From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon May  3 13:14:03 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 10:14:03 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]  x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
In-Reply-To: <p2g6eb799ab1004301739qf155016ez34925832879efd1b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50EE5968-A41E-4BBD-92FE-6F025765E5F2@delong.com>	
	<FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB279DD04DF31@EDAMAME.arin.net>	
	<327D7E22-D689-4F39-9B62-80439653D126@delong.com>	
	<FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB279DD3B2124@EDAMAME.arin.net>	
	<2B842A75-E1E6-4B8F-820D-DA3C25148C62@delong.com>	
	<C3F4CA6C-5522-4822-A2ED-B39D31957A94@delong.com>	
	<4BDB2737.70400@ipinc.net>	
	<7578A3B7-6ECA-4E5B-ABF5-6605B5329BD2@delong.com>	
	<4BDB7327.6070406@ipinc.net>
	<p2g6eb799ab1004301739qf155016ez34925832879efd1b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BDF045B.7030806@ipinc.net>



On 4/30/2010 5:39 PM, James Hess wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>  wrote:
> [snip]
>> Also since ARIN is duty-bound to return that .8 Mil in the form of
>> fee DECREASES then the real argument is this, do we want the
>> ultimate revenue ARIN takes in to NOT increase as a result of IPv6
>> or do we want it to DECREASE so we all (ISPs who are NOT x-smalls)
>> can get a nice break on our own fees?
>
> Why do you say ARIN is duty-bound in any way to return "that .8 Mil"?
> I don't think that is right at all.
>
>
> There are probably various useful ways in which ARIN could spend that
> to perform ARIN's duties better.  Reducing fees or  'returning' $$ is
> just one option,
> but not particularly  beneficial to ARIN's  continued survival.
>
> Also in terms offsetting  loss of IPv4 allocation-related revenue
> after V4 exhaustion.
>
> And new expenses incurred  related to managing IPv6 address space
> and service enhancements,  outreach, etc...
>

ARIN is a non-profit and thus cannot make a profit, the "IPv6 x-small
windfall" must therefore be returned in fee decreases, or spent
on increased operations.

You can assume that inflation
will chew up some of the "IPv6 x-small windfall", and you can assume
that growth in ISP's will chew up more (although, the region ARIN is
responsible for is pretty well saturated at this time as it is) you
can also assume some of the community mandates (Whois cleanup, increased
IPv6 resource tracking) will chew up even more

But, ARIN is not so poorly run that outreach and managing of IPv6
address space is going to significantly increase their budget.  Also
I'll point out that outreach is already being paid out of the current
budget, and that it will not be needed once the majority of ISP's
get the message about IPv6.

The .8 Mil is also only the tip of the iceberg.  There are also all
of those Legacy IPv4 resource holders who are paying very little to
ARIN now who will have to step up and start paying what the rest of us
are paying when they go to IPv6.

As I said,

"do we want the ultimate revenue ARIN takes in to NOT increase as a 
result of IPv6 or do we want it to DECREASE so we all (ISPs who are NOT 
x-smalls) can get a nice break on our own fees?"

That is the question.  Some would want a decrease in their fees
(or, a holding of the line against fee increases, which amounts to
the same thing)

Others, such as you, obviously, are game for going on a fishing
expedition looking for things to spend money on.

I can't speak
for the community but I strongly suspect your not going to find many
supporters of the "fishing expedition" approach

Ted


From owen at delong.com  Mon May  3 13:28:58 2010
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 10:28:58 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]  x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
In-Reply-To: <4BDF045B.7030806@ipinc.net>
References: <50EE5968-A41E-4BBD-92FE-6F025765E5F2@delong.com>	
	<FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB279DD04DF31@EDAMAME.arin.net>	
	<327D7E22-D689-4F39-9B62-80439653D126@delong.com>	
	<FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB279DD3B2124@EDAMAME.arin.net>	
	<2B842A75-E1E6-4B8F-820D-DA3C25148C62@delong.com>	
	<C3F4CA6C-5522-4822-A2ED-B39D31957A94@delong.com>	
	<4BDB2737.70400@ipinc.net>	
	<7578A3B7-6ECA-4E5B-ABF5-6605B5329BD2@delong.com>	
	<4BDB7327.6070406@ipinc.net>
	<p2g6eb799ab1004301739qf155016ez34925832879efd1b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BDF045B.7030806@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <FCFAE830-CF28-4B1D-9F0C-D71A1411C9B4@delong.com>


On May 3, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> 
> 
> On 4/30/2010 5:39 PM, James Hess wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>  wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Also since ARIN is duty-bound to return that .8 Mil in the form of
>>> fee DECREASES then the real argument is this, do we want the
>>> ultimate revenue ARIN takes in to NOT increase as a result of IPv6
>>> or do we want it to DECREASE so we all (ISPs who are NOT x-smalls)
>>> can get a nice break on our own fees?
>> 
>> Why do you say ARIN is duty-bound in any way to return "that .8 Mil"?
>> I don't think that is right at all.
>> 
>> 
>> There are probably various useful ways in which ARIN could spend that
>> to perform ARIN's duties better.  Reducing fees or  'returning' $$ is
>> just one option,
>> but not particularly  beneficial to ARIN's  continued survival.
>> 
>> Also in terms offsetting  loss of IPv4 allocation-related revenue
>> after V4 exhaustion.
>> 
>> And new expenses incurred  related to managing IPv6 address space
>> and service enhancements,  outreach, etc...
>> 
> 
> ARIN is a non-profit and thus cannot make a profit, the "IPv6 x-small
> windfall" must therefore be returned in fee decreases, or spent
> on increased operations.
> 
Or held in a reserve or...

There are many options within the rules of not for profit.

As I said earlier, you really need to re-read 28USC501(c).

> You can assume that inflation
> will chew up some of the "IPv6 x-small windfall", and you can assume
> that growth in ISP's will chew up more (although, the region ARIN is
> responsible for is pretty well saturated at this time as it is) you
> can also assume some of the community mandates (Whois cleanup, increased
> IPv6 resource tracking) will chew up even more
> 
> But, ARIN is not so poorly run that outreach and managing of IPv6
> address space is going to significantly increase their budget.  Also
> I'll point out that outreach is already being paid out of the current
> budget, and that it will not be needed once the majority of ISP's
> get the message about IPv6.
> 
Their budget is currently running at a deficit which exceeds the maximum
alleged windfall.

Owen



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon May  3 14:08:20 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 11:08:20 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]  x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
In-Reply-To: <FCFAE830-CF28-4B1D-9F0C-D71A1411C9B4@delong.com>
References: <50EE5968-A41E-4BBD-92FE-6F025765E5F2@delong.com>	
	<FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB279DD04DF31@EDAMAME.arin.net>	
	<327D7E22-D689-4F39-9B62-80439653D126@delong.com>	
	<FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB279DD3B2124@EDAMAME.arin.net>	
	<2B842A75-E1E6-4B8F-820D-DA3C25148C62@delong.com>	
	<C3F4CA6C-5522-4822-A2ED-B39D31957A94@delong.com>	
	<4BDB2737.70400@ipinc.net>	
	<7578A3B7-6ECA-4E5B-ABF5-6605B5329BD2@delong.com>	
	<4BDB7327.6070406@ipinc.net>
	<p2g6eb799ab1004301739qf155016ez34925832879efd1b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BDF045B.7030806@ipinc.net>
	<FCFAE830-CF28-4B1D-9F0C-D71A1411C9B4@delong.com>
Message-ID: <4BDF1114.4060901@ipinc.net>



On 5/3/2010 10:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On May 3, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/30/2010 5:39 PM, James Hess wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>   wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Also since ARIN is duty-bound to return that .8 Mil in the form of
>>>> fee DECREASES then the real argument is this, do we want the
>>>> ultimate revenue ARIN takes in to NOT increase as a result of IPv6
>>>> or do we want it to DECREASE so we all (ISPs who are NOT x-smalls)
>>>> can get a nice break on our own fees?
>>>
>>> Why do you say ARIN is duty-bound in any way to return "that .8 Mil"?
>>> I don't think that is right at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are probably various useful ways in which ARIN could spend that
>>> to perform ARIN's duties better.  Reducing fees or  'returning' $$ is
>>> just one option,
>>> but not particularly  beneficial to ARIN's  continued survival.
>>>
>>> Also in terms offsetting  loss of IPv4 allocation-related revenue
>>> after V4 exhaustion.
>>>
>>> And new expenses incurred  related to managing IPv6 address space
>>> and service enhancements,  outreach, etc...
>>>
>>
>> ARIN is a non-profit and thus cannot make a profit, the "IPv6 x-small
>> windfall" must therefore be returned in fee decreases, or spent
>> on increased operations.
>>
> Or held in a reserve or...
>

Reserve is nothing, if you put the next 5 years of .8Mil increases
in reserve then you end up with 4 million and then the question is
what are you going to spend it on?  The question is no different than
what are you going to spend the .8 Mil on this year?  This is just
evading the point.

And the "or..." just gets back to my original question, what are
you going to spend the money on?

> There are many options within the rules of not for profit.
>
> As I said earlier, you really need to re-read 28USC501(c).
>
>> You can assume that inflation
>> will chew up some of the "IPv6 x-small windfall", and you can assume
>> that growth in ISP's will chew up more (although, the region ARIN is
>> responsible for is pretty well saturated at this time as it is) you
>> can also assume some of the community mandates (Whois cleanup, increased
>> IPv6 resource tracking) will chew up even more
>>
>> But, ARIN is not so poorly run that outreach and managing of IPv6
>> address space is going to significantly increase their budget.  Also
>> I'll point out that outreach is already being paid out of the current
>> budget, and that it will not be needed once the majority of ISP's
>> get the message about IPv6.
>>
> Their budget is currently running at a deficit which exceeds the maximum
> alleged windfall.
>

So what?  So then they institute a fee increase as they are required to
do since they are a non-profit, and we all pay higher fees next year and
they go back into balance - or they cut spending when they use up their 
reserves and they go back into balance - and then 4-5 years from now 
what are you going to do about the "IPv6 windfall" when it happens then?

