maintaining auto insurance - not because it's required under the law, but because every driver knows that in MY state if you DON'T have auto insurance and are in an accident that you WILL get ticketed, and even if the accident wasn't "your fault", when you go to put in a claim at the other insurance company, they will automatically deny it once they see you have no insurance and claim the accident was your fault. Because without auto insurance you are very unlikely to have enough money to fight them in court for what you deserve. A "good actor" driver is going to carry auto insurance in my state because it's required by law. A "bad actor" is going to carry it because of the fear of what will happen to them if they DON'T carry it - not just fear of civil penalties by the government. Thus, the assumption that there will be very few uninsured drivers in my state is a BANKABLE assumption, which is why that section of my policy is very cheap to raise limits on. As I see it, for an IPv6-ONLY org, who gets their minimum allocation of IPv6, yes if they are "good guys" they will make an attempt to do what is write and publish SWIPS. But if they are bad guys there's NO downside to NOT publishing SWIPS. Unlike the car insurance thing. Thus, it is NOT a bankable assumption that any specific org I'm interested in is a "good guy" If ARIN starts pulling IPv6-only allocations from orgs who are paying the fee but who are filing no SWIPS then that WOULD be a bankable assumption. But, ARIN has no incentive to do that either. We have plenty of IPv6, no need to take any of it away from orgs that have it assigned. Where's Milton when you need him? He would I think do a good job of explaining the economic incentives that will be in play once the Internet is IPv6-only. >> Granted, I can query whois but because the whois database is >> such a mess right now, that data isn't trustworthy. And even >> when it finally becomes trustworthy when ARIN finishes >> cleaning out the garbage POC entries, since ISP's today only > > The good news is there isn't much IPv6 cruft in there yet, so, the > IPv6 cleanup should be relatively easy. The majority of the mess > is historic and IPv4 related. > True. >> really feel the pressure to insert whois data in order to >> be able to justify for more IPv4 addresses, under IPv6 if >> they aren't ever planning on obtaining another IPv6 allocation >> it's easy to see that there will be little incentive for them >> to add records into whois. So that data will be highly >> underreported except by the very largest ISPs who will be >> getting more than the minimum IPv6 allocations and will >> thus be forced to report accurately to meet the 80% rule. >> > Perhaps we need policy allowing allocations to be reduced or > revoked if there are not enough SWIP entries to justify the > space, or, in cases where there is documented verifiable > underreporting? > That is as likely to pass as a law against hoarding glass jars - for IPv6. It would have been a useful tool to use against IPv4 hoarders if it had been passed a few years ago. I think that there was some concern with that a few years ago. But at the time some people (IMHO) rather wanted to encourage hoarding of IPv4 because they felt the sooner it was used up the sooner we could get on with the IPv6 transition. >> My guess is when most ISP's start to understand this, they will >> be extremely uninterested in changing it. This is competitive >> data, ya know. >> > Fortunately, ISPs are not the majority of orgs receiving resources > from ARIN these days. I do not know if they constitute a majority > of the membership any more, or not. Certainly it would be relatively > easy to overcome that fact if they do. > >> ARIN is likely to see a big fee squeeze in the next decade. ISPs >> will not want to report utilization data to ARIN or to each other >> and will want to have everyone pay the same flat fee - but I >> suspect that in order to fund ARIN this flat fee will be even >> more regressive than the ARIN fees are now. To maintain it ARIN >> will have to raise fees and that will push even more of the >> small ISPs out of the game. The small ISP's will fight this and >> ARIN will be pressured to keep fees low - and since (as you I >> believe have pointed out before) the small ISP's have the voting >> power in numbers within ARIN, they will get their way. Besides, >> we aren't dumb and we all know that Internet innovation comes >> from the smaller operators and ARIN would be doing a huge disservice >> to the Internet to do anything to push more of them out of business. >> > If it is, as you say, then, the small ISPs could, theoretically make the > jumps in fees as you go up in size even larger. > > However, I don't think most small ISPs feel the need to do this. > >> I'd have to ask you this. How many ISP's who are CURRENTLY running >> on an IPv4 Medium/Large/X-Large allocation will be able to switch >> to a IPv6 /32 Small allocation once IPv6 is in force - and once >> they start dropping their IPv4 allocations they will be moving > > I would suspect very few given that I know of at least one ISP that just > transitioned from the IPv4 small to IPv4 medium to IPv4 large and has > nearly exhausted most of their IPv6 /32 and is looking at applying for > additional IPv6 space today. > Why speculate? John should know the answer to this. I'm interested in his response. Ted >> DOWN the fee scale. How many customers can an ISP serve off of >> a /18 of IPv4 - and can they serve that same number off a /32 IPv6? >> I would think that they can, wouldn't you? >> > Assuming business customers where /29 is the smallest practical > assignment (even if you just do it as 2 /30s for a point-to-point and > a CPE router+PC) you have 11 bits = 2048 theoretical customers > without allowing for infrastructure and other overhead. > > A /32 gives you 65,536 /48 sized customers or 16.7Million /56 > customers. A /32 really is equivalent to at least a /16, and, much > more like a /8 in the IPv4 world, but, IPv6 customers will be > inherently larger consumers of addresses, so, there's not really > a valid comparison there. > > If I were to guess where things will settle out: > > All x-small and small IPv4 ISPs will probably survive fine as IPv6 small. > > Some medium IPv4 will probably be OK in IPv6 small, some will probably > need to be medium, a few may become large or even x-large. > > Most large IPv4 ISPs will likely become IPv6 large or possibly x-large > in the near future, possibly even entering the xx-large category. > > Most x-large IPv4 ISPs will be x-Large IPv6 ISPs fairly quickly, possibly even > xx-large. > > I know the ISP I mentioned above is likely to become an X-Large IPv6 > ISP on their next application to ARIN. > > Owen > > From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jun 28 12:24:10 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:24:10 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> On 6/25/2010 10:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/25/2010 11:38 AM, Lee Howard wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> Sent: Thu, June 24, 2010 3:19:43 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 >>>> >>>> In the US the ISP >>>> market is at saturation, it has >>>> matured and nobody is really >>>> growing unless someone else is shrinking. >>> >>> The Caribbean is growing at a good pace. >>> See also any statistics about growth, and make sure >>> to include devices with IP capabilities (handhelds, >>> consoles, etc.). >>> >>> >>>> I can easily imagine a scenario where the rest of the >>>> world ends up moving to IPv6 and sells it's IPv4 back to ISP's in >>>> the US via the transfer market. >>> >>> Potential transfer recipients in the US will be >>> competing against potential recipients within the >>> region of origin. >>> >>>> Internet experience >>>> consists mainly of accessing Hulu, Ebay, and CNN, >>>> since clearly >>>> the content providers are going to be the very last ones >>>> to go to IPv6-only. >>> >>> I believe Hulu is owned by NBC Universal, in process >>> of being acquired by Comcast, which is deploying IPv6. >>> "The public-facing eBay Web site will be upgraded for what's called >>> dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 access in 2011. >>> " >>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/020410-ipv6-web-sites.html?page=1 >>> CNN is served by a CDN, so it will be available when the CDN is. >>> >>> It is not clear that content providers will be last. There >>> are good reasons for content providers to prefer IPv6 over >>> the alternatives. >>> >> >> If the content providers are getting any money for providing >> content (ie: advertising revenue) then they will definitely be >> last to drop IPv4. >> > Who cares... Dropping IPv4 is irrelevant. What counts is when > they add IPv6. Why? If I'm a customer with IPv4 and my content provider of choice adds IPv6 without ANY additional content, why would I want to spend the money to upgrade my stuff to get the same thing over IPv6? Ted From sysop at iptelligent.com Mon Jun 28 12:49:48 2010 From: sysop at iptelligent.com (IPTelligent SysOp) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:49:48 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification In-Reply-To: <4C28C34D.8010401@ipinc.net> Message-ID: Ted, I think you have mistaken my statements as if I was the unsatisfied user for having the allocation denied. a) It's not my project. Not a customer of mine too. No interest in having that guy as a customer also (as you noticed I don't want political problems), I just wonder about them and the backend reasons. b) No interest in trolling or complaining. I'm happy with the current allocations and have no need for extra ones, nor have any problem with any denied or pending request so far. If I had them I would certainly voice to hostmaster. If the hostmaster reply wasn't satisfactory, then I would voice it on the list. In fact I agree with