From john at quonix.net Thu May 3 13:33:01 2012 From: john at quonix.net (John Von Essen) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 13:33:01 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB Message-ID: Not sure if this is the right forum, but something came up with a potential new BGP customer regarding a legacy IP block (1993, pre- Arin) they want to advertise. This new customer is planning to buy internet from us, a 100MB pipe. Whenever a customer is advertising a subnet that is not directly issued to them via Arin, we have a process to verify authority before we allow that block to propagate out to our BGP upstreams. Since I dont want to get in trouble with the client, the info here is fictitious but represents the situation we need help with. Names/IPs have been replaced. Here is the situation: 1. The IP block (say X.X.0.0/16) our new BGP customer wants to advertise is a 1993 IP block, pre-Arin, it is in the Arin whois database, as well as RA DB. 2. The OrgID (say AAA) for X.X.0.0/16 is defunct, does not exist at all anymore. 3. There are 4 POCs listed for OrgID AAA, 3 of which are defunct and even labeled as bad within Arin whois, the 4th (Tech POC) is valid, and the email address for this POC is completely unrelated to OrgID AAA. This "4th POC" is clearly not associated with OrgID AAA, but another Organization will call FOO. At first glance, when I look at this, I think its a legacy hijacked IP range. Somebody got a hold of the 4th POC in some way and changed it. We DO NOT work with people remotely connected to hijacked IP space, in fact, we use the SpamHaus DROP list and wont route any of those suspicious IP ranges. This range is not in SpamHaus's DROP list. Problem is I am not entirely certain if my assumption is correct because Merits RA DB shows a different story. If I lookup X.X.0.0/16 in Merit's RA DB, the resource looks 100% legit. You dont see any mention of OrgID AAA, no bad POCs, everything in Merit's DB is related to Org FOO. Now, our upstreams all use different mechanisms to verify who has the right to announce certain blocks. Level3 for example uses RA DB, so in Level3's eye's there is nothing wrong here. But if Cogent uses Arin's whois database, then Cogent might refuse it because it cant be verified or if it is verified its very suspect. I dont know what to do here.... All of our other BGP customers have been easy since they all use post-Arin IP space which is very easy to verify, this is the first time we've had a customer try to announce "old" space. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks John Von Essen From otis at ocosa.com Thu May 3 13:55:56 2012 From: otis at ocosa.com (Otis L. Surratt, Jr.) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 12:55:56 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB Message-ID: <002701cd2956$00f01841$481ca8c0@ocosa.com> I would have the client talk to ARIN. Also speak with your upstreams. Does this client have their own ASN? Have your client prove that it's in fact their block. Otis L. Surratt, Jr. President / Chief Engineer OCOSA Communication, LLC 321 S. Boston Ave. Suite LL06 Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA 74103 E otis at ocosa.com O (918) 585-9882 F (918) 585-5857 http://www.ocosa.com http://myportal.ocosa.net Sent from my LG Thrill? 4G smartphone with glasses-free 3D on AT&T ________________________________ From : John Von Essen Subject : [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB Not sure if this is the right forum, but something came up with a potential new BGP customer regarding a legacy IP block (1993, pre- Arin) they want to advertise. This new customer is planning to buy internet from us, a 100MB pipe. Whenever a customer is advertising a subnet that is not directly issued to them via Arin, we have a process to verify authority before we allow that block to propagate out to our BGP upstreams. Since I dont want to get in trouble with the client, the info here is fictitious but represents the situation we need help with. Names/IPs have been replaced. Here is the situation: 1. The IP block (say X.X.0.0/16) our new BGP customer wants to advertise is a 1993 IP block, pre-Arin, it is in the Arin whois database, as well as RA DB. 2. The OrgID (say AAA) for X.X.0.0/16 is defunct, does not exist at all anymore. 3. There are 4 POCs listed for OrgID AAA, 3 of which are defunct and even labeled as bad within Arin whois, the 4th (Tech POC) is valid, and the email address for this POC is completely unrelated to OrgID AAA. This "4th POC" is clearly not associated with OrgID AAA, but another Organization will call FOO. At first glance, when I look at this, I think its a legacy hijacked IP range. Somebody got a hold of the 4th POC in some way and changed it. We DO NOT work with people remotely connected to hijacked IP space, in fact, we use the SpamHaus DROP list and wont route any of those suspicious IP ranges. This range is not in SpamHaus's DROP list. Problem is I am not entirely certain if my assumption is correct because Merits RA DB shows a different story. If I lookup X.X.0.0/16 in Merit's RA DB, the resource looks 100% legit. You dont see any mention of OrgID AAA, no bad POCs, everything in Merit's DB is related to Org FOO. Now, our upstreams all use different mechanisms to verify who has the right to announce certain blocks. Level3 for example uses RA DB, so in Level3's eye's there is nothing wrong here. But if Cogent uses Arin's whois database, then Cogent might refuse it because it cant be verified or if it is verified its very suspect. I dont know what to do here.... All of our other BGP customers have been easy since they all use post-Arin IP space which is very easy to verify, this is the first time we've had a customer try to announce "old" space. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks John Von Essen _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Thu May 3 14:12:42 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 11:12:42 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I understand it, any paying RADB customer can register route objects for any route they like, as long as no one else has already done so. So I don't think RADB tells you much about the proper holder of a block whose original registrant is now defunct. Probably the best thing for organization FOO to do would be to contact ARIN and arrange to update ARIN's records. That may require documenting their chain of custody of X.X.0.0/16 from AAA. It sounds like they've already done so with the Tech POC, so if it was a legitimate transfer they shouldn't have too much trouble demonstrating that to ARIN and getting all the records updated (and preferably getting the block transferred over to FOO). -Scott On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM, John Von Essen wrote: > Not sure if this is the right forum, but something came up with a > potential new BGP customer regarding a legacy IP block (1993, pre-Arin) > they want to advertise. This new customer is planning to buy internet from > us, a 100MB pipe. > > Whenever a customer is advertising a subnet that is not directly issued to > them via Arin, we have a process to verify authority before we allow that > block to propagate out to our BGP upstreams. > > Since I dont want to get in trouble with the client, the info here is > fictitious but represents the situation we need help with. Names/IPs have > been replaced. > > Here is the situation: > > 1. The IP block (say X.X.0.0/16) our new BGP customer wants to advertise > is a 1993 IP block, pre-Arin, it is in the Arin whois database, as well as > RA DB. > 2. The OrgID (say AAA) for X.X.0.0/16 is defunct, does not exist at all > anymore. > 3. There are 4 POCs listed for OrgID AAA, 3 of which are defunct and even > labeled as bad within Arin whois, the 4th (Tech POC) is valid, and the > email address for this POC is completely unrelated to OrgID AAA. This "4th > POC" is clearly not associated with OrgID AAA, but another Organization > will call FOO. > > At first glance, when I look at this, I think its a legacy hijacked IP > range. Somebody got a hold of the 4th POC in some way and changed it. We DO > NOT work with people remotely connected to hijacked IP space, in fact, we > use the SpamHaus DROP list and wont route any of those suspicious IP > ranges. This range is not in SpamHaus's DROP list. > > Problem is I am not entirely certain if my assumption is correct because > Merits RA DB shows a different story. If I lookup X.X.0.0/16 in Merit's RA > DB, the resource looks 100% legit. You dont see any mention of OrgID AAA, > no bad POCs, everything in Merit's DB is related to Org FOO. > > Now, our upstreams all use different mechanisms to verify who has the > right to announce certain blocks. Level3 for example uses RA DB, so in > Level3's eye's there is nothing wrong here. But if Cogent uses Arin's whois > database, then Cogent might refuse it because it cant be verified or if it > is verified its very suspect. > > I dont know what to do here.... All of our other BGP customers have been > easy since they all use post-Arin IP space which is very easy to verify, > this is the first time we've had a customer try to announce "old" space. > > Any input would be appreciated. > > Thanks > John Von Essen > > ______________________________**_________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/**listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesse at la-broadband.com Thu May 3 14:22:05 2012 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 18:22:05 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Purely personal opinion here buuuuut?.. Sounds shady and like they're using you (by purchasing a tiny pipe for such an enormous range) to legitimize their ownership by attempting to establish a history of network advertisement. Once that's established and the backend chain of custody is cleaned up (helped along by their "use" of the space through you) they'll flip (sell) the address space. Unless you're that hard up for customers (and this is super tiny) I'd stay as far away from them as you can. -- Jesse D. Geddis LA Broadband LLC From: Scott Leibrand > Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012 11:12 AM To: John Von Essen > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB As I understand it, any paying RADB customer can register route objects for any route they like, as long as no one else has already done so. So I don't think RADB tells you much about the proper holder of a block whose original registrant is now defunct. Probably the best thing for organization FOO to do would be to contact ARIN and arrange to