Or are you advocating they run at a deficit for another 5-6 years and 
use the windfall to cover it?

This is all just casting around trying to avoid the fact that having a
lot of x-smalls pay more money, and having legacy IPv4 holders
pay more money for IPv6 is going to result in a revenue increase.  As I
have said, what do you want to do with the revenue increase from the
windfall?  Spend it on inflating ARIN's bureaucracy?  Return it as fee
decreases?  Or use it as waivers to help get some more x-smalls onboard
with IPv6 right now?  Since that revenue windfall is going to be mostly 
from x-smalls paying more money it certainly seems to me a lot wiser to 
spend it on getting them on IPv6 now, so as to advance IPv6 penetration, 
then withdrawing it once IPv6 is required for ISP
operations.

If the ARIN community's response to the x-smalls is to just suck it
up and pay the extra money if you want IPv6, or to disparage their
finances and claim that the thousand bucks a year is peanuts and
they shouldn't be bitching about it, then I think that I speak for
the majority of x-smalls when I say that their response is
going to be something along the lines of "IPv6? We'll get to it when
we need it and we just don't need it right now"

And as I have also said before, maybe that really doesn't matter
since bringing on the x-smalls to IPv6 just maybe isn't going to be
an IPv6 driver.

Ted


From michael.dillon at bt.com  Mon May  3 15:00:30 2010
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 20:00:30 +0100
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]  x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
In-Reply-To: <4BDF1114.4060901@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745805EF63CB@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>


> ... then 
> I think that I speak for the majority of x-smalls when I say 
> that their response is going to be something along the lines 
> of "IPv6? We'll get to it when we need it and we just don't 
> need it right now"

And what is wrong with that? ARIN doesn't want anyone to apply
for IP addresses that they don't need, neither the IPv4 flavor or
the IPv6 flavor.

The strongly worded messages that come out of ARIN regarding getting
ready NOW!!! for IPv6 deployment, are directed at the larger
organizations
because we know that they take much longer to learn then test and 
then deploy new technologies. Smaller organizations are a lot 
more nimble and if your business plan does not center on being
first to market with some IPv6 service or other, then you might
as well stick with the learning and testing stages. Both of those
can be done quite nicely with nothing from ARIN, just use ULA
addresses, /48s from IPv6 tunnel services, or /48s from your
IPv6 upstream provider.

--Michael Dillon



From marty at akamai.com  Mon May  3 16:53:16 2010
From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin)
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 16:53:16 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]  x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
In-Reply-To: <4BDB7327.6070406@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <C804AFFC.2E7B4%marty@akamai.com>


> From: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
> Organization: Internet Partners, Inc.
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:17:43 -0700
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: <arin-discuss at arin.net>, ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]  x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/30/2010 3:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:


[ clip ]


> 
>> If we want to consider an extended or permanent fee waiver
>> for those organizations, the maximum possible impact to ARIN
>> revenue would be a waiver of up to $866,000 (with adjustment
>> for new x-small organizations that might get added).
>> 
> 
> Yes, but you failed to mention that this is offset against
> the additional $866,000 that ARIN would take in if all those
> orgs for IPv6 with no waiver.
> 
>> I'm neither speaking for or against such a waiver at this time,
>> merely trying to provide a clear view of the facts and potential
>> impacts of such a waiver and the number of organizations that
>> could benefit from such a waiver.
>> 
> 
> But ultimately there are no impacts (financial at any rate)

All of those costs would be shifted to v4 resource holders.

ARIN also reported a net deficit with respect to budgets for 2009. For
example, the Treasurers Report for 2009 showed revenue of 13m, expenses of
15m. That's a $2m deficit. Eliminating the $900k in revenue would have
significant impact from my perspective.

> 
> As I thought I explained, the "missing" .8 Mil is something that
> if nothing is done, is additional fees ARIN will make in the future
> when the x-smalls are forced to go to IPv6.

We haven't seen a business model that shows v6 only revenue. I don't think
that this is the plan as v4 resources will be in use for some time. I do
think that v4 revenues, at some point, will begin to rapidly decrease. That
is a significant problem if we are to do this correctly.


> 
> If something is done, then ARIN does not make those additional fees
> and instead merely makes the same fees they are making now.
> 
> Also since ARIN is duty-bound to return that .8 Mil in the form of
> fee DECREASES then the real argument is this, do we want the
> ultimate revenue ARIN takes in to NOT increase as a result of IPv6
> or do we want it to DECREASE so we all (ISPs who are NOT x-smalls)
> can get a nice break on our own fees?
> 
> You made it sound like the community is losing money if we do a
> waiver which is definitely not the case.  The transition to IPv6

What support do you have for this statement? Using the 2009 Treasurers
report, net revenue rose less than $220k. Expenses rose by about the net
deficit of $2m not including the drawdown of the reserve fund.


> means more numbers handed out to the same fishes,
> which due to the current fee structure results in a bonus for
> ARIN.  It does not increase the number of fishes and as you have
> constantly harped on in the past ARIN sets fees based on how
> many fishes they have to keep track of, not how much IP numbers
> they have handed out.  So if your going to be consistent with
> what you have beaten me over the head with in the past, you should not
> be making the financials seem like a revenue loss to continue
> to do a IPv6 waiver for the x-small IPv4 set.
> 
> With financials it's all in the presentation.
> 

Have you seen the 2009 financials? I'd be interested to hear where you think
my logic is off.

Best,

-M<




From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon May  3 17:56:42 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 14:56:42 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]  x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
In-Reply-To: <C804AFFC.2E7B4%marty@akamai.com>
References: <C804AFFC.2E7B4%marty@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <4BDF469A.6060200@ipinc.net>



On 5/3/2010 1:53 PM, marty at akamai.com wrote:
>
>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>
>> Organization: Internet Partners, Inc.
>> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:17:43 -0700
>> To: Owen DeLong<owen at delong.com>
>> Cc:<arin-discuss at arin.net>, ARIN PPML<ppml at arin.net>
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]  x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/30/2010 3:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> [ clip ]
>
>
>>
>>> If we want to consider an extended or permanent fee waiver
>>> for those organizations, the maximum possible impact to ARIN
>>> revenue would be a waiver of up to $866,000 (with adjustment
>>> for new x-small organizations that might get added).
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but you failed to mention that this is offset against
>> the additional $866,000 that ARIN would take in if all those
>> orgs for IPv6 with no waiver.
>>
>>> I'm neither speaking for or against such a waiver at this time,
>>> merely trying to provide a clear view of the facts and potential
>>> impacts of such a waiver and the number of organizations that
>>> could benefit from such a waiver.
>>>
>>
>> But ultimately there are no impacts (financial at any rate)
>
> All of those costs would be shifted to v4 resource holders.
>
> ARIN also reported a net deficit with respect to budgets for 2009. For
> example, the Treasurers Report for 2009 showed revenue of 13m, expenses of
> 15m. That's a $2m deficit. Eliminating the $900k in revenue would have
> significant impact from my perspective.
>
>>
>> As I thought I explained, the "missing" .8 Mil is something that
>> if nothing is done, is additional fees ARIN will make in the future
>> when the x-smalls are forced to go to IPv6.
>
> We haven't seen a business model that shows v6 only revenue. I don't think
> that this is the plan as v4 resources will be in use for some time. I do
> think that v4 revenues, at some point, will begin to rapidly decrease. That
> is a significant problem if we are to do this correctly.
>
>
>>
>> If something is done, then ARIN does not make those additional fees
>> and instead merely makes the same fees they are making now.
>>
>> Also since ARIN is duty-bound to return that .8 Mil in the form of
>> fee DECREASES then the real argument is this, do we want the
>> ultimate revenue ARIN takes in to NOT increase as a result of IPv6
>> or do we want it to DECREASE so we all (ISPs who are NOT x-smalls)
>> can get a nice break on our own fees?
>>
>> You made it sound like the community is losing money if we do a
>> waiver which is definitely not the case.  The transition to IPv6
>
> What support do you have for this statement? Using the 2009 Treasurers
> report, net revenue rose less than $220k. Expenses rose by about the net
> deficit of $2m not including the drawdown of the reserve fund.
>
>
>> means more numbers handed out to the same fishes,
>> which due to the current fee structure results in a bonus for
>> ARIN.  It does not increase the number of fishes and as you have
>> constantly harped on in the past ARIN sets fees based on how
>> many fishes they have to keep track of, not how much IP numbers
>> they have handed out.  So if your going to be consistent with
>> what you have beaten me over the head with in the past, you should not
>> be making the financials seem like a revenue loss to continue
>> to do a IPv6 waiver for the x-small IPv4 set.
>>
>> With financials it's all in the presentation.
>>
>
> Have you seen the 2009 financials?

Well, according to the annual report for 2009 the 2009 audited
financial statements are not out yet.

The unaudited "budget" for 2009 is on the website but this really
doesn't mean much of anything since the complete figures are not
there.

Furthermore, if the 2009 published financial report is going to be 
anything like the 2008 audited financials the problem is that there
is no detail that accompanies any of it, so nobody can really
divine anything about it.  For example in 2009 and 2010 they
have thrown 3 M into "depreciation" well depreciation of what?
If it's a past expense that isn't going to be replaced with
more expense then who cares?  That figure is just there for
tax purposes, it doesn't mean that it affects cash.  They spent
the cash when they bought whatever is depreciating now.

None of the public financial documents really has the detail
needed to know if any of the expenses are justified or not, or
need to be continued, for example 1.3M is allocated to travel in
2009 and 2010 well we don't know what travel this is and why
it's needed and why it couldn't be replaced with video conferencing
or whatever.

Not that I'm picking on travel per-se but the problem here is
without much greater detail than what the financials show, it's
not really possible to make the claim that your making that ARIN
is desperately short money.

For all we know the million in depreciation was for the 50 million
ARIN yacht purchased 3 years ago and in 2011 it will be fully
depreciated and depreciation will fall to nothing, and the million
in travel was for the ARIN tourist rocket to outer space that
they didn't book for next year, and so now the budget is in
balance.