a restrictive policy, but the interest in this thread is to know more detailedly about what can and what cannot be done and the scrutiny process, in order exactly to avoid action based on the oneliners or "the fine print". What everyone here doesn't want, I think, is the _surprise_ of allocating in good faith for such projects (being for commercial or humanitary reasons) and then later beind denied expansion in the ground of "unjustifiable reasons" for the current blocks. c) If allocating IPs are matter of public policy, then it should have a sufficient level of discretion in order for the requesters to know exactly and objectively why it was denied as any public office transparency needs, instead of a subjective judgement. It is a technical reason? It is a political reason? It is something that is a taboo that can't be touched? It would be sufficient to have an official statement "the allocation for this application cannot be allowed since it will /a/generate political problems between RIRs or giving ammo to governments to try to control us/a/ /b/uselessly spend IPv4 addresses that are already in shortage /b/ /c/". Or a statement on the NRPM detailing upfront which applications/uses are allowed and which are denied, or exemplifications of what will be accepted and what will not be accepted. c) As Aaron, I am a so frequent user of the forums (WebHostingTalk) I quoted the request that the guy had from. He was in search for providers. There was the venue where the issue was raised, practically everybody at WHT - meaning representatives of big datacenters, tier 2 carriers, and all kinds of hosting companies - states this isn't justifiable reasons on ARIN grounds (and until now I just echoed them as a parrot - and waved goodbye to a handful of prospects who hadn't "enough" justification). Of course, most of the prospects that come to us want to do something illegal like spamming, others come wanting whole /19s for wireless service providing (and buying 1Gbps of service from you) d) As an admin with more than 10 years of experience I am pretty aware it's easy to block - I agree with that. And any Cisco ASA (5520 up) nowadays supports more than 750 simultaneous VPN users (goes up to 10,000 for the biggest model). Bandwidth nowadays is also not an issue and even less an expense (when you can get it for $0.70 per Mbps and 10GE ports easily). Doable it is, just don't know how much time would it last. At the same time, what gets to my mind is that guy must be having some success since he's been using tons of addresses from RIPE for that purpose. e) Why this process of justification would be faster or simpler in RIPE than in ARIN? I mean, we are really discussing a lot for nothing here, but it is voicing of past experience that such allocations may bring trouble. While in the other side of the Atlantic, it is not an issue at all. I'm just trying to understand the differences and reasoning under it. As simple as that. f) Am I wrong in putting this matter for discussion in this list as it would not be the correct venue for that? If yes, please someone let me know. Regards, Rafael ------ Original Message ------ From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: 6/28/2010 12:44:13 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification > >This is the first time you mentioned an allocation as large as a /23 >in conjunction with this "circumventation "the Great Firewall of >China" >project" Is that project intending to use a /23? You know >you can get an -authoritative- reading by e-mailing the specific >details >of this project to "hostmaster at arin.net" and by posting here you also >know you want opinions in response. And as for throwing in all of the >"political issue on government level" rubbish in your original post, >it seems evident that your just trolling here. > >As I privately explained to you and as others explained, this scheme >isn't going to represent a significant problem for the Chinese admins >to block. You have ignored those comments and are just attempting to >stir the pot, more evidence of trolling. > >As for Aaron's comment, the definition of "technical uses" is >subjective, so at face value his black-and-white statement is wrong, >anyone can see that who has read the NRPM or gone through an address >block request. Is your goal to throw out random statements until >you get someone making a short, incorrect one-liner like Aaron then >sit back and watch the firefight? That's trolling. > >If you have something to say about ARIN, then say it. If this >circumvention project is real, then post the specific details, >how many addresses is it going to use, what platform, etc. It is >a fact that not much gear out there will terminate 500 -simultaneous- >VPN sessions without rolling over and dying, not to mention pass >multiple megabits per sec. of data over all 500 of them >simultaneously. > And who has the bandwidth for that? Not many. >The more comments you make about this "circumvention" project >the more obvious it is technically impractical, thus non-existent. > > >Ted > >On 6/25/2010 2:04 PM, IPTelligent SysOp wrote: >>Aaron, >> >>Then I wonder why, last time I requested a second address block for >>the >>company, I was asked for technical justification for all the >>reassigned >>and reallocated blocks that were equal to or higher than a /24, based >>exactly on SWIP information? Don't remember the exact words now, but >>I >>was asked "Why did you allocate a /23 to company X, what was the >>justification they provided" and how much equipment is connected to >>that block, how many hosts, how many shared webhosting, how many etc, >>what are the reverse hostnames for each of those IPs? >>Isn't that technical use justification, or it's just for statistics >>(and then why not mention it's optional)? >>For a customer that I had reassigned space from the carrier (and so I >>couldn't reallocate to the end user), I had to submit a long customer >>list with the subnetting that was made, per customer (not much work >>as >>the customer collaborated to it, but then, I had to reformat all the >>list). Would it be completely unnecessary? >>Regards, >>Rafael >> >>------ Original Message ------ >>From: "Aaron Wendel" >>To: "IPTelligent SysOp";arin-discuss at arin.net >>Sent: 6/25/2010 5:52:10 PM >>Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification >>>ARIN does not specify technical uses for IP address space. >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ARIN-Discuss >>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jun 28 13:17:38 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:17:38 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Is Determining Legitimate IP usage objective or subjective? was Re: Policy clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C28D932.6090808@ipinc.net> I'll continue the top post, my apologies. I think the meat of the matter is your statement here: > If allocating IPs are matter of public policy, then it should have a > sufficient level of discretion in order for the requesters to know > exactly and objectively why it was denied as any public office > transparency needs, instead of a subjective judgement. and I have retitled the post. Hopefully this will restart discussion as I think the example cited is overwhelming the meat of the question. My personal belief is that ARIN is scrutinizing IPv4 requests more closely now than they were 5 years ago, while the stated criteria in the NRPM hasn't really changed over that same time. That would constitute evidence of a subjective process under the definition of the word, I believe. But I do not think there is anything in the NRPM that precludes ARIN using a subjective process. Actually, I think ARIN's role as IPv4 steward particularly in the face of the accelleration to IPv4 runout, would call for it to be using a subjective process. Thus I think your premise, that the process be objective, isn't correct. Ted On 6/28/2010 9:49 AM, IPTelligent SysOp wrote: > Ted, > > I think you have mistaken my statements as if I was the unsatisfied > user for having the allocation denied. > > a) It's not my project. Not a customer of mine too. No interest in > having that guy as a customer also (as you noticed I don't want > political problems), I just wonder about them and the backend reasons. > > b) No interest in trolling or complaining. I'm happy with the current > allocations and have no need for extra ones, nor have any problem with > any denied or pending request so far. > If I had them I would certainly voice to hostmaster. If the > hostmaster reply wasn't satisfactory, then I would voice it on the > list. > In fact I agree with a restrictive policy, but the interest in this > thread is to know more detailedly about what can and what cannot be > done and the scrutiny process, in order exactly to avoid action based > on the oneliners or "the fine print". What everyone here doesn't want, > I think, is the _surprise_ of allocating in good faith for such > projects (being for commercial or humanitary reasons) and then later > beind denied expansion in the ground of "unjustifiable reasons" for the > current blocks. > > c) If allocating IPs are matter of public policy, then it should have a > sufficient level of discretion in order for the requesters to know > exactly and objectively why it was denied as any public office > transparency needs, instead of a subjective judgement. It is a > technical reason? It is a political reason? It is something that is a > taboo that can't be touched? It would be sufficient to have an official > statement "the allocation for this application cannot be allowed since > it will /a/generate political problems between RIRs or giving ammo to > governments to try to control us/a/ /b/uselessly spend IPv4 addresses > that are already in shortage /b/ /c/". Or a statement on the NRPM > detailing upfront which applications/uses are allowed and which are > denied, or exemplifications