update ARIN's records. That may require documenting their chain of custody of X.X.0.0/16 from AAA. It sounds like they've already done so with the Tech POC, so if it was a legitimate transfer they shouldn't have too much trouble demonstrating that to ARIN and getting all the records updated (and preferably getting the block transferred over to FOO). -Scott On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM, John Von Essen > wrote: Not sure if this is the right forum, but something came up with a potential new BGP customer regarding a legacy IP block (1993, pre-Arin) they want to advertise. This new customer is planning to buy internet from us, a 100MB pipe. Whenever a customer is advertising a subnet that is not directly issued to them via Arin, we have a process to verify authority before we allow that block to propagate out to our BGP upstreams. Since I dont want to get in trouble with the client, the info here is fictitious but represents the situation we need help with. Names/IPs have been replaced. Here is the situation: 1. The IP block (say X.X.0.0/16) our new BGP customer wants to advertise is a 1993 IP block, pre-Arin, it is in the Arin whois database, as well as RA DB. 2. The OrgID (say AAA) for X.X.0.0/16 is defunct, does not exist at all anymore. 3. There are 4 POCs listed for OrgID AAA, 3 of which are defunct and even labeled as bad within Arin whois, the 4th (Tech POC) is valid, and the email address for this POC is completely unrelated to OrgID AAA. This "4th POC" is clearly not associated with OrgID AAA, but another Organization will call FOO. At first glance, when I look at this, I think its a legacy hijacked IP range. Somebody got a hold of the 4th POC in some way and changed it. We DO NOT work with people remotely connected to hijacked IP space, in fact, we use the SpamHaus DROP list and wont route any of those suspicious IP ranges. This range is not in SpamHaus's DROP list. Problem is I am not entirely certain if my assumption is correct because Merits RA DB shows a different story. If I lookup X.X.0.0/16 in Merit's RA DB, the resource looks 100% legit. You dont see any mention of OrgID AAA, no bad POCs, everything in Merit's DB is related to Org FOO. Now, our upstreams all use different mechanisms to verify who has the right to announce certain blocks. Level3 for example uses RA DB, so in Level3's eye's there is nothing wrong here. But if Cogent uses Arin's whois database, then Cogent might refuse it because it cant be verified or if it is verified its very suspect. I dont know what to do here.... All of our other BGP customers have been easy since they all use post-Arin IP space which is very easy to verify, this is the first time we've had a customer try to announce "old" space. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks John Von Essen _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at QUONIX.NET Thu May 3 14:22:19 2012 From: john at QUONIX.NET (John Von Essen) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:22:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, that's sort of what I told the customer. Instead of insinuating that these are "stolen" IPs, I basically said that the block they plan on using MUST be properly reassigned within Arin's whois before I would accept them through my BGP filter. i.e. If I do a whois query on X.X.0.0/23, it has to return info that exactly matches the customer - not some defunct 1993 Org. The logic, like yours, is that if they are legit - there should be no difficulty with this request. If they drag their feet and protest a lot, that indicates to me that something fishy is going on. Though if they were legit, you'd think that they would have cleaned all of this up a long time ago - but they didn't. Thats why I am suspect. I made this request yesterday, haven't heard back yet. -John On May 3, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > As I understand it, any paying RADB customer can register route > objects for any route they like, as long as no one else has already > done so. So I don't think RADB tells you much about the proper > holder of a block whose original registrant is now defunct. > > Probably the best thing for organization FOO to do would be to > contact ARIN and arrange to update ARIN's records. That may require > documenting their chain of custody of X.X.0.0/16 from AAA. It > sounds like they've already done so with the Tech POC, so if it was > a legitimate transfer they shouldn't have too much trouble > demonstrating that to ARIN and getting all the records updated (and > preferably getting the block transferred over to FOO). > > -Scott > > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM, John Von Essen > wrote: > Not sure if this is the right forum, but something came up with a > potential new BGP customer regarding a legacy IP block (1993, pre- > Arin) they want to advertise. This new customer is planning to buy > internet from us, a 100MB pipe. > > Whenever a customer is advertising a subnet that is not directly > issued to them via Arin, we have a process to verify authority > before we allow that block to propagate out to our BGP upstreams. > > Since I dont want to get in trouble with the client, the info here > is fictitious but represents the situation we need help with. Names/ > IPs have been replaced. > > Here is