An expense like the $400K for rent and occupancy, that's a very
checkable expense, all you have to do is call up the ARIN office
building and see the sq footage then look at any commercial real
estate in that market and see that it's in line with everyone else,
thus even though that's a large expense, it is of very little
interest since it's so narrow and so obviously justified.

But an expense like Travel that's a huge bucket.  Legal Fees
are also another deep black hole in any org since orgs really don't
like publishing all the details of their out-of-court settlements.
There's no way just looking at the figure to know if it's justified
or not.

I hope you see what I mean.


Ted


  I'd be interested to hear where you think
> my logic is off.
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>


From farmer at umn.edu  Mon May  3 21:06:47 2010
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 20:06:47 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]  x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
In-Reply-To: <F4B854F30B8A43C19D5F5393BBEAC2F9@changeip.com>
References: <50EE5968-A41E-4BBD-92FE-6F025765E5F2@delong.com><FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB279DD04DF31@EDAMAME.arin.net><327D7E22-D689-4F39-9B62-80439653D126@delong.com><FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB279DD3B2124@EDAMAME.arin.net><2B842A75-E1E6-4B8F-820D-DA3C25148C62@delong.com>	<83307504-F093-40A4-AB06-8E78C6066B7C@delong.com>
	<F4B854F30B8A43C19D5F5393BBEAC2F9@changeip.com>
Message-ID: <4BDF7327.5090706@umn.edu>

NOC at ChangeIP.com wrote:
>> x-small IPv4 providers as such,
>> constitute about 1/4 of the total ARIN ISP constituency.
> 
> So 1/4 of the current IPv4 ARIN community will have to pay something to 
> get IPv6... which will hinder IPv6 rollout in my opinion.  If we truly 
> want people to transition now we need to make their initial small ipv6 
> allocation at no additional cost if they are already paying for x-small 
> ipv4.
> 
> "6.4.3. Minimum Allocation
> The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32."
> 
> which is $2,250/yr, more than the $1,250/yr that they are currently 
> paying. The x-small ipv6 allocation on the fee schedule is misleading 
> since you can't even get it.
> 
> Don't start with the $1,000/yr is nothing; its the cost of a PC for an 
> employee argument... it all comes back to do you really want IPv6 
> rollout to succeed or not.  I personally am holding out on ISP v6 block 
> because I don't want the extra cost.  I can't get anything from my 
> upstreams (level3, cogent) because ipv6 isn't available thru them.

So as I see it there are two ways to go here, ask the BOT for a fee 
wavier or some kind of pricing change for a /32.  Or alternatively we 
could go in the direction of a policy change allowing an ISP or LIR the 
option to elect to receive something smaller than a /32, like a /40 or 
maybe a /36 and then ask the BOT to designate that size prefix as x-small.

If we wanted to go in the policy change direction adding something like 
the following paragraph to the current 6.5.1.2, or to 6.5.1.1 if 2010-4 
makes it through last call, could work;

"Organizations may opt to receive a smaller /36 initial allocation if 
they wish. In this case the allocation will receive a reservation for 
growth of at least a /32. Such reservations are not guaranteed and ARIN, 
at its discretion, may assign them to other organizations at any time."

There might need to be some tweaks in other areas too, but you get the idea.

I'm not sure I really like this idea, but I think some kind of policy 
change might be a more constructive way to deal with this issue than 
another discussion of a fee wavier or how ARIN spends the budget.

I'm not trying to say the budget isn't important, but maybe that arguing 
about the budget might not the way to handle a problem for almost 1/4 of 
the ISP organizations.  Maybe if we provide the BOT a policy to work 
with they can probably handle the financial implications.

 From Owen's data, (Thank you, I for one found it useful that someone 
(else) dug that up those numbers)

866 X-small ISPs / 3562 total ISPs = 24.3%

That is not a small enough fraction that I think it is a good idea to 
ignore this issue, and it is large enough that maybe a policy change is 
the right direction to deal with the issue.

Are there other better policy approaches to this problem?

-- 
===============================================
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 artur at eboundhost.com  Mon May  3 22:58:37 2010
From: artur at eboundhost.com (Artur (eBoundHost))
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 21:58:37 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]  x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
In-Reply-To: <4BDF7327.5090706@umn.edu>
References: <50EE5968-A41E-4BBD-92FE-6F025765E5F2@delong.com><FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB279DD04DF31@EDAMAME.arin.net><327D7E22-D689-4F39-9B62-80439653D126@delong.com><FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB279DD3B2124@EDAMAME.arin.net><2B842A75-E1E6-4B8F-820D-DA3C25148C62@delong.com>	<83307504-F093-40A4-AB06-8E78C6066B7C@delong.com>	<F4B854F30B8A43C19D5F5393BBEAC2F9@changeip.com>
	<4BDF7327.5090706@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <4BDF8D5D.9030602@eboundhost.com>


>>> x-small IPv4 providers as such,
>>> constitute about 1/4 of the total ARIN ISP constituency.
>>
>> So 1/4 of the current IPv4 ARIN community will have to pay something 
>> to get IPv6... which will hinder IPv6 rollout in my opinion.  If we 
>> truly want people to transition now we need to make their initial 
>> small ipv6 allocation at no additional cost if they are already 
>> paying for x-small ipv4.
>>
>> "6.4.3. Minimum Allocation
>> The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32."
>>
>> which is $2,250/yr, more than the $1,250/yr that they are currently 
>> paying. The x-small ipv6 allocation on the fee schedule is misleading 
>> since you can't even get it.
>>
>> Don't start with the $1,000/yr is nothing; its the cost of a PC for 
>> an employee argument... it all comes back to do you really want IPv6 
>> rollout to succeed or not.  I personally am holding out on ISP v6 
>> block because I don't want the extra cost.  I can't get anything from 
>> my upstreams (level3, cogent) because ipv6 isn't available thru them.


Regretfully i'm not familiar with all the politics and ideas of ARIN but 
i've seen very similar back and forth ever since our initial allocation 
several years ago put me on the arin mailing list.

So we, as a community, want to go to ipv6, i get it, but what motivation 
does my organization have to do this?  Our customers are not ready for 
it, our upstream providers are not ready for it, our software vendors 
are only quasi-semi-ready for it.  But I'm seeing all these 
conversations about "fee this and fee that" as a solution to IPv6 
migration.  What are you going to accomplish exactly by beating us small 
guys with a "fee" stick on IPv4 while the giant consumers of IP are 
getting theirs at relatively no cost?

There are 4 things that you can do _today_ to free up IPs and encourage 
IPv6.

1)  Is there any reason why i'm still being issued a Unique IPv4 on my 
home comcast?  you mean to tell me that every single household requires 
a unique IP address all the time?  99% of them could do with NAT.  And 
the 1% could pay for a static IP, just like the webhosting companies 
handle shared customers.  We say "you need a SSL Certificate?" that's 
legitimate use of a Unique IP and here is an extra monthly fee for it, 
so general ratio of Unique_IP to Shared_IP users is approximately 
8/1000.  When we do the very same thing that ISP's do, we are called 
"inefficient users", so why aren't ISP's doing the same.  And don't tell 
me about all the problems that NAT would cause, i'm sure it would be 
much easier to solve with a proper network partitioning scheme than 
moving to IPv6.

2)  Give away IPv6 for existing IPv4 holders. This is from the arin website:

*/Note:/* /In Jan 2008, the Board of Trustees decided to reduce the fee 
waiver <https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers> 
incrementally over a period of 4 years. Full fees will be in effect in 
2012./

We are not going to go through all the song and dance only to be hit 
with fees in 2012 when there is no guarantee that end users or our ISP's 
are coming.  Theoretically i understand the need to renumber, but in 
practice we need to balance our books at the end of the month and an 
extra $2k of unnecessary expenses, even 2 years out, are just that, 
unnecessary.

3)  Why do universities and even large companies need enormous 
allocations?  Ask for them back, offer a free ride for a couple of years 
to organizations that give them up and re-sell the IP space to those who 
can use it.

4)  Most importantly, everyone should be paying similar costs per IP 
address.  The existing fee structure is simply ridiculous.


As a end user, i don't particularly care how ARIN operates or what costs 
they have, just as our customers don't care about our internal issues, 
so i don't want to hear why something is impossible or improbable.  And 
if you're thinking about sending a snooty reply, don't bother, i 
probably won't even read it, just like the majority of ARIN members, i'm 
busy working during the day.

Best Regards,


Artur
eBoundHost
http://www.eboundhost.com




From ggiesen at akn.ca  Mon May  3 23:36:38 2010
From: ggiesen at akn.ca (Gary Giesen)
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 23:36:38 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]  x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
In-Reply-To: <4BDF8D5D.9030602@eboundhost.com>
Message-ID: <C8050E86.98A2%ggiesen@akn.ca>


> 1)  Is there any reason why i'm still being issued a Unique IPv4 on my
> home comcast?  you mean to tell me that every single household requires
> a unique IP address all the time?  99% of them could do with NAT.

One IP address per home is actually already pretty conservative when the
original goal of IP was an address per device. There are probably a lot more
than 1% of customers who would be unhappy with this, although it may be
unavoidable if IPv6 doesn't take off quickly enough. But NAT'ing everyone
with CGN solves the problem only temporarily, meaning months to a few years,
nothing more.

> 
> 2)  Give away IPv6 for existing IPv4 holders.
> 
This is essentially already being done. Everyone who has a direct allocation
from ARIN already gets an equivalent size IPv6 allocation for free. The big
debate is on the X-Small side, since ARIN doesn't appear to be issuing
X-Small IPv6 allocations (I won't speculate as to the reasons, but I think
there's general agreement in the community that /32 is the "accepted"
minimum prefix size for ISPs).


> 3)  Why do universities and even large companies need enormous
> allocations?  Ask for them back, offer a free ride for a couple of years
> to organizations that give them up and re-sell the IP space to those who
> can use it.