of what will be accepted and what will not > be accepted. > > c) As Aaron, I am a so frequent user of the forums (WebHostingTalk) I > quoted the request that the guy had from. He was in search for > providers. There was the venue where the issue was raised, practically > everybody at WHT - meaning representatives of big datacenters, tier 2 > carriers, and all kinds of hosting companies - states this isn't > justifiable reasons on ARIN grounds (and until now I just echoed them > as a parrot - and waved goodbye to a handful of prospects who hadn't > "enough" justification). Of course, most of the prospects that come to > us want to do something illegal like spamming, others come wanting > whole /19s for wireless service providing (and buying 1Gbps of service > from you) > > d) As an admin with more than 10 years of experience I am pretty aware > it's easy to block - I agree with that. And any Cisco ASA (5520 up) > nowadays supports more than 750 simultaneous VPN users (goes up to > 10,000 for the biggest model). Bandwidth nowadays is also not an issue > and even less an expense (when you can get it for $0.70 per Mbps and > 10GE ports easily). Doable it is, just don't know how much time would > it last. At the same time, what gets to my mind is that guy must be > having some success since he's been using tons of addresses from RIPE > for that purpose. > > e) Why this process of justification would be faster or simpler in RIPE > than in ARIN? I mean, we are really discussing a lot for nothing here, > but it is voicing of past experience that such allocations may bring > trouble. While in the other side of the Atlantic, it is not an issue at > all. I'm just trying to understand the differences and reasoning under > it. As simple as that. > f) Am I wrong in putting this matter for discussion in this list as it > would not be the correct venue for that? If yes, please someone let me > know. > > Regards, > Rafael > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Sent: 6/28/2010 12:44:13 PM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification >> >> This is the first time you mentioned an allocation as large as a /23 >> in conjunction with this "circumventation "the Great Firewall of >> China" >> project" Is that project intending to use a /23? You know >> you can get an -authoritative- reading by e-mailing the specific >> details >> of this project to "hostmaster at arin.net" and by posting here you also >> know you want opinions in response. And as for throwing in all of the >> "political issue on government level" rubbish in your original post, >> it seems evident that your just trolling here. >> >> As I privately explained to you and as others explained, this scheme >> isn't going to represent a significant problem for the Chinese admins >> to block. You have ignored those comments and are just attempting to >> stir the pot, more evidence of trolling. >> >> As for Aaron's comment, the definition of "technical uses" is >> subjective, so at face value his black-and-white statement is wrong, >> anyone can see that who has read the NRPM or gone through an address >> block request. Is your goal to throw out random statements until >> you get someone making a short, incorrect one-liner like Aaron then >> sit back and watch the firefight? That's trolling. >> >> If you have something to say about ARIN, then say it. If this >> circumvention project is real, then post the specific details, >> how many addresses is it going to use, what platform, etc. It is >> a fact that not much gear out there will terminate 500 -simultaneous- >> VPN sessions without rolling over and dying, not to mention pass >> multiple megabits per sec. of data over all 500 of them >> simultaneously. >> And who has the bandwidth for that? Not many. >> The more comments you make about this "circumvention" project >> the more obvious it is technically impractical, thus non-existent. >> >> >> Ted >> >> On 6/25/2010 2:04 PM, IPTelligent SysOp wrote: >>> Aaron, >>> >>> Then I wonder why, last time I requested a second address block for >>> the >>> company, I was asked for technical justification for all the >>> reassigned >>> and reallocated blocks that were equal to or higher than a /24, based >>> exactly on SWIP information? Don't remember the exact words now, but >>> I >>> was asked "Why did you allocate a /23 to company X, what was the >>> justification they provided" and how much equipment is connected to >>> that block, how many hosts, how many shared webhosting, how many etc, >>> what are the reverse hostnames for each of those IPs? >>> Isn't that technical use justification, or it's just for statistics >>> (and then why not mention it's optional)? >>> For a customer that I had reassigned space from the carrier (and so I >>> couldn't reallocate to the end user), I had to submit a long customer >>> list with the subnetting that was made, per customer (not much work >>> as >>> the customer collaborated to it, but then, I had to reformat all the >>> list). Would it be completely unnecessary? >>> Regards, >>> Rafael >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Aaron Wendel" >>> To: "IPTelligent SysOp";arin-discuss at arin.net >>> Sent: 6/25/2010 5:52:10 PM >>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification >>>> ARIN does not specify technical uses for IP address space. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage 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 Mon Jun 28 14:09:02 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:09:02 -1000 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> Sent from my iPad On Jun 28, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > On 6/25/2010 10:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> On Jun 25, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 6/25/2010 11:38 AM, Lee Howard wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> Sent: Thu, June 24, 2010 3:19:43 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> In the US the ISP >>>>> market is at saturation, it has >>>>> matured and nobody is really >>>>> growing unless someone else is shrinking. >>>> >>>> The Caribbean is growing at a good pace. >>>> See also any statistics about growth, and make sure >>>> to include devices with IP capabilities (handhelds, >>>> consoles, etc.). >>>> >>>> >>>>> I can easily imagine a scenario where the rest of the >>>>> world ends up moving to IPv6 and sells it's IPv4 back to ISP's in >>>>> the US via the transfer market. >>>> >>>> Potential transfer recipients in the US will be >>>> competing against potential recipients within the >>>> region of origin. >>>> >>>>> Internet experience >>>>> consists mainly of accessing Hulu, Ebay, and CNN, >>>>> since clearly >>>>> the content providers are going to be the very last ones >>>>> to go to IPv6-only. >>>> >>>> I believe Hulu is owned by NBC Universal, in process >>>> of being acquired by Comcast, which is deploying IPv6. >>>> "The public-facing eBay Web site will be upgraded for what's called >>>> dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 access in 2011. >>>> " >>>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/020410-ipv6-web-sites.html?page=1 >>>> CNN is served by a CDN, so it will be available when the CDN is. >>>> >>>> It is not clear that content providers will be last. There >>>> are good reasons for content providers to prefer IPv6 over >>>> the alternatives. >>>> >>> >>> If the content providers are getting any money for providing >>> content (ie: advertising revenue) then they will definitely be >>> last to drop IPv4. >>> >> Who cares... Dropping IPv4 is irrelevant. What counts is when >> they add IPv6. > > Why? If I'm a customer with IPv4 and my content provider of > choice adds IPv6 without ANY additional content, why would I > want to spend the money to upgrade my stuff to get the same > thing over IPv6? > > Ted Who cares? The important thing is that new eyeball users that are unable to get IPv4 addresses can get to the content without bizarre hacks to give them horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity. Owen From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jun 28 15:51:07 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:51:07 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> Message-ID: <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> On 6/28/2010 11:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 28, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt > wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/25/2010 10:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 25, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/25/2010 11:38 AM, Lee Howard wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>>>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt To: >>>>>> arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: Thu, June 24, 2010 3:19:43 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 >>>>>> >>>>>> In the US the ISP market is at saturation, it has matured >>>>>> and nobody is really growing unless someone else is >>>>>> shrinking. >>>>> >>>>> The Caribbean is growing at a good pace. See also any >>>>> statistics about growth, and make sure to include devices >>>>> with IP capabilities (handhelds, consoles, etc.). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I can easily imagine a scenario where the rest of the world >>>>>> ends up moving to IPv6 and sells it's IPv4 back to ISP's >>>>>> in the US via the transfer market. >>>>> >>>>> Potential transfer recipients in the US will be competing >>>>> against potential recipients within the region of origin. >>>>> >>>>>> Internet experience consists mainly of accessing Hulu, >>>>>> Ebay, and CNN, since clearly the content providers are >>>>>> going to be the very last ones to go to IPv6-only. >>>>> >>>>> I believe Hulu is owned by NBC Universal, in process of being >>>>> acquired by Comcast, which is deploying IPv6. "The >>>>> public-facing eBay Web site will be upgraded for what's >>>>> called dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 access in 2011. " >>>>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/020410-ipv6-web-sites.html?page=1 >>>>> >>>>> CNN is served by a CDN, so it will be available when the CDN is. >>>>> >>>>> It is not clear that content providers will be last. There >>>>> are good reasons for content providers to prefer IPv6 over >>>>> the alternatives. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If the content providers are getting any money for providing >>>> content (ie: advertising revenue) then they will definitely be >>>> last to drop IPv4. >>>> >>> Who cares... Dropping IPv4 is irrelevant. What counts is when >>> they add IPv6. >> >> Why? If I'm a customer with IPv4 and my content provider of choice >> adds IPv6 without ANY additional content, why would I want to spend >> the money to upgrade my stuff to get the same thing over IPv6? >> >> Ted > > Who cares? The important thing is that new eyeball users that are > unable to get IPv4 addresses can get to the content without bizarre > hacks to give them horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity. > I don't get horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity when I surf the web from my Windows Mobile 5 Smartphone on Sprint's network, and my wife doesn't get horribly degraded connectivity when she surfs the web from her Android phone on the T mobile network - but both those phones are on an IPv6 network, using some bizarre IPv6-IPv4 proxy back at the cell companies NOC. Or as Homer Simpson would say, Mmmmmmm... bizarre hacks Seriously, it should be obvious that the economics of rolling out a brand new technology that is going to use IPv6-only plus a bizarre hack to access the IPv4 Internet, is going to guarantee that the bizarre hack is going to be hacked on until it works quite well. NAT is a bizarre hack, wouldn't you say? Yet most users are happy with it. I think the issue here is not that bizarre hacks will create horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity. I think the issue is that bizarre V6-V4 hacks will get institutionalized, which will make it a lot more difficult to ultimately drop IPv4 and go IPv6 only. That is a separate and valid concern, but FUDing it around isn't going to help anything. Technology companies have a long history of making bizarre hacks work. Just look at Microsoft Windows, one of the most bizarre hacks in the history of technology (followed closely by Mac OS 6, 7, 8 & 9.) Ted > Owen > > From owen at delong.com Mon Jun 28 16:36:36 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:36:36 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> >> >> Who cares? The important thing is that new eyeball users that are >> unable to get IPv4 addresses can get to the content without bizarre >> hacks to give them horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity. >> > > I don't get horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity when I surf the web from > my Windows Mobile 5 Smartphone on Sprint's network, and my wife doesn't > get horribly degraded connectivity when she surfs the web from her > Android phone on the T mobile network - but both those phones are on an > IPv6 network, using some bizarre IPv6-IPv4 proxy back at the cell companies NOC. > Right... Neither of you is a post-runout new eye-ball at this time and no, you are not correctly understanding how the cellular network you are using is actually working. First, neither of those networks is IPv6 yet, if you check, you'll see that your phones still just have IPv4 addresses. Eventually, as I understand the plans from both of those providers, LTE will put you onto IPv6 most of the time with short-term leases of IPv4 addresses when you need IPv4 connectivity. The network will remain dual- stack. So, no, you are not currently using some bizarre ipv6-ipv4 proxy back at the cell company NOC or anywhere else. At least not yet. > Or as Homer Simpson would say, > > Mmmmmmm... bizarre hacks > lol > Seriously, it should be obvious that the economics of rolling out a brand new technology that is going to use IPv6-only plus a bizarre > hack to access the IPv4 Internet, is going to guarantee that the > bizarre hack is going to be hacked on until it works quite well. > Why? Why not instead work towards a much cleaner solution of eliminating the need to access the IPv4 internet? If the content and services people want are available on IPv4 and IPv6, then, there's no need for bizarre hacks to allow ipv6-only clients to reach IPv4-only content. > NAT is a bizarre hack, wouldn't you say? Yet most users are > happy with it. > Most users are happy with a great many things that are neither in their best interests nor necessarily good for the community. Most users are happy to keep putting gasoline in their automobiles, ignoring the damage being done as BP "brings oil to america's shores" as we speak. For a long time, most users were happy to try and get over viral diseases using antibiotics even though they had no positive effect against the virus and helped to breed antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria in the process. > I think the issue here is not that bizarre hacks will create horribly > degraded IPv4 connectivity. I think the issue is that bizarre V6-V4 > hacks will get institutionalized, which will make it a lot more difficult to ultimately drop IPv4 and go IPv6 only. That is a separate and valid concern, but FUDing it around isn't going to help anything. > I think that both are valid concerns, but, my more immediate concern is that bizarre hacks will create horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity with a second order effect that user perception of acceptable will move from the current moderately degraded situation to something even worse. > Technology companies have a long history of making bizarre hacks > work. Just look at Microsoft Windows, one of the most bizarre hacks > in the history of technology (followed closely by Mac OS 6, 7, 8 & 9.) > I think your statement here makes my point. Owen From ggiesen at akn.ca Mon Jun 28 16:47:20 2010 From: ggiesen at akn.ca (Gary T. Giesen) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:47:20 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com><41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1. systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@uss enterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com><4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.y ahoo.com><4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D5 1-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> Message-ID: <1277758040.8910.114.camel@ggiesen-workstation.netsurf.net> I'd also add that the user experience you expect on a mobile phone is a lot less than what you'd expect at home on your PC. There's a much greater variety of network-using applications on a PC, that are just not practical on a mobile phone. Bitorrent and FTP come to mind. GG On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 16:36 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> > >> Who cares? The important thing is that new eyeball users that are > >> unable to get IPv4 addresses can get to the content without bizarre > >> hacks to give them horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity. > >> > > > > I don't get horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity when I surf the web from > > my Windows Mobile 5 Smartphone on Sprint's network, and my wife doesn't > > get horribly degraded connectivity when she surfs the web from her > > Android phone on the T mobile network - but both those phones are on an > > IPv6 network, using some bizarre IPv6-IPv4 proxy back at the cell companies NOC. > > > > Right... Neither of you is a post-runout new eye-ball at this time and no, you are not > correctly understanding how the cellular network you are using is actually working. > > First, neither of those networks is IPv6 yet, if you check, you'll see that your phones > still just have IPv4 addresses. Eventually, as I understand the plans from both of > those providers, LTE will put you onto IPv6 most of the time with short-term leases > of IPv4 addresses when you need IPv4 connectivity. The network will remain dual- > stack. > > So, no, you are not currently using some bizarre ipv6-ipv4 proxy back at the > cell company NOC or anywhere else. At least not yet. > > > Or as Homer Simpson would say, > > > > Mmmmmmm... bizarre hacks > > > lol > > > Seriously, it should be obvious that the economics of rolling out a brand new technology that is going to use IPv6-only plus a bizarre > > hack to access the IPv4 Internet, is going to guarantee that the > > bizarre hack is going to be hacked on until it works quite well. > > > Why? Why not instead work towards a much cleaner solution of eliminating the need > to access the IPv4 internet? If the content and services people want are available on > IPv4 and IPv6, then, there's no need for bizarre hacks to allow ipv6-only clients to > reach IPv4-only content. > > > NAT is a bizarre hack, wouldn't you say? Yet most users are > > happy with it. > > > Most users are happy with a great many things that are neither in their best > interests nor necessarily good for the community. Most users are happy to > keep putting gasoline in their automobiles, ignoring the damage being > done as BP "brings oil to america's shores" as we speak. For a long time, > most users were happy to try and get over viral diseases using antibiotics > even though they had no positive effect against the virus and helped to > breed antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria in the process. > > > I think the issue here is not that bizarre hacks will create horribly > > degraded IPv4 connectivity. I think the issue is that bizarre V6-V4 > > hacks will get institutionalized, which will make it