ARIN's been asking for them back for years, hence the creation of the Legacy
RSA. But with the murky legal status with regards to ARIN having
jurisdiction over those IPs (those legacy holders had their allocations
before ARIN even existed, and have no contractual relationship with ARIN),
it's a difficult road ARIN faces. We should not have the same problem with
IPv6 (anyone wishing to get IPv6 from ARIN will need to sign an RSA).
Besides, at the current rate of consumption, reclaiming even a significant
portion of the legacy /8's buys us months, not years.


> 4)  Most importantly, everyone should be paying similar costs per IP
> address.  The existing fee structure is simply ridiculous.

The fee structure is meant to reflect the cost of services for those block
sizes. ARIN works on a cost-recovery model (being a non-profit
organization). Obviously economies of scale come into play here, the larger
the allocation, the cheaper per IP it is to manage. I'm speculating here,
but even if it cost ARIN 100x as much to provide services (evaluating
requests, providing rdns delegation, whois, etc) for a /10 as for a /22, a
/10 has 4096 times the address space. And I'm willing to bet ARIN doesn't
incur 100x the cost. ARIN's fees are merely to recover the costs of
operating the registry, and to some degree the very large players are
already "subsidizing" the smaller ones if you look at what they're paying
per IP versus what ARIN's costs are per IP for these allocations. While I
agree IPv6 end users should really get a break on the fees, for an ISP that
makes money off providing IP services, it's simply a cost of doing business.
If it would make it easier for the X-Small if the fee waiver was extended
for a year or two, I would support that.

GG



From jcurran at arin.net  Tue May  4 04:17:51 2010
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 04:17:51 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]   x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
In-Reply-To: <4BDF469A.6060200@ipinc.net>
References: <C804AFFC.2E7B4%marty@akamai.com> <4BDF469A.6060200@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <CE0766F6-2FA1-4538-95B3-2EEC7C915A31@arin.net>

On May 3, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Furthermore, if the 2009 published financial report is going to be anything like the 2008 audited financials the problem is that there
> is no detail that accompanies any of it, so nobody can really
> divine anything about it.  For example in 2009 and 2010 they
> have thrown 3 M into "depreciation" well depreciation of what?
> If it's a past expense that isn't going to be replaced with
> more expense then who cares?  That figure is just there for
> tax purposes, it doesn't mean that it affects cash.  They spent
> the cash when they bought whatever is depreciating now.

Ted - 
 
  The depreciation increase is predominantly the capitalized software 
  development expenses related to ARIN Online automation.  This effort
  is a strategy priority set by the ARIN Board, and essential to ARIN 
  having cost effective long-term operating model.  This results in a 
  draw down of the cash reserves short-term but will be recognized on 
  an operating basis over the coming years.
 
  For discussion of this and other details on the ARIN's budget, you 
  might want to refer to the ARIN Treasurer's Report from the ARIN Toronto 
  meeting:  https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXV/PDF/Wednesday/Bradner_Treasurers_Report.pdf
  The Treasurer leads the Finance Committee of the Board which reviews
  the the budget and operating performance in detail.
  
FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

p.s.  Please direct followups on the budget process to arin-discuss.



From jcurran at arin.net  Tue May  4 05:29:36 2010
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 05:29:36 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
In-Reply-To: <C8050E86.98A2%ggiesen@akn.ca>
References: <C8050E86.98A2%ggiesen@akn.ca>
Message-ID: <51291C6E-94BA-422C-904D-69BC1D0A54A5@arin.net>

On May 4, 2010, at 5:36 AM, Gary Giesen wrote:

> ARIN's been asking for them back for years, hence the creation of the Legacy
> RSA. But with the murky legal status with regards to ARIN having
> jurisdiction over those IPs (those legacy holders had their allocations
> before ARIN even existed, and have no contractual relationship with ARIN),
> it's a difficult road ARIN faces.

To be clear, those holding legacy resources have no contractual relationship
with anyone, ARIN included. If there had been a contractual relationship then 
it would have been transferred at the time of ARIN's formation along with the 
records, staff, and systems which were transferred when ARIN was formed as the 
industry-based successor registry to the InterNIC.  

> The fee structure is meant to reflect the cost of services for those block
> sizes. ARIN works on a cost-recovery model (being a non-profit
> organization). Obviously economies of scale come into play here, the larger
> the allocation, the cheaper per IP it is to manage. 

Simply put, some aspects of ARIN costs are proportional to the count of 
allocations, whereas other costs are proportional to the size of the 
address space.  Performing additional allocations to ISP's requires 
validation of the utilization of past blocks, and this can take very 
significant effort for larger blocks.  On the other hand, once allocated, 
the effective maintenance costs of a single ISP allocation versus an
end-user user IPv4 assignment are nearly identical, both taking an entry 
in WHOIS and in-addr services.  Legacy address holders also take such
entries.

One of the items that the ARIN Board has been considering is the appropriate 
fee model for cost-recovery long-term, particularly once IPv6 is gaining 
adoption and the IPv4 free pool is depleted.  The functions that still need
to be performed at that point include maintenance of WHOIS & in-addr services,
a limited amount of registration services, a limited amount of new policy 
development, and potentially less outreach in the area of IPv6 advocacy. 
In the absence of any additional demands by the community, this would result
in a slightly slimmer ARIN.  The question that will arise is how to best
recovery these costs from the (ISP/hosting, end-user, and legacy) community.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From steve at ipv6canada.com  Tue May  4 08:27:43 2010
From: steve at ipv6canada.com (Steve Bertrand)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 08:27:43 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml]    x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6
In-Reply-To: <4BDF7327.5090706@umn.edu>
References: <50EE5968-A41E-4BBD-92FE-6F025765E5F2@delong.com><FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB279DD04DF31@EDAMAME.arin.net><327D7E22-D689-4F39-9B62-80439653D126@delong.com><FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB279DD3B2124@EDAMAME.arin.net><2B842A75-E1E6-4B8F-820D-DA3C25148C62@delong.com>	<83307504-F093-40A4-AB06-8E78C6066B7C@delong.com>	<F4B854F30B8A43C19D5F5393BBEAC2F9@changeip.com>
	<4BDF7327.5090706@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <4BE012BF.1070406@ipv6canada.com>

On 2010.05.03 21:06, David Farmer wrote:
> NOC at ChangeIP.com wrote:
>>> x-small IPv4 providers as such,
>>> constitute about 1/4 of the total ARIN ISP constituency.
>>
>> So 1/4 of the current IPv4 ARIN community will have to pay something
>> to get IPv6... which will hinder IPv6 rollout in my opinion.  If we
>> truly want people to transition now we need to make their initial
>> small ipv6 allocation at no additional cost if they are already paying
>> for x-small ipv4.
>>
>> "6.4.3. Minimum Allocation
>> The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32."
>>
>> which is $2,250/yr, more than the $1,250/yr that they are currently
>> paying. The x-small ipv6 allocation on the fee schedule is misleading
>> since you can't even get it.
>>
>> Don't start with the $1,000/yr is nothing; its the cost of a PC for an
>> employee argument... it all comes back to do you really want IPv6
>> rollout to succeed or not.  I personally am holding out on ISP v6
>> block because I don't want the extra cost.  I can't get anything from
>> my upstreams (level3, cogent) because ipv6 isn't available thru them.
> 
> So as I see it there are two ways to go here, ask the BOT for a fee
> wavier or some kind of pricing change for a /32.  Or alternatively we
> could go in the direction of a policy change allowing an ISP or LIR the
> option to elect to receive something smaller than a /32, like a /40 or
> maybe a /36 and then ask the BOT to designate that size prefix as x-small.

Being a x-small org who is directly affected by the topic of this
discussion, this is how I feel:

First, I don't want to see a fee reduction. I am quite concerned about
our (ARIN) short-term future. I was thankful that Marty raised the
question about our reserve at the meeting. I feel that it is prudent to
ensure a decent reserve and cash-flow position, as nobody can predict
what legal (or other) issues will arise within the next 24 months.

I wouldn't like to see a reduction in allocation size for x-small
either. When I first applied for my /32, I begged and pleaded with ARIN
to give me something smaller (because I felt it was a waste of space).
Now, looking at things realistically, a /32 isn't really that big after
all, and it would have a negative impact if x-smalls had to come back
for more address space.

I'm very content with how ARIN's financials look, particularly how much
is utilized for outreach. I don't believe that the added cost is too
large a barrier to entry into v6 for an x-small as things currently are.

If anything at all, I'd go for an extension of the fee waiver, for a
*very* limited time. I would be opposed to changing the fee structure
itself, or changing the allocation size (which would affect the fee
structure in a different way).

Steve


From bjohnson at drtel.com  Fri May  7 16:46:04 2010
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 15:46:04 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 fee Clarification
Message-ID: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701DD9FF0@ex01.drtel.lan>

I want to ensure I understand the current ARIN billing process and this
question is at its root. If you have an IPv4 allocation and an IPv6
allocation, will you have to pay both fees, the greater of the two fees,
or what?

TIA
_______________________________________
Brian Johnson
Converged Network Engineer (CCNP, ENA)
Dickey Rural Networks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20100507/c4c8949a/attachment.html>

From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Fri May  7 17:08:04 2010
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 14:08:04 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 fee Clarification
In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701DD9FF0@ex01.drtel.lan>
References: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701DD9FF0@ex01.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <4BE48134.2070204@gmail.com>

The greater of the two fees.

-Scott

On Fri 5/7/2010 1:46 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
>
> I want to ensure I understand the current ARIN billing process and 
> this question is at its root. If you have an IPv4 allocation and an 
> IPv6 allocation, will you have to pay both fees, the greater of the 
> two fees, or what?
>
> TIA
>
> _______________________________________
>
> Brian Johnson
>
> Converged Network Engineer (CCNP, ENA)
>
> Dickey Rural Networks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20100507/e7a74f5f/attachment.html>

From steve at ipv6canada.com  Fri May  7 17:51:23 2010
From: steve at ipv6canada.com (Steve Bertrand)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 17:51:23 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 fee Clarification
In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701DD9FF0@ex01.drtel.lan>
References: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701DD9FF0@ex01.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <4BE48B5B.3090104@ipv6canada.com>

On 2010.05.07 16:46, Brian Johnson wrote:
> I want to ensure I understand the current ARIN billing process and this
> question is at its root. If you have an IPv4 allocation and an IPv6
> allocation, will you have to pay both fees, the greater of the two fees,
> or what?

Note that in addition to what Scott said, there is a fee waiver in
effect for IPv6 at this time. For more info on how the waiver affects
you, see:

https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers

Steve


From owen at delong.com  Sun May  9 22:08:10 2010
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 19:08:10 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 fee Clarification
In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701DD9FF0@ex01.drtel.lan>
References: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F4701DD9FF0@ex01.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <F5F8FA7F-D704-4EEE-AC7D-3D10278633D8@delong.com>

The greater of the two fees.

Not both.

Owen

On May 7, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:

> I want to ensure I understand the current ARIN billing process and this question is at its root. If you have an IPv4 allocation and an IPv6 allocation, will you have to pay both fees, the greater of the two fees, or what?
> 
> 
> TIA
> 
> _______________________________________
> 
> Brian Johnson
> 
> Converged Network Engineer (CCNP, ENA)
> 
> Dickey Rural Networks
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20100509/d1267d3f/attachment.html>

From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com  Wed May 19 01:05:02 2010
From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com)
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 05:05:02 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] the horror of non-unique addresses
Message-ID: <20100519050502.GA8622@vacation.karoshi.com.>


http://xkcd.com/742/

--bill


From ggiesen at akn.ca  Wed May 19 01:35:33 2010
From: ggiesen at akn.ca (Gary T. Giesen)
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 01:35:33 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] the horror of non-unique addresses
In-Reply-To: <20100519050502.GA8622@vacation.karoshi.com.>
References: <20100519050502.GA8622@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Message-ID: <1274247333.28393.208.camel@ggiesen-workstation.netsurf.net>

I love it.

GG

On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 01:05 -0400, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/742/
> 
> --bill
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From rcarpen at network1.net  Wed May 19 07:03:44 2010
From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter)
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 07:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] the horror of non-unique addresses
In-Reply-To: <1274247333.28393.208.camel@ggiesen-workstation.netsurf.net>
Message-ID: <1683599090.2135.1274267024740.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net>


Be sure to read the mouse-over text too ;-)


-Randy

--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President, IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
| First Network Group, Inc.
| (419)739-9240, x1
----

----- "Gary T. Giesen" <ggiesen at akn.ca> wrote:

> I love it.
> 
> GG
> 
> On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 01:05 -0400, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
> wrote:
> > http://xkcd.com/742/
> > 
> > --bill
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 rsm at fast-serv.com  Fri May 21 07:57:36 2010
From: rsm at fast-serv.com (Randy McAnally)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 07:57:36 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
Message-ID: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com>

Looks like Arin gives /20's to anyone and their grandparents these days?

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6799154&postcount=1

"I sell private web caching proxies and Im in need of another two dedicated
servers with 2,000 ips assigned to each server. My budget is about
$1,100/month and I dont need any control panel or management. I also don't
spam or do anything illegal with these proxies. I already host with Ubiquity
and their great, and only $200/month for 2k ips."

And then..

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6807600&postcount=19

"I have already received approval from Arin for my /20 request and I'm already
in the process of paying the $4,500 to get the resources allocated asap.

The new problem is finding a network that will allow outside ips to come into
their network for a dedicated server I would be renting from them. Any advise?"

Sheesh...


--
Randy




From michael.dillon at bt.com  Fri May 21 08:24:30 2010
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 13:24:30 +0100
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com>
References: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E415@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

> Looks like Arin gives /20's to anyone and their grandparents these
days?

> "I have already received approval from Arin for my /20 request and I'm
already
> in the process of paying the $4,500 to get the resources allocated
asap.

> The new problem is finding a network that will allow outside ips to
come into
> their network for a dedicated server I would be renting from them. Any
advise?"

> Sheesh...

Traditional ISPs do not have a monopoly on ARIN services.
Get used to it and get IPv6 because when that is in widespread
use, all of these scarcity issues go away.

--Michael Dillon



From rsm at fast-serv.com  Fri May 21 08:39:01 2010
From: rsm at fast-serv.com (Randy McAnally)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 08:39:01 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E415@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com>
	<28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E415@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <20100521123229.M43053@fast-serv.com>

Please start a new thread about IPv6 if you wish to rant about it.

Flawed policy if some random person with a _single server_, no BGP or
multi-home can receive a /20 IPv4 or (for sake of argument) a /32 IPv6 from
ARIN.  

--
Randy

---------- Original Message -----------
From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
To: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Sent: Fri, 21 May 2010 13:24:30 +0100
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?


> 
> Traditional ISPs do not have a monopoly on ARIN services.
> Get used to it and get IPv6 because when that is in widespread
> use, all of these scarcity issues go away.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
------- End of Original Message -------



From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Fri May 21 08:50:29 2010
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 05:50:29 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <20100521123229.M43053@fast-serv.com>
References: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com>	<28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E415@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<20100521123229.M43053@fast-serv.com>
Message-ID: <4BF68195.1030507@gmail.com>

Randy,

Do you have any suggestions for how to improve 
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four3 ?

Thanks,
Scott

On Fri 5/21/2010 5:39 AM, Randy McAnally wrote:

<snip IPv6 stuff>
> Flawed policy if some random person with a _single server_, no BGP or
> multi-home can receive a /20 IPv4.
>
> --
> Randy



On Fri 5/21/2010 4:57 AM, Randy McAnally wrote:
> Looks like Arin gives /20's to anyone and their grandparents these days?
>
> http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6799154&postcount=1
>
> "I sell private web caching proxies and Im in need of another two dedicated
> servers with 2,000 ips assigned to each server. My budget is about
> $1,100/month and I dont need any control panel or management. I also don't
> spam or do anything illegal with these proxies. I already host with Ubiquity
> and their great, and only $200/month for 2k ips."
>
> And then..
>
> http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6807600&postcount=19
>
> "I have already received approval from Arin for my /20 request and I'm already
> in the process of paying the $4,500 to get the resources allocated asap.
>
> The new problem is finding a network that will allow outside ips to come into
> their network for a dedicated server I would be renting from them. Any advise?"
>
> Sheesh...
>
>
> --
> Randy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>    




From michael.dillon at bt.com  Fri May 21 09:16:18 2010
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:16:18 +0100
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <20100521123229.M43053@fast-serv.com>
References: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com><28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E415@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<20100521123229.M43053@fast-serv.com>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E483@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

> Please start a new thread about IPv6 if you wish to rant about it.
> 
> Flawed policy if some random person with a _single server_, no BGP or
> multi-home can receive a /20 IPv4 or (for sake of argument) a /32 IPv6
> from ARIN.

Who is ranting?

Are you sure that there isn't enough /32 blocks available in IPv6 to do
what you propose?

As for this IPv4 user, they have roughly 2000 users connected, and
are buying enough hardware to support an additional 4000. Are you
saying that ARIN policy is flawed because it gives out a /20
to Internet Service Providers with only 6000 users connected?

--Michael Dillon


From rsm at fast-serv.com  Fri May 21 09:18:06 2010
From: rsm at fast-serv.com (Randy McAnally)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:18:06 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] /20 initial allocation for
	single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <4BF68195.1030507@gmail.com>
References: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com>	<28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E415@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<20100521123229.M43053@fast-serv.com> <4BF68195.1030507@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100521130704.M65150@fast-serv.com>

I wasn't aware of such little restriction on end-user assignments use/purpose.
 As an ISP I've never really looked at it.

Hypothetical and based on what I just read and a possible true story based on
this thread:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=948715

As an 'end-user' I've gotten some host to assign my little dedicated server a
/20 with little to no justification (irc,proxy,spam,ect).

*1. Having this /20 in use from the host (regardless of purpose or
justification) enough to get a /20 direct from ARIN?

*2. And he doesn't have to return the original /20 to the host?


---------- Original Message -----------
From: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Sent: Fri, 21 May 2010 05:50:29 -0700
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?

> Randy,
> 
> Do you have any suggestions for how to improve 
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four3 ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott
> 
> On Fri 5/21/2010 5:39 AM, Randy McAnally wrote:
> 
> <snip IPv6 stuff>
> > Flawed policy if some random person with a _single server_, no BGP or
> > multi-home can receive a /20 IPv4.
> >
> > --
> > Randy
> 
> On Fri 5/21/2010 4:57 AM, Randy McAnally wrote:
> > Looks like Arin gives /20's to anyone and their grandparents these days?
> >
> > http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6799154&postcount=1
> >
> > "I sell private web caching proxies and Im in need of another two dedicated
> > servers with 2,000 ips assigned to each server. My budget is about
> > $1,100/month and I dont need any control panel or management. I also don't
> > spam or do anything illegal with these proxies. I already host with Ubiquity
> > and their great, and only $200/month for 2k ips."
> >
> > And then..
> >
> > http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6807600&postcount=19
> >
> > "I have already received approval from Arin for my /20 request and I'm already
> > in the process of paying the $4,500 to get the resources allocated asap.
> >
> > The new problem is finding a network that will allow outside ips to come into
> > their network for a dedicated server I would be renting from them. Any
advise?"
> >
> > Sheesh...
> >
> >
> > --
> > Randy
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
------- End of Original Message -------



From rsm at fast-serv.com  Fri May 21 09:25:16 2010
From: rsm at fast-serv.com (Randy McAnally)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:25:16 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E483@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com><28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E415@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<20100521123229.M43053@fast-serv.com>
	<28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E483@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <20100521132128.M44169@fast-serv.com>

> As for this IPv4 user, they have roughly 2000 users connected, and
> are buying enough hardware to support an additional 4000. Are you
> saying that ARIN policy is flawed because it gives out a /20
> to Internet Service Providers with only 6000 users connected?

As an ISP, if we assign someone a /20, we'd be hard pressed to get additional
resources from ARIN providing "proxy" or "irc" as justification.

As an end user, he bypasses such restrictions, given a host doesn't care about
proper justification in assigning him his original /20.

Disconnect in policy?

--
Randy
www.FastServ.com

---------- Original Message -----------
From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
To: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Sent: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:16:18 +0100
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?