a lot more difficult to ultimately drop IPv4 and go IPv6 only. That is a separate and valid concern, but FUDing it around isn't going to help anything. > > > I think that both are valid concerns, but, my more immediate concern > is that bizarre hacks will create horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity with > a second order effect that user perception of acceptable will move from the > current moderately degraded situation to something even worse. > > > Technology companies have a long history of making bizarre hacks > > work. Just look at Microsoft Windows, one of the most bizarre hacks > > in the history of technology (followed closely by Mac OS 6, 7, 8 & 9.) > > > I think your statement here makes my point. > > Owen > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jun 28 17:14:47 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:14:47 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> Message-ID: <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> On 6/28/2010 1:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>> Who cares? The important thing is that new eyeball users that are >>> unable to get IPv4 addresses can get to the content without bizarre >>> hacks to give them horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity. >>> >> >> I don't get horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity when I surf the web from >> my Windows Mobile 5 Smartphone on Sprint's network, and my wife doesn't >> get horribly degraded connectivity when she surfs the web from her >> Android phone on the T mobile network - but both those phones are on an >> IPv6 network, using some bizarre IPv6-IPv4 proxy back at the cell companies NOC. >> > > Right... Neither of you is a post-runout new eye-ball at this time and no, you are not > correctly understanding how the cellular network you are using is actually working. > > First, neither of those networks is IPv6 yet, if you check, you'll see that your phones > still just have IPv4 addresses. While there is no way to go into any setting on the phone and check it's IP address, someone wrote a (free) diagnostic network app you can run on WM5 that DOES tell the actual number on the phone. It IS an IPv6 number. Most people probably are confused because going to whatismyip.com or some such gives them an IPv4 address. I'll check the Android phone but I strongly doubt, with their brand new phone, that it uses IPv4. I don't think they have enough numbers for that, frankly. > Eventually, as I understand the plans from both of > those providers, LTE will put you onto IPv6 most of the time with short-term leases > of IPv4 addresses when you need IPv4 connectivity. The network will remain dual- > stack. > > So, no, you are not currently using some bizarre ipv6-ipv4 proxy back at the > cell company NOC or anywhere else. At least not yet. > Sprint does their best to hide this from the general public but I can provide screen shots if needed. >> Or as Homer Simpson would say, >> >> Mmmmmmm... bizarre hacks >> > lol > >> Seriously, it should be obvious that the economics of rolling out a brand new technology that is going to use IPv6-only plus a bizarre >> hack to access the IPv4 Internet, is going to guarantee that the >> bizarre hack is going to be hacked on until it works quite well. >> > Why? Why not instead work towards a much cleaner solution of eliminating the need > to access the IPv4 internet? If the content and services people want are available on > IPv4 and IPv6, then, there's no need for bizarre hacks to allow ipv6-only clients to > reach IPv4-only content. > As long as there's some content on the Internet that's IPv4 only the consumers of this technology are going to demand access to it. >> NAT is a bizarre hack, wouldn't you say? Yet most users are >> happy with it. >> > Most users are happy with a great many things that are neither in their best > interests nor necessarily good for the community. Most users are happy to > keep putting gasoline in their automobiles, ignoring the damage being > done as BP "brings oil to america's shores" as we speak. For a long time, > most users were happy to try and get over viral diseases using antibiotics > even though they had no positive effect against the virus and helped to > breed antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria in the process. > >> I think the issue here is not that bizarre hacks will create horribly >> degraded IPv4 connectivity. I think the issue is that bizarre V6-V4 >> hacks will get institutionalized, which will make it a lot more difficult to ultimately drop IPv4 and go IPv6 only. That is a separate and valid concern, but FUDing it around isn't going to help anything. >> > I think that both are valid concerns, but, my more immediate concern > is that bizarre hacks will create horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity with > a second order effect that user perception of acceptable will move from the > current moderately degraded situation to something even worse. > :-) >> Technology companies have a long history of making bizarre hacks >> work. Just look at Microsoft Windows, one of the most bizarre hacks >> in the history of technology (followed closely by Mac OS 6, 7, 8& 9.) >> > I think your statement here makes my point. > I don't see a problem with "new eyeball users" on IPv6 from accessing IPv6 content. But I just cannot see how anyone deploying anything marketed at these "new eyeball users" can fail to ALSO supply a "bizarre hack" that works well and that allows the new eyeball users to ALSO access IPv4. And as long as people are providing such bizarre hacks to the new eyeball users, then people with IPv4-only networks will not feel strongly compelled to switch It's a classic Chinese finger puzzle. People who are IPv6 need to get access to legacy IPv4 because not everyone is dual-stacked. But, the major incentive to dual-stack is to service the new IPv6-only people. There's really only 2 ways to break out of it. Either you create a significant group of IPv6-only users, or you create a significant amount of valuable content only accessible on IPv6. Either way would do it, but the users want content that's on IPv4-only, and the content providers want users who are on the IPv4-only network, so both groups have a disincentive to switch to IPv6-only. Ted > Owen > > From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jun 28 17:17:10 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:17:10 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <1277758040.8910.114.camel@ggiesen-workstation.netsurf.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com><41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1. systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@uss enterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com><4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.y ahoo.com><4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D5 1-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <1277758040.8910.114.camel@ggiesen-workstation.netsurf.net> Message-ID: <4C291156.9020609@ipinc.net> Um, the biggest reason ATT went with the max 2GB transfer a month plans was because they opened up "tethering"* It sure PO'd the iphone users. Ted *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethering On 6/28/2010 1:47 PM, Gary T. Giesen wrote: > I'd also add that the user experience you expect on a mobile phone is a > lot less than what you'd expect at home on your PC. There's a much > greater variety of network-using applications on a PC, that are just not > practical on a mobile phone. Bitorrent and FTP come to mind. > > GG > > On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 16:36 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> >>>> Who cares? The important thing is that new eyeball users that are >>>> unable to get IPv4 addresses can get to the content without bizarre >>>> hacks to give them horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity. >>>> >>> >>> I don't get horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity when I surf the web from >>> my Windows Mobile 5 Smartphone on Sprint's network, and my wife doesn't >>> get horribly degraded connectivity when she surfs the web from her >>> Android phone on the T mobile network - but both those phones are on an >>> IPv6 network, using some bizarre IPv6-IPv4 proxy back at the cell companies NOC. >>> >> >> Right... Neither of you is a post-runout new eye-ball at this time and no, you are not >> correctly understanding how the cellular network you are using is actually working. >> >> First, neither of those networks is IPv6 yet, if you check, you'll see that your phones >> still just have IPv4 addresses. Eventually, as I understand the plans from both of >> those providers, LTE will put you onto IPv6 most of the time with short-term leases >> of IPv4 addresses when you need IPv4 connectivity. The network will remain dual- >> stack. >> >> So, no, you are not currently using some bizarre ipv6-ipv4 proxy back at the >> cell company NOC or anywhere else. At least not yet. >> >>> Or as Homer Simpson would say, >>> >>> Mmmmmmm... bizarre hacks >>> >> lol >> >>> Seriously, it should be obvious that the economics of rolling out a brand new technology that is going to use IPv6-only plus a bizarre >>> hack to access the IPv4 Internet, is going to guarantee that the >>> bizarre hack is going to be hacked on until it works quite well. >>> >> Why? Why not instead work towards a much cleaner solution of eliminating the need >> to access the IPv4 internet? If the content and services people want are available on >> IPv4 and IPv6, then, there's no need for bizarre hacks to allow ipv6-only clients to >> reach IPv4-only content. >> >>> NAT is a bizarre hack, wouldn't you say? Yet most users are >>> happy with it. >>> >> Most users are happy with a great many things that are neither in their best >> interests nor necessarily good for the