> > Please start a new thread about IPv6 if you wish to rant about it.
> > 
> > Flawed policy if some random person with a _single server_, no BGP or
> > multi-home can receive a /20 IPv4 or (for sake of argument) a /32 IPv6
> > from ARIN.
> 
> Who is ranting?
> 
> Are you sure that there isn't enough /32 blocks available in IPv6 to 
> do what you propose?
> 
> As for this IPv4 user, they have roughly 2000 users connected, and
> are buying enough hardware to support an additional 4000. Are you
> saying that ARIN policy is flawed because it gives out a /20
> to Internet Service Providers with only 6000 users connected?
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
------- End of Original Message -------



From james at cpctechnology.com  Fri May 21 09:39:24 2010
From: james at cpctechnology.com (James J. Lumby II)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 08:39:24 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <20100521132128.M44169@fast-serv.com>
References: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com><28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E415@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<20100521123229.M43053@fast-serv.com>
	<28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E483@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<20100521132128.M44169@fast-serv.com>
Message-ID: <0D289D9E7FF02D4FA2DF37C3C870976A849F54DE51@CPC01.cpctechnology.local>

I agree, it has been my understanding that proxies were not an acceptable justification.  Especially for that large a block.  


Thank you,
James Lumby
CPC Technologies, LLC.
http://www.cpctechnology.com
817-435-0010 x 5040


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy McAnally
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 8:25 AM
To: michael.dillon at bt.com
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?

> As for this IPv4 user, they have roughly 2000 users connected, and
> are buying enough hardware to support an additional 4000. Are you
> saying that ARIN policy is flawed because it gives out a /20
> to Internet Service Providers with only 6000 users connected?

As an ISP, if we assign someone a /20, we'd be hard pressed to get additional
resources from ARIN providing "proxy" or "irc" as justification.

As an end user, he bypasses such restrictions, given a host doesn't care about
proper justification in assigning him his original /20.

Disconnect in policy?

--
Randy
www.FastServ.com

---------- Original Message -----------
From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
To: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Sent: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:16:18 +0100
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?

> > Please start a new thread about IPv6 if you wish to rant about it.
> > 
> > Flawed policy if some random person with a _single server_, no BGP or
> > multi-home can receive a /20 IPv4 or (for sake of argument) a /32 IPv6
> > from ARIN.
> 
> Who is ranting?
> 
> Are you sure that there isn't enough /32 blocks available in IPv6 to 
> do what you propose?
> 
> As for this IPv4 user, they have roughly 2000 users connected, and
> are buying enough hardware to support an additional 4000. Are you
> saying that ARIN policy is flawed because it gives out a /20
> to Internet Service Providers with only 6000 users connected?
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
------- End of Original Message -------

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage 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 mstotyn at enmax.com  Fri May 21 11:55:51 2010
From: mstotyn at enmax.com (Stotyn, Mel)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:55:51 -0600
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <0D289D9E7FF02D4FA2DF37C3C870976A849F54DE56@CPC01.cpctechnology.local>
References: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B01D640E0@MAIL04.enmax.com>
	<0D289D9E7FF02D4FA2DF37C3C870976A849F54DE56@CPC01.cpctechnology.local>
Message-ID: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B01D640E4@MAIL04.enmax.com>


Many might argue that Twitter is frivolous use of IP space and it
certainly wasn't dreamed of by ARPA and the early inventors, but some
people are getting real measurable value out of it and would consider
its use of IP space as legitimate.

I don't think that ARIN should judge whether a commercial service is
frivolous, at least not after the economics has been demonstrated.

Therefore, it appears that the flaw in policy is that a traditional ISP
can't use this as justification while it can be used to get space under
the end-user policy. Perhaps this simple statement is what was meant in
the original post. I thought that I sensed a criticism of the service
itself (as frivolous) as you also may have. I think that is not
relevant, but the policy should work as well for traditional ISPs as end
users.

Mel Stotyn 
Senior Operations Specialist 
ENMAX Envision Inc. 
mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com 
Phone: 403 514-3443


-----Original Message-----
From: James J. Lumby II [mailto:james at cpctechnology.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:02 AM
To: Stotyn, Mel
Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed
server?

I think a large part of the problem is that this seems like frivolous
usage of IP space.  That and the fact that under current regulations, it
does not justify usage on a providers part, but as an end user, it does
since they are not required to provide justification.


Thank you,
James Lumby
CPC Technologies, LLC.
http://www.cpctechnology.com
817-435-0010 x 5040


-----Original Message-----
From: Stotyn, Mel [mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:00 AM
To: James J. Lumby II
Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed
server?


It is an Internet service that people are presumably willing to pay for.

Do you want ARIN to be judging what is a legitimate service and what
isn't? All Internet connectivity services can be used for illegal or
just unfriendly purposes as well as legal, friendly and extremely useful
purposes (some which were never dreamed of when IP was invented). Who
should judge what is a legitimate service that needs IP address blocks
to operate?

Mel Stotyn 
Senior Operations Specialist 
ENMAX Envision Inc. 
mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com 
Phone: 403 514-3443


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of James J. Lumby II
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 7:39 AM
To: Randy McAnally; michael.dillon at bt.com
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed
server?

I agree, it has been my understanding that proxies were not an
acceptable justification.  Especially for that large a block.  


Thank you,
James Lumby
CPC Technologies, LLC.
http://www.cpctechnology.com
817-435-0010 x 5040


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy McAnally
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 8:25 AM
To: michael.dillon at bt.com
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed
server?

> As for this IPv4 user, they have roughly 2000 users connected, and are

> buying enough hardware to support an additional 4000. Are you saying 
> that ARIN policy is flawed because it gives out a /20 to Internet 
> Service Providers with only 6000 users connected?

As an ISP, if we assign someone a /20, we'd be hard pressed to get
additional resources from ARIN providing "proxy" or "irc" as
justification.

As an end user, he bypasses such restrictions, given a host doesn't care
about proper justification in assigning him his original /20.

Disconnect in policy?

--
Randy
www.FastServ.com

---------- Original Message -----------
From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
To: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Sent: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:16:18 +0100
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed
server?

> > Please start a new thread about IPv6 if you wish to rant about it.
> > 
> > Flawed policy if some random person with a _single server_, no BGP 
> > or multi-home can receive a /20 IPv4 or (for sake of argument) a /32

> > IPv6 from ARIN.
> 
> Who is ranting?
> 
> Are you sure that there isn't enough /32 blocks available in IPv6 to 
> do what you propose?
> 
> As for this IPv4 user, they have roughly 2000 users connected, and are

> buying enough hardware to support an additional 4000. Are you saying 
> that ARIN policy is flawed because it gives out a /20 to Internet 
> Service Providers with only 6000 users connected?
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
------- End of Original Message -------

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage 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 e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and
may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the
person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail,
please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any 
attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding.
************************************************************************

************************************************************************
This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and
may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the
person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail,
please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any 
attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding.
************************************************************************


From michael.dillon at bt.com  Fri May 21 12:12:26 2010
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 17:12:26 +0100
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <0D289D9E7FF02D4FA2DF37C3C870976A849F54DE51@CPC01.cpctechnology.local>
References: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com><28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E415@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net><20100521123229.M43053@fast-serv.com><28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E483@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<20100521132128.M44169@fast-serv.com>
	<0D289D9E7FF02D4FA2DF37C3C870976A849F54DE51@CPC01.cpctechnology.local>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E62C@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

> I agree, it has been my understanding that proxies were not an
> acceptable justification.  Especially for that large a block.

Why on earth would ARIN care what application is running on the host
that is configured at a given IP address? The only time I know of
that ARIN cared about such things was when HTTP gained the ability
to distinguish between multiple domain names running websites on
the same server. For some reason, many ISPs did not make use of
these virtual servers, and ARIN policy was changed to force them
into it.

But nowadays, people run all kinds of applications, not just websites,
and it is not so easy to find examples where unique IP addresses
are not needed. If the application is a proxy, and there is one
instance for every unique user, and each instance is identified 
with a unique IP address, then I don't see how "proxy" makes
things any different from "DSL connection to a home", or 
"Virtual Private Server".

After a bit of searching the ARIN site with ARIN's search engine
and then with Google, I believe that your "understanding" is more
of an old wives tale than reality.

Plus, I don't see any benefit to come from attempts to nickel
and dime ARIN applicants at a time when we are fast running out
of IPv4 addresses. You won't gather up enough addresses to slow
the runout, you are just increasing the number of parties who
feel the pain.

--Michael Dillon



From michael.dillon at bt.com  Fri May 21 12:13:50 2010
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 17:13:50 +0100
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B01D640E4@MAIL04.enmax.com>
References: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B01D640E0@MAIL04.enmax.com><0D289D9E7FF02D4FA2DF37C3C870976A849F54DE56@CPC01.cpctechnology.local>
	<2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B01D640E4@MAIL04.enmax.com>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E62D@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

> Therefore, it appears that the flaw in policy is that a traditional
ISP
> can't use this as justification while it can be used to get space
under
> the end-user policy.

Show me where it says this in the policy.

--Michael Dillon



From rsm at fast-serv.com  Fri May 21 12:29:46 2010
From: rsm at fast-serv.com (Randy McAnally)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 12:29:46 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E62D@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B01D640E0@MAIL04.enmax.com><0D289D9E7FF02D4FA2DF37C3C870976A849F54DE56@CPC01.cpctechnology.local>
	<2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B01D640E4@MAIL04.enmax.com>
	<28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E62D@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <20100521162743.M60244@fast-serv.com>

---------- Original Message -----------
From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
To: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Sent: Fri, 21 May 2010 17:13:50 +0100
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?

> > Therefore, it appears that the flaw in policy is that a traditional
> ISP
> > can't use this as justification while it can be used to get space
> under
> > the end-user policy.
> 
> Show me where it says this in the policy.

Is virtual hosting, vs IP-based hosting suggested/required of end-users in policy?

--
Randy




From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net  Fri May 21 12:49:06 2010
From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron Wendel)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:49:06 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <20100521162743.M60244@fast-serv.com>
References: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B01D640E0@MAIL04.enmax.com><0D289D9E7FF02D4FA2DF37C3C870976A849F54DE56@CPC01.cpctechnology.local>	<2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B01D640E4@MAIL04.enmax.com>	<28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E62D@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<20100521162743.M60244@fast-serv.com>
Message-ID: <0c9f01caf905$8c806d60$a5814820$@net>

At the last ARIN meeting David Huberman did an excellent presentation that
answered all these questions. 

https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXV/PDF/Sunday/Huberm
an_Hosting_Provider_BOF.pdf

There are the slides from the presentation or you can watch the quicktime
here:

https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXV/premeeting.html


I'd like to thank David for this excellent info and hope it's just the first
of many industry specific BoFs ARIN presents.

Aaron



-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Randy McAnally
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:30 AM
To: michael.dillon at bt.com; arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?

---------- Original Message -----------
From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
To: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Sent: Fri, 21 May 2010 17:13:50 +0100
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?

> > Therefore, it appears that the flaw in policy is that a traditional
> ISP
> > can't use this as justification while it can be used to get space
> under
> > the end-user policy.
> 
> Show me where it says this in the policy.

Is virtual hosting, vs IP-based hosting suggested/required of end-users in
policy?

--
Randy


_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2870 - Release Date: 05/21/10
01:26:00



From jcurran at arin.net  Fri May 21 15:43:47 2010
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 15:43:47 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com>
References: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com>
Message-ID: <37D8914B-C0B3-4B43-A123-A1609C59319B@arin.net>

On May 21, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Randy McAnally wrote:
> ...
> http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6807600&postcount=19
> 
> "I have already received approval from Arin for my /20 request and I'm already
> in the process of paying the $4,500 to get the resources allocated asap.

While ARIN generally treats request status as confidential, such 
confidentiality is not applicable subsequent to public disclosure
by the requesting party.  When inaccurate statements are involved, 
ARIN has an obligation to the community to insure accuracy of any
statements so as to avoid confusion about the implementation of 
number resource policy.

To that effect: 

    The above referenced request has not been approved, and 
    is presently in the earliest phases of resource request 
    review.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From owen at delong.com  Sat May 22 04:39:01 2010
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 01:39:01 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <20100521162743.M60244@fast-serv.com>
References: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B01D640E0@MAIL04.enmax.com><0D289D9E7FF02D4FA2DF37C3C870976A849F54DE56@CPC01.cpctechnology.local>
	<2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B01D640E4@MAIL04.enmax.com>
	<28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580621E62D@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<20100521162743.M60244@fast-serv.com>
Message-ID: <B400F1E6-9E97-4FAB-A1F1-0679F46B104B@delong.com>


On May 21, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Randy McAnally wrote:

> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
> To: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
> Sent: Fri, 21 May 2010 17:13:50 +0100
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
> 
>>> Therefore, it appears that the flaw in policy is that a traditional
>> ISP
>>> can't use this as justification while it can be used to get space
>> under
>>> the end-user policy.
>> 
>> Show me where it says this in the policy.
> 
I have to agree with Michael here.  I don't know of any situation where proxies would
fail to be classified as utilization under ARIN policy.

> Is virtual hosting, vs IP-based hosting suggested/required of end-users in policy?
> 
Yes... NRPM 4.2.5 reads:

4.2.5. Web Hosting Policy

When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used for IP-based web hosting, it will supply (for informational purposes only) its technical justification for this practice. ARIN will analyze this data continuously, evaluating the need for future policy change.

Hope that helps..

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20100522/55105299/attachment.html>

From kloch at kl.net  Sun May 23 15:59:17 2010
From: kloch at kl.net (Kevin Loch)
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 15:59:17 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?
In-Reply-To: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com>
References: <20100521115224.M97499@fast-serv.com>
Message-ID: <4BF98915.3050109@kl.net>

Randy McAnally wrote:
> Looks like Arin gives /20's to anyone and their grandparents these days?
> 
> http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6799154&postcount=1
> 
> "I sell private web caching proxies and Im in need of another two dedicated
> servers with 2,000 ips assigned to each server. My budget is about
> $1,100/month and I dont need any control panel or management. I also don't
> spam or do anything illegal with these proxies. I already host with Ubiquity
> and their great, and only $200/month for 2k ips."

I would not take on such a customer as proxies are are likely to
involve abuse or legal issues in one direction or another. I would
also be very suspicious of their claims and intentions which don't
pass the smell test.

However, as far as ARIN is concerned if they can document 4000 unique
customers using 1 IP each what does it matter how many pieces of steel
are involved?  ARIN should not assign a penalty for energy efficiency.

- Kevin


From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon May 24 16:45:14 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 13:45:14 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Does ARIN eat it's own dog food with regards to IPv6?
Message-ID: <4BFAE55A.6080800@ipinc.net>

Just a quick question here,

   Is ARIN's internal office network dual-stacked with all hosts
on it running both IPv6 and IPv4?  Can those hosts go to any
of the "IPv6 test websites" on the Internet and be told they are
on IPv6?

   I did not see anything in the "About Us" section of the
website regarding this.

Ted


From jcurran at arin.net  Mon May 24 17:34:57 2010
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 17:34:57 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Does ARIN eat it's own dog food with regards to
 IPv6?
In-Reply-To: <4BFAE55A.6080800@ipinc.net>
References: <4BFAE55A.6080800@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <7D5C35BD-F116-4B2A-99CD-6CC941F26D9B@arin.net>

Ted - 
 
  ARIN's office networks are dual-stacked with IPv4 and IPv6;
  I do not know whether all desktops are configured with IPv4
  and IPv6 by default but will determine that shortly.

  I know that my machine has a dynamic IPv6 address, I see it
  (and dancing turtles :-) displayed when I connect to relevant
  websites.  Our public facing websites are have both A and AAAA
  records so that parties may connect via the IP protocol version
  of their choice.

Hope this helps,
/John

John Curran 
President and CEO
ARIN

On May 24, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Just a quick question here,
> 
>  Is ARIN's internal office network dual-stacked with all hosts
> on it running both IPv6 and IPv4?  Can those hosts go to any
> of the "IPv6 test websites" on the Internet and be told they are
> on IPv6?
> 
>  I did not see anything in the "About Us" section of the
> website regarding this.
> 
> Ted
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon May 24 18:17:08 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:17:08 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Does ARIN eat it's own dog food with regards to
 IPv6?
In-Reply-To: <7D5C35BD-F116-4B2A-99CD-6CC941F26D9B@arin.net>
References: <4BFAE55A.6080800@ipinc.net>
	<7D5C35BD-F116-4B2A-99CD-6CC941F26D9B@arin.net>
Message-ID: <4BFAFAE4.2000407@ipinc.net>

Thanks, John,

   ARIN should definitely plaster that in many places on the
website. :-)

Ted

On 5/24/2010 2:34 PM, John Curran wrote:
> Ted -
>
>    ARIN's office networks are dual-stacked with IPv4 and IPv6;
>    I do not know whether all desktops are configured with IPv4
>    and IPv6 by default but will determine that shortly.
>
>    I know that my machine has a dynamic IPv6 address, I see it
>    (and dancing turtles :-) displayed when I connect to relevant
>    websites.  Our public facing websites are have both A and AAAA
>    records so that parties may connect via the IP protocol version
>    of their choice.
>
> Hope this helps,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> On May 24, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> Just a quick question here,
>>
>>   Is ARIN's internal office network dual-stacked with all hosts
>> on it running both IPv6 and IPv4?  Can those hosts go to any
>> of the "IPv6 test websites" on the Internet and be told they are
>> on IPv6?
>>
>>   I did not see anything in the "About Us" section of the
>> website regarding this.
>>
>> Ted
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-Discuss
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>


From farmer at umn.edu  Mon May 24 18:22:21 2010
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 17:22:21 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] Does ARIN eat it's own dog food with regards to
 IPv6?
In-Reply-To: <4BFAFAE4.2000407@ipinc.net>
References: <4BFAE55A.6080800@ipinc.net>	<7D5C35BD-F116-4B2A-99CD-6CC941F26D9B@arin.net>
	<4BFAFAE4.2000407@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <4BFAFC1D.7030202@umn.edu>

It is on the web page too, its location is a little obscure, but it is 
there.

https://www.arin.net/knowledge/services.html

 From the ARIN main menu/Knowledge/Technical Information/ under resource 
on that page / View the services available over IPv6 at ARIN



Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Thanks, John,
> 
>   ARIN should definitely plaster that in many places on the
> website. :-)
> 
> Ted
> 
> On 5/24/2010 2:34 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> Ted -
>>
>>    ARIN's office networks are dual-stacked with IPv4 and IPv6;
>>    I do not know whether all desktops are configured with IPv4
>>    and IPv6 by default but will determine that shortly.
>>
>>    I know that my machine has a dynamic IPv6 address, I see it
>>    (and dancing turtles :-) displayed when I connect to relevant
>>    websites.  Our public facing websites are have both A and AAAA
>>    records so that parties may connect via the IP protocol version
>>    of their choice.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>>
>> On May 24, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>> Just a quick question here,
>>>
>>>   Is ARIN's internal office network dual-stacked with all hosts
>>> on it running both IPv6 and IPv4?  Can those hosts go to any
>>> of the "IPv6 test websites" on the Internet and be told they are
>>> on IPv6?
>>>
>>>   I did not see anything in the "About Us" section of the
>>> website regarding this.
>>>
>>> Ted
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ARIN-Discuss
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


-- 
===============================================
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 john at citylinkfiber.com  Wed May 26 11:17:09 2010
From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:17:09 -0600
Subject: [arin-discuss] Does ARIN eat it's own dog food with regards to
	IPv6?
Message-ID: <F70BCC55F4F2F14888D450E441159C240F4179@deathstar2.citylinkfiber.intra>

ARIN should have a dancing Bear (in honor of Bill Manning) when you
connect via IPv6.