community. Most users are happy to >> keep putting gasoline in their automobiles, ignoring the damage being >> done as BP "brings oil to america's shores" as we speak. For a long time, >> most users were happy to try and get over viral diseases using antibiotics >> even though they had no positive effect against the virus and helped to >> breed antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria in the process. >> >>> I think the issue here is not that bizarre hacks will create horribly >>> degraded IPv4 connectivity. I think the issue is that bizarre V6-V4 >>> hacks will get institutionalized, which will make it a lot more difficult to ultimately drop IPv4 and go IPv6 only. That is a separate and valid concern, but FUDing it around isn't going to help anything. >>> >> I think that both are valid concerns, but, my more immediate concern >> is that bizarre hacks will create horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity with >> a second order effect that user perception of acceptable will move from the >> current moderately degraded situation to something even worse. >> >>> Technology companies have a long history of making bizarre hacks >>> work. Just look at Microsoft Windows, one of the most bizarre hacks >>> in the history of technology (followed closely by Mac OS 6, 7, 8& 9.) >>> >> I think your statement here makes my point. >> >> 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 spiffnolee at yahoo.com Mon Jun 28 19:10:08 2010 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <706635.83352.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > If I'm a customer with IPv4 and > my content provider of > choice adds IPv6 without ANY additional content, why > would I > want to spend the money to upgrade my stuff to get the same > thing over IPv6? The Internet is more than the Web. There are non-Web applications that use the Internet. For instance, console gaming. If not IPv6:IPv6, how does that work, after the IPv4 unassigned pool is exhausted? Lee From Wesley.E.George at sprint.com Tue Jun 29 09:05:22 2010 From: Wesley.E.George at sprint.com (George, Wes E IV [NTK]) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:05:22 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> Message-ID: I rarely leave my sig file in postings, because I don't think it's relevant, but I'm going to this time, for obvious reasons. At the risk of feeding the troll, my comments inline below. Thanks, Wes _________________________________ Wesley George Sprint Core Network Engineering - IP http://www.sprint.net -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 5:15 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 On 6/28/2010 1:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> no, you are not > correctly understanding how the cellular network you are using is actually working. > > First, neither of those networks is IPv6 yet, if you check, you'll see that your phones > still just have IPv4 addresses. While there is no way to go into any setting on the phone and check it's IP address, someone wrote a (free) diagnostic network app you can run on WM5 that DOES tell the actual number on the phone. It IS an IPv6 number. Most people probably are confused because going to whatismyip.com or some such gives them an IPv4 address. I'll check the Android phone but I strongly doubt, with their brand new phone, that it uses IPv4. [[WEG]] I can say with absolute certainty that we (sprint) *are* giving you an IPv4 address and are *not* giving you an IPv6 address systematically. However, there are several asterisks to that statement. First, many (not necessarily all) WM phones have 6to4 (RFC3068) enabled. This means that if they get a routable IPv4 address, they'll generate their own IPv6 address. It'll be in the 2002::/16 range. This means that in theory they are doing IPv6, but they are beholden to the relatively broken set of 6to4 relays and asymmetric routing that this brings, not to mention any overzealous equipment in the path that blocks protocol 41, and it will only be used to connect to IPv6-enabled websites, not as a translation for IPv4. Second, both the iPhone and Android have support for IPv6 in the OS -- on WiFi. If you connect it to an IPv6-enabled network, it will get an address, and theoretically will talk to IPv6-capable devices via IPv6. I don't have access to a WM phone with WiFi to determine if it does the same. It probably depends on the version. http://www.personal.psu.edu/dvm105/blogs/ipv6/2010/05/ipv6-on-smartphones---its-happ.html However, they do NOT do this over the 3G interface, at least not yet. Without getting into too much special sauce, on CDMA it's a chipset issue more than a software issue, so it's not always as simple as pushing a software update to phones to make it work. I don't think they have enough numbers for that, frankly. [[WEG]] We don't have enough IPs for all of our users (or even a significant fraction) to get an IPv4 address all of the time, and we're working to enable IPv6, but for reasons detailed above, some form of proxy/NAT etc for legacy devices is probably unavoidable. Heck, we'll need it for brand new devices unless everyone really gets cracking on dual-stacking everything our users want to talk to. I hate even considering it, but that's the unfortunate reality. > Eventually, as I understand the plans from both of > those providers, LTE will put you onto IPv6 most of the time with short-term leases > of IPv4 addresses when you need IPv4 connectivity. [[WEG]] Most IPv4 leases are already short-term. Beyond organic growth in data use, part of what's increasing our burn rate for IPv4 addresses is the increase in always-on or nearly-always-on applications that increase our IPv4 address hold times on devices and blow our estimates for IP address oversubscription. > > So, no, you are not currently using some bizarre ipv6-ipv4 proxy back at the > cell company NOC or anywhere else. At least not yet. [[WEG]] Owen is correct. At least right now, on Sprint you get a genuine public, routable IPv4 address. I won't go so far as to say that there's nothing in the middle and all types of traffic from all classes of devices will go unimpeded to/from your phone, but we're not NATing your traffic - yet. Also, FWIW, TMobile has demonstrated an IPv6-only handset reaching IPv4-only sites using a NAT, http://www.youtube.com/user/IPv6guy for demos. Note that this is ONLY a test network, and is not available to the general public yet. > Sprint does their best to hide this from the general public but I can provide screen shots if needed. [[WEG]] Again with the big-company conspiracy theory! We're not trying to hide anything from anyone. We released a press release a few weeks ago saying that we were rolling out IPv6 on our wireless network in 2012, wireline this year, and VPN next year. You're not part of some double-secret IPv6-on-cellular club, sorry. This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From rs at seastrom.com Tue Jun 29 09:48:35 2010 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:48:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: (Wes E. IV George's message of "Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:05:22 -0500") References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <86vd92c5l8.fsf@seastrom.com> "George, Wes E IV [NTK]" writes: > I rarely leave my sig file in postings, because I don't think it's > relevant, but I'm going to this time, for obvious reasons. At the > risk of feeding the troll, my comments inline below. :-) > While there is no way to go into any setting on the phone and check it's > IP address, someone wrote a (free) diagnostic network app you can run on > WM5 that DOES tell the actual number on the phone. It IS an IPv6 > number. Most people probably are confused because going to > whatismyip.com or some such gives them an IPv4 address. As it will with anyone. Real honest-to-god v6 here, has been for years, and in fact I'm typing this into Emacs over an ssh connection that rides on v6 rather than v4 because when both are available that's how MacOSX rolls. But whatismyip.com has no AAAA record... Billet:~ rs$ dig +short whatismyip.com. aaaa Billet:~ rs$ So when I point my web browser there I get the outside address of my v4 NAT (the globally unique addresses here are reserved for lab and other applications. When I go to www.ripe.net, of course I get my IPv6 autoconf address (hey Apple... DHCP6... pretty please?). Point being, this is the same problem as traceroute - people who use the tools without understanding the tools are doomed to be confused. -r From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 29 09:53:05 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:53:05 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <86vd92c5l8.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> <86vd92c5l8.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <8D204209-D850-42A2-9124-AE998C5665C8@arin.net> On Jun 29, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > When I go to www.ripe.net, of course I get my > IPv6 autoconf address (hey Apple... DHCP6... pretty please?). And when you go to www.arin.net, you get a pretty icon on the left navigation bar that says "IPv6 Enabled" but does not actually show your IPv6 address. FYI - We are planning on changing that to match industry practice very shortly. /John -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: v6_enabled_final2.png Type: image/png Size: 1018 bytes Desc: v6_enabled_final2.png URL: From corey at wyoming.com Tue Jun 29 10:25:59 2010 From: corey at wyoming.com (Corey Edwards) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:59 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <4C2A0277.6000203@wyoming.com> George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote: > Second, both the iPhone and Android have support for IPv6 in > the OS -- on WiFi. If you connect it to an IPv6-enabled network, it > will get an address, and theoretically will talk to IPv6-capable > devices via IPv6. I don't have access to a WM phone with WiFi to > determine if it does the same. It probably depends on the version. I do have a WM phone (version 6.1 on Verizon) and can confirm that it also does IPv6 on wifi but not over the cellular. Google for some reason thinks my HE-provided tunnel is in a French speaking country, but otherwise I've never noticed a problem with it. Corey From farmer at umn.edu Tue Jun 29 10:29:44 2010 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:29:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <4C2A0358.6020000@umn.edu> George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote: > [[WEG]] I can say with absolute certainty that we (sprint) *are* giving you an IPv4 address and are *not* giving you an IPv6 address systematically. However, there are several asterisks to that statement. > First, many (not necessarily all) WM phones have 6to4 (RFC3068) enabled. This means that if they get a routable IPv4 address, they'll generate their own IPv6 address. It'll be in the 2002::/16 range. This means that in theory they are doing IPv6, but they are beholden to the relatively broken set of 6to4 relays and asymmetric routing that this brings, not to mention any overzealous equipment in the path that blocks protocol 41, and it will only be used to connect to IPv6-enabled websites, not as a translation for IPv4. > Second, both the iPhone and Android have support for IPv6 in the OS -- on WiFi. If you connect it to an IPv6-enabled network, it will get an address, and theoretically will talk to IPv6-capable devices via IPv6. I don't have access to a WM phone with WiFi to determine if it does the same. It probably depends on the version. > http://www.personal.psu.edu/dvm105/blogs/ipv6/2010/05/ipv6-on-smartphones---its-happ.html Windows Mobile supports IPv6 (SLAAC only), and has supposedly all the way back to Windows CE 4.1. The last three WM (5.1, 6.1, 6.5) devices I've tried IPv6 on have basically worked over WIFI. However, since it only does SLAAC and there is usually no way to enter a IPv6 DNS server, or IPv4 DNS server for that matter, it is probably limited to functioning on Dual Stack WIFI networks. I believe it can only learn a DNS server via IPv4 DHCP and use it for all DNS lookups. I believe the WM/WinCE IPv6 stack was derived from the Win XP IPv6 stack and has similar limitations, but that is supposition on my part. > However, they do NOT do this over the 3G interface, at least not yet. Without getting into too much special sauce, on CDMA it's a chipset issue more than a software issue, so it's not always as simple as pushing a software update to phones to make it work. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 29 10:37:04 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:37:04 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <0B528587-1E6A-4F8E-89C1-36D0FA883347@arin.net> On Jun 29, 2010, at 9:05 AM, George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote: > > Second, both the iPhone and Android have support for IPv6 in the OS -- on WiFi. If you connect it to an IPv6-enabled network, it will get an address, and theoretically will talk to IPv6-capable devices via IPv6. The iPhone definitely prefers IPv6 to IPv6-enabled web sites. From the ICANN Brussels Wifi network last week (which had IPv6) and routinely from the ARIN offices Wifi network, the phone connects via IPv6 to public sites with AAAA records. /John From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Tue Jun 29 10:45:48 2010 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <0B528587-1E6A-4F8E-89C1-36D0FA883347@arin.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> <0B528587-1E6A-4F8E-89C1-36D0FA883347@arin.net> Message-ID: <803635.37419.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Anyone capturing all this for the wiki? Lee ----- Original Message ---- > From: John Curran > To: "George, Wes E IV [NTK]" > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net List" > Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 10:37:04 AM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 > > On Jun 29, 2010, at 9:05 AM, George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote: > > > Second, both the iPhone and Android have support for IPv6 in the OS -- on WiFi. > If you connect it to an IPv6-enabled network, it will get an address, and > theoretically will talk to IPv6-capable devices via IPv6. The iPhone > definitely prefers IPv6 to IPv6-enabled web sites. From the ICANN > Brussels Wifi network last week (which had IPv6) and routinely from the > ARIN offices Wifi network, the phone connects via IPv6 to public sites > with AAAA > records. /John _______________________________________________ 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. From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 29 15:48:43 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:48:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <86vd92c5l8.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> <86vd92c5l8.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <583FA289-2EC1-4FF3-805C-556E654628BC@delong.com> On Jun 29, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > "George, Wes E IV [NTK]" writes: > >> I rarely leave my sig file in postings, because I don't think it's >> relevant, but I'm going to this time, for obvious reasons. At the >> risk of feeding the troll, my comments inline below. > > :-) > >> While there is no way to go into any setting on the phone and check it's >> IP address, someone wrote a (free) diagnostic network app you can run on >> WM5 that DOES tell the actual number on the phone. It IS an IPv6 >> number. Most people probably are confused because going to >> whatismyip.com or some such gives them an IPv4 address. > > As it will with anyone. Real honest-to-god v6 here, has been for > years, and in fact I'm typing this into Emacs over an ssh connection > that rides on v6 rather than v4 because when both are available that's > how MacOSX rolls. But whatismyip.com has no AAAA record... > > Billet:~ rs$ dig +short whatismyip.com. aaaa > Billet:~ rs$ > > So when I point my web browser there I get the outside address of my > v4 NAT (the globally unique addresses here are reserved for lab and > other applications. When I go to www.ripe.net, of course I get my > IPv6 autoconf address (hey Apple... DHCP6... pretty please?). > > Point being, this is the same problem as traceroute - people who use > the tools without understanding the tools are doomed to be confused. > > -r FWIW, there is http://whatismyv6.com/ Which will tell you your address (v4 or v6) that you used to reach the site and can usually be a measure of IPv6 connectivity (or not). Owen From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Jun 29 16:08:44 2010 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:08:44 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> Message-ID: <4C2A52CC.1060005@ipinc.net> On 6/29/2010 6:05 AM, George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote: > I rarely leave my sig file in postings, because I don't think it's > relevant, but I'm going to this time, for obvious reasons. At the > risk of feeding the troll, my comments inline below. > > Thanks, Wes _________________________________ Wesley George Sprint > Core Network Engineering - IP http://www.sprint.net > > -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 5:15 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: > arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 > > > > On 6/28/2010 1:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> > no, you are not >> correctly understanding how the cellular network you are using is >> actually working. >> >> First, neither of those networks is IPv6 yet, if you check, you'll >> see that your phones still just have IPv4 addresses. > > While there is no way to go into any setting on the phone and check > it's IP address, someone wrote a (free) diagnostic network app you > can run on WM5 that DOES tell the actual number on the phone. It IS > an IPv6 number. Most people probably are confused because going to > whatismyip.com or some such gives them an IPv4 address. I'll check > the Android phone but I strongly doubt, with their brand new phone, > that it uses IPv4. > > [[WEG]] I can say with absolute certainty that we (sprint) *are* > giving you an IPv4 address and are *not* giving you an IPv6 address > systematically. However, there are several asterisks to that > statement. First, many (not necessarily all) WM phones have 6to4 > (RFC3068) enabled. This means that if they get a routable IPv4 > address, they'll generate their own IPv6 address. It'll be in the > 2002::/16 range. This means that in theory they are doing IPv6, but > they are beholden to the relatively broken set of 6to4 relays and > asymmetric routing that this brings, not to mention any overzealous > equipment in the path that blocks protocol 41, and it will only be > used to connect to IPv6-enabled websites, not as a translation for > IPv4. OK that explains it, I knew I saw an IPv6 address on that phone. Just out of curiosity, I put in http://www.sprintv6.net/ to my phone and I got the: "You have reached this site via IPv4. Ask your Internet service provider about IPv6" message. That's from Sprint's network so it looks like Sprint itself has some "overzealous equipment in the path" ;-) > Second, both the iPhone and Android have support for IPv6 in > the OS -- on WiFi. If you connect it to an IPv6-enabled network, it > will get an address, and theoretically will talk to IPv6-capable > devices via IPv6. I don't have access to a WM phone with WiFi to > determine if it does the same. It probably depends on the version. > http://www.personal.psu.edu/dvm105/blogs/ipv6/2010/05/ipv6-on-smartphones---its-happ.html > > > However, they do NOT do this over the 3G interface, at least not yet. > Without getting