Sounds slightly silly, but I'm actually being real here.  There should
be something on the home page that says YOU JUST CONNECTED VIA IPv6.
THANK YOU FOR MOVING TOWARDS IPv6.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:35 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Does ARIN eat it's own dog food with
> regards to IPv6?
> 
> Ted -
> 
>   ARIN's office networks are dual-stacked with IPv4 and IPv6;
>   I do not know whether all desktops are configured with IPv4
>   and IPv6 by default but will determine that shortly.
> 
>   I know that my machine has a dynamic IPv6 address, I see it
>   (and dancing turtles :-) displayed when I connect to relevant
>   websites.  Our public facing websites are have both A and AAAA
>   records so that parties may connect via the IP protocol version
>   of their choice.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> On May 24, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> > Just a quick question here,
> >
> >  Is ARIN's internal office network dual-stacked with all hosts
> > on it running both IPv6 and IPv4?  Can those hosts go to any
> > of the "IPv6 test websites" on the Internet and be told they are
> > on IPv6?
> >
> >  I did not see anything in the "About Us" section of the
> > website regarding this.
> >
> > Ted
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.




From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Wed May 26 11:30:20 2010
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 08:30:20 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Does ARIN eat it's own dog food with regards to
 IPv6?
In-Reply-To: <F70BCC55F4F2F14888D450E441159C240F4179@deathstar2.citylinkfiber.intra>
References: <F70BCC55F4F2F14888D450E441159C240F4179@deathstar2.citylinkfiber.intra>
Message-ID: <4BFD3E8C.6060609@gmail.com>

And, conversely, it should explicitly call out if you connected via 
IPv4, and mention that you need to get your network running IPv6 (with 
links to appropriate resources).

-Scott

On Wed 5/26/2010 8:17 AM, John Brown wrote:
> ARIN should have a dancing Bear (in honor of Bill Manning) when you
> connect via IPv6.
>
> Sounds slightly silly, but I'm actually being real here.  There should
> be something on the home page that says YOU JUST CONNECTED VIA IPv6.
> THANK YOU FOR MOVING TOWARDS IPv6.
>
>
>
>    
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran
>> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:35 PM
>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Does ARIN eat it's own dog food with
>> regards to IPv6?
>>
>> Ted -
>>
>>    ARIN's office networks are dual-stacked with IPv4 and IPv6;
>>    I do not know whether all desktops are configured with IPv4
>>    and IPv6 by default but will determine that shortly.
>>
>>    I know that my machine has a dynamic IPv6 address, I see it
>>    (and dancing turtles :-) displayed when I connect to relevant
>>    websites.  Our public facing websites are have both A and AAAA
>>    records so that parties may connect via the IP protocol version
>>    of their choice.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>>
>> On May 24, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> Just a quick question here,
>>>
>>>   Is ARIN's internal office network dual-stacked with all hosts
>>> on it running both IPv6 and IPv4?  Can those hosts go to any
>>> of the "IPv6 test websites" on the Internet and be told they are
>>> on IPv6?
>>>
>>>   I did not see anything in the "About Us" section of the
>>> website regarding this.
>>>
>>> Ted
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ARIN-Discuss
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>        
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-Discuss
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>      
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>    


From rcarpen at network1.net  Wed May 26 11:45:21 2010
From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:45:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Does ARIN eat it's own dog food with regards to
 IPv6?
In-Reply-To: <4BFD3E8C.6060609@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <67221803.3780.1274888721121.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net>


I Agree. This was briefly discussed at the meeting. There should be a very blatant, and maybe semi-annoying notification that the visitor is on IPv4, and should fix that, or contact their provider to do so.


-Randy

--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President, IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
| First Network Group, Inc.
| (419)739-9240, x1
----

----- "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:

> And, conversely, it should explicitly call out if you connected via 
> IPv4, and mention that you need to get your network running IPv6 (with
> 
> links to appropriate resources).
> 
> -Scott
> 
> On Wed 5/26/2010 8:17 AM, John Brown wrote:
> > ARIN should have a dancing Bear (in honor of Bill Manning) when you
> > connect via IPv6.
> >
> > Sounds slightly silly, but I'm actually being real here.  There
> should
> > be something on the home page that says YOU JUST CONNECTED VIA
> IPv6.
> > THANK YOU FOR MOVING TOWARDS IPv6.
> >
> >
> >
> >    
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> >> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran
> >> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:35 PM
> >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Does ARIN eat it's own dog food with
> >> regards to IPv6?
> >>
> >> Ted -
> >>
> >>    ARIN's office networks are dual-stacked with IPv4 and IPv6;
> >>    I do not know whether all desktops are configured with IPv4
> >>    and IPv6 by default but will determine that shortly.
> >>
> >>    I know that my machine has a dynamic IPv6 address, I see it
> >>    (and dancing turtles :-) displayed when I connect to relevant
> >>    websites.  Our public facing websites are have both A and AAAA
> >>    records so that parties may connect via the IP protocol version
> >>    of their choice.
> >>
> >> Hope this helps,
> >> /John
> >>
> >> John Curran
> >> President and CEO
> >> ARIN
> >>
> >> On May 24, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >>
> >>      
> >>> Just a quick question here,
> >>>
> >>>   Is ARIN's internal office network dual-stacked with all hosts
> >>> on it running both IPv6 and IPv4?  Can those hosts go to any
> >>> of the "IPv6 test websites" on the Internet and be told they are
> >>> on IPv6?
> >>>
> >>>   I did not see anything in the "About Us" section of the
> >>> website regarding this.
> >>>
> >>> Ted
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> ARIN-Discuss
> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >>>        
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ARIN-Discuss
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >>      
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >    
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 michael.dillon at bt.com  Wed May 26 12:04:31 2010
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 17:04:31 +0100
Subject: [arin-discuss] Does ARIN eat it's own dog food with regards to
	IPv6?
In-Reply-To: <4BFD3E8C.6060609@gmail.com>
References: <F70BCC55F4F2F14888D450E441159C240F4179@deathstar2.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<4BFD3E8C.6060609@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458062930B1@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

> And, conversely, it should explicitly call out if you connected via
> IPv4, and mention that you need to get your network running IPv6 (with
> links to appropriate resources).

Now that is a good idea. In addition to pointing people at stuff like
http://www.getipv6.info it should also point to the various official
announcement texts that ARIN has made regarding v4 runout and v6.

And for everybody to see, add a DHS style "threat level" using the same
words
as DHS uses, Severe, High, Elevated, Guarded, Low. Come up with a
formula
to give a threat level as a number between 0 and 99. Then 40-59 would
mean
Elevated and be displayed in Yellow. I would expect that the threat
level
would start out somewhere in the Yellow area today.

The formula should increase the threat as we get closer to Geoff Hustons
last
prediction, increase it as the IANA pool decreases (i.e. every time they
give 
out a /8), and decrease it based on a moving ratio of IPv6 unique
addresses versus
IPv4 unique addresses accessing the ARIN site. Then display a pointer
that is
positioned based on the 0-99 number so that even when visitors see the
same color,
they will notice that the pointer has moved.

Given ARIN's role as provider of IPv6 addresses to all network
operators, I
believe that it is appropriate to call such an indicator a "threat
level" even
though the threat is harder to pin down because it means chaos,
confusion and
some business disruption.

People are familiar with the DHS system so that is what we should use.
It can 
all be done in CSS except the pointer, so it should not add significant
load 
to the site. And the formula could be changed at some future point when
the
unique addresses accessing ARIN's site are over 50% IPv6 so that the
indicator
has a chance to move down into green territory.


From bpasdar at batblue.com  Wed May 26 12:14:53 2010
From: bpasdar at batblue.com (Babak Pasdar)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:14:53 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Does ARIN eat it's own dog food with regards
	to.IPv6?
In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458062930B1@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <F70BCC55F4F2F14888D450E441159C240F4179@deathstar2.citylinkfiber.intra>
	<4BFD3E8C.6060609@gmail.com>
	<28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458062930B1@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <FE53B7B0-E9E4-4346-9D6B-B05348D16462@batblue.com>

Michael,

I like your idea, however the adoption meter should not decrease since when people move to IPv6, they are not necessarily moving away from IPv4.  They are not converting as much as they are adopting on a coexistence basis.

I find my biggest challenge in talking clients into planning and adopting v6 is:

1. They don't feel the pain yet.
2. There are not enough security tools that support IPv6 application/threat protection model.

Babak

 

Sent from Bat Blue's Secure Mobile Messaging System.

On May 26, 2010, at 12:12, "michael.dillon at bt.com" <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:

>> And, conversely, it should explicitly call out if you connected via
>> IPv4, and mention that you need to get your network running IPv6 (with
>> links to appropriate resources).
> 
> Now that is a good idea. In addition to pointing people at stuff like
> http://www.getipv6.info it should also point to the various official
> announcement texts that ARIN has made regarding v4 runout and v6.
> 
> And for everybody to see, add a DHS style "threat level" using the same
> words
> as DHS uses, Severe, High, Elevated, Guarded, Low. Come up with a
> formula
> to give a threat level as a number between 0 and 99. Then 40-59 would
> mean
> Elevated and be displayed in Yellow. I would expect that the threat
> level
> would start out somewhere in the Yellow area today.
> 
> The formula should increase the threat as we get closer to Geoff Hustons
> last
> prediction, increase it as the IANA pool decreases (i.e. every time they
> give 
> out a /8), and decrease it based on a moving ratio of IPv6 unique
> addresses versus
> IPv4 unique addresses accessing the ARIN site. Then display a pointer
> that is
> positioned based on the 0-99 number so that even when visitors see the
> same color,
> they will notice that the pointer has moved.
> 
> Given ARIN's role as provider of IPv6 addresses to all network
> operators, I
> believe that it is appropriate to call such an indicator a "threat
> level" even
> though the threat is harder to pin down because it means chaos,
> confusion and
> some business disruption.
> 
> People are familiar with the DHS system so that is what we should use.
> It can 
> all be done in CSS except the pointer, so it should not add significant
> load 
> to the site. And the formula could be changed at some future point when
> the
> unique addresses accessing ARIN's site are over 50% IPv6 so that the
> indicator
> has a chance to move down into green territory.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.