into too much special sauce, on CDMA it's a chipset > issue more than a software issue, so it's not always as simple as > pushing a software update to phones to make it work. OK that part I don't understand. Why didn't Sprint and the rest of the major US carriers get together and flex their muscles and tell the unnamed Korean or Chinese manufacturers who make the CDMA chipsets that they had to modify the CDMA silicon to support IPv6 years and years ago? > > Sprint does their best to hide this from the general public but I > can provide screen shots if needed. [[WEG]] Again with the > big-company conspiracy theory! We're not trying to hide anything from > anyone. We released a press release a few weeks ago saying that we > were rolling out IPv6 on our wireless network in 2012, wireline this > year, and VPN next year. You're not part of some double-secret > IPv6-on-cellular club, sorry. > Sorry about that, I should have blamed Motorola, since it was they who manufactured my phone and selected the OS on it. Since I was given the phone and someone else is paying the bill I didn't have much choice. So, I assume the HTC EVO 4G supports IPv6 over the wireless? (or will once Sprint rolls it out in 2012)? Or will that phone be discarded in favor of yet a new, unreleased phone, for IPv6 support? Ted From ptimmins at clearrate.com Tue Jun 29 16:07:10 2010 From: ptimmins at clearrate.com (Paul G. Timmins) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:07:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <583FA289-2EC1-4FF3-805C-556E654628BC@delong.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> <86vd92c5l8.fsf@seastrom.com> <583FA289-2EC1-4FF3-805C-556E654628BC@delong.com> Message-ID: I also created http://www.ipv6chicken.com/ which has a comically large photo of a chicken that can help you diagnose path MTU issues. If you are on IPv6 it will show you your address. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:49 PM > To: Robert E. Seastrom > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 > > > On Jun 29, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > > > > "George, Wes E IV [NTK]" writes: > > > >> I rarely leave my sig file in postings, because I don't think it's > >> relevant, but I'm going to this time, for obvious reasons. At the > >> risk of feeding the troll, my comments inline below. > > > > :-) > > > >> While there is no way to go into any setting on the phone and check > it's > >> IP address, someone wrote a (free) diagnostic network app you can > run on > >> WM5 that DOES tell the actual number on the phone. It IS an IPv6 > >> number. Most people probably are confused because going to > >> whatismyip.com or some such gives them an IPv4 address. > > > > As it will with anyone. Real honest-to-god v6 here, has been for > > years, and in fact I'm typing this into Emacs over an ssh connection > > that rides on v6 rather than v4 because when both are available > that's > > how MacOSX rolls. But whatismyip.com has no AAAA record... > > > > Billet:~ rs$ dig +short whatismyip.com. aaaa > > Billet:~ rs$ > > > > So when I point my web browser there I get the outside address of my > > v4 NAT (the globally unique addresses here are reserved for lab and > > other applications. When I go to www.ripe.net, of course I get my > > IPv6 autoconf address (hey Apple... DHCP6... pretty please?). > > > > Point being, this is the same problem as traceroute - people who use > > the tools without understanding the tools are doomed to be confused. > > > > -r > > > FWIW, there is http://whatismyv6.com/ > > Which will tell you your address (v4 or v6) that you used to reach the > site > and can usually be a measure of IPv6 connectivity (or not). > > 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 Wesley.E.George at sprint.com Tue Jun 29 17:10:00 2010 From: Wesley.E.George at sprint.com (George, Wes E IV [NTK]) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:10:00 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4C2A52CC.1060005@ipinc.net> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> <4C2A52CC.1060005@ipinc.net> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 4:09 PM To: George, Wes E IV [NTK] Cc: Owen DeLong; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 Just out of curiosity, I put in http://www.sprintv6.net/ to my phone and I got the: "You have reached this site via IPv4. Ask your Internet service provider about IPv6" message. That's from Sprint's network so it looks like Sprint itself has some "overzealous equipment in the path" ;-) [[WEG]] Well, I had a feeling someone would call me out on the carpet about that. We have a bug in our [overzealous equipment] code that is creating some problems for protocol 41 traffic - actually found out about it because someone posted about it on NANOG, and I'm told it'll be fixed in the next release, but I don't know exactly when that'll be. It is also quite possible that your phone isn't actually doing anything with its 6to4 address, but it's still configured. Depends on the phone, specific version of WM, etc. 6to4 breaks in so many different ways, most of them hard to troubleshoot and non-deterministic, so mostly it defaults to disabled to prevent problems. This is better than the alternative, where your phone simply fails to load the page until the IPv6 times out and it falls back to IPv4. > However, they do NOT do this over the 3G interface, at least not yet. > Without getting into too much special sauce, on CDMA it's a chipset > issue more than a software issue, so it's not always as simple as > pushing a software update to phones to make it work. OK that part I don't understand. Why didn't Sprint and the rest of the major US carriers get together and flex their muscles and tell the unnamed Korean or Chinese manufacturers who make the CDMA chipsets that they had to modify the CDMA silicon to support IPv6 years and years ago? [[WEG]] It's actually a well-known company that supplies a lot of the CDMA chipsets (at least their design, don't know if they outsource the Fab). All I'll say about this is, as with everywhere else in the industry, IPv6 wasn't seen as must have nearly soon enough, and we're all paying the price now. This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From steve at ipv6canada.com Tue Jun 29 22:22:47 2010 From: steve at ipv6canada.com (Steve Bertrand) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:22:47 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> <86vd92c5l8.fsf@seastrom.com> <583FA289-2EC1-4FF3-805C-556E654628BC@delong.com> Message-ID: <4C2AAA77.7090405@ipv6canada.com> On 2010.06.29 16:07, Paul G. Timmins wrote: > I also created http://www.ipv6chicken.com/ which has a comically large photo of a chicken that can help you diagnose path MTU issues. If you are on IPv6 it will show you your address. I must admit that I like your pmtud test. That is the primary issue that I've had to express to v6 `newbs', amongst other things. John's comment earlier regarding having the client IP(v6) address displayed on the arin.net site is a great one. I had to take a look at my sites, and only an ancient one does this. I did not know that displaying the visitor IP was proper practice. I learn every day. fwiw, this old site of mine has always done it (please disregard the content...): http://ww3.ibctech.ca/ ...so I'll have to add the IP of the client to my current site. As it is, my site only does math on the percent of v6 visitors/month, not their current IP. Cheers to v6 work. Steve From steve at ipv6canada.com Tue Jun 29 22:33:17 2010 From: steve at ipv6canada.com (Steve Bertrand) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:33:17 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4C2AAA77.7090405@ipv6canada.com> References: <4C217B34.9000501@ipv6canada.com> <41980.1277279545@nsa.vix.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458065F46E4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <009401cb1302$587ab450$09701cf0$@net> <20100623190029.GA3088@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <41645.93101.qm@web63305.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C23AFCF.9020305@ipinc.net> <860020.63449.qm@web63306.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4C24FC2F.7080105@ipinc.net> <4C28CCAA.7040509@ipinc.net> <0033DE6D-8D51-422E-A7AA-08A1D64C75FF@delong.com> <4C28FD2B.7040502@ipinc.net> <79303491-412C-4B0F-A82C-797595B17086@delong.com> <4C2910C7.7070401@ipinc.net> <86vd92c5l8.fsf@seastrom.com> <583FA289-2EC1-4FF3-805C-556E654628BC@delong.com> <4C2AAA77.7090405@ipv6canada.com> Message-ID: <4C2AACED.8060605@ipv6canada.com> On 2010.06.29 22:22, Steve Bertrand wrote: > On 2010.06.29 16:07, Paul G. Timmins wrote: >> I also created http://www.ipv6chicken.com/ which has a comically large photo of a chicken that can help you diagnose path MTU issues. If you are on IPv6 it will show you your address. > > I must admit that I like your pmtud test. That is the primary issue that > I've had to express to v6 `newbs', amongst other things. > > John's comment earlier regarding having the client IP(v6) address > displayed on the arin.net site is a great one. I had to take a look at > my sites, and only an ancient one does this. I did not know that > displaying the visitor IP was proper practice. I learn every day. > > fwiw, this old site of mine has always done it (please disregard the > content...): > > http://ww3.ibctech.ca/ > > ...so I'll have to add the IP of the client to my current site. As it > is, my site only does math on the percent of v6 visitors/month, not > their current IP. > > Cheers to v6 work. Also, you can attempt a web visit to http://onlyv6.com ...or an email to steve at onlyv6.com to really test your availability (if you can reach me, then your entire infrastructure, including DNS recursive servers work properly). The domain has v6 glue only, and no A records whatsoever. Note that the content has not been updated. Not many people see it ;) Steve