the situation: > > 1. The IP block (say X.X.0.0/16) our new BGP customer wants to > advertise is a 1993 IP block, pre-Arin, it is in the Arin whois > database, as well as RA DB. > 2. The OrgID (say AAA) for X.X.0.0/16 is defunct, does not exist at > all anymore. > 3. There are 4 POCs listed for OrgID AAA, 3 of which are defunct and > even labeled as bad within Arin whois, the 4th (Tech POC) is valid, > and the email address for this POC is completely unrelated to OrgID > AAA. This "4th POC" is clearly not associated with OrgID AAA, but > another Organization will call FOO. > > At first glance, when I look at this, I think its a legacy hijacked > IP range. Somebody got a hold of the 4th POC in some way and changed > it. We DO NOT work with people remotely connected to hijacked IP > space, in fact, we use the SpamHaus DROP list and wont route any of > those suspicious IP ranges. This range is not in SpamHaus's DROP list. > > Problem is I am not entirely certain if my assumption is correct > because Merits RA DB shows a different story. If I lookup X.X.0.0/16 > in Merit's RA DB, the resource looks 100% legit. You dont see any > mention of OrgID AAA, no bad POCs, everything in Merit's DB is > related to Org FOO. > > Now, our upstreams all use different mechanisms to verify who has > the right to announce certain blocks. Level3 for example uses RA DB, > so in Level3's eye's there is nothing wrong here. But if Cogent uses > Arin's whois database, then Cogent might refuse it because it cant > be verified or if it is verified its very suspect. > > I dont know what to do here.... All of our other BGP customers have > been easy since they all use post-Arin IP space which is very easy > to verify, this is the first time we've had a customer try to > announce "old" space. > > Any input would be appreciated. > > Thanks > John Von Essen > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net Thu May 3 14:31:32 2012 From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:31:32 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:22 PM, John Von Essen wrote: > Well, that's sort of what I told the customer. Instead of insinuating that > these are "stolen" IPs, I basically said that the block they plan on using > MUST be properly reassigned within Arin's whois before I would accept them > through my BGP filter. i.e. If I do a whois query on X.X.0.0/23, it has to > return info that exactly matches the customer - not some defunct 1993 Org. > > The logic, like yours, is that if they are legit - there should be no > difficulty with this request. If they drag their feet and protest a lot, > that indicates to me that something fishy is going on. Though if they were > legit, you'd think that they would have cleaned all of this up a long time > ago - but they didn't. Thats why I am suspect. > > I made this request yesterday, haven't heard back yet. > > -John > > On May 3, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > As I understand it, any paying RADB customer can register route objects for > any route they like, as long as no one else has already done so. ?So I don't > think RADB tells you much about the proper holder of a block whose original > registrant is now defunct. > > Probably the best thing for organization FOO to do would be to contact ARIN > and?arrange to update ARIN's records. ?That may require?documenting their > chain of custody of??X.X.0.0/16?from AAA. ?It sounds like they've already > done so with the?Tech POC, so if it was a legitimate transfer they shouldn't > have too much trouble demonstrating that to ARIN and getting all the records > updated (and preferably getting the block transferred over to FOO). > > -Scott > > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM, John Von Essen wrote: >> >> Not sure if this is the right forum, but something came up with a >> potential new BGP customer regarding a legacy IP block (1993, pre-Arin) they >> want to advertise. This new customer is planning to buy internet from us, a >> 100MB pipe. >> >> Whenever a customer is advertising a subnet that is not directly issued to >> them via Arin, we have a process to verify authority before we allow that >> block to propagate out to our BGP upstreams. >> >> Since I dont want to get in trouble with the client, the info here is >> fictitious but represents the situation we need help with. Names/IPs have >> been replaced. >> >> Here is the situation: >> >> 1. The IP block (say X.X.0.0/16) our new BGP customer wants to advertise >> is a 1993 IP block, pre-Arin, it is in the Arin whois database, as well as >> RA DB. >> 2. The OrgID (say AAA) for X.X.0.0/16 is defunct, does not exist at all >> anymore. >> 3. There are 4 POCs listed for OrgID AAA, 3 of which are defunct and even >> labeled as bad within Arin whois, the 4th (Tech POC) is valid, and the email >> address for this POC is completely unrelated to OrgID AAA. This "4th POC" is >> clearly not associated with OrgID AAA, but another Organization will call >> FOO. >> >> At first glance, when I look at this, I think its a legacy hijacked IP >> range. Somebody got a hold of the 4th POC in some way and changed it. We DO >> NOT work with people remotely connected to hijacked IP space, in fact, we >> use the SpamHaus DROP list and wont route any of those suspicious IP ranges. >> This range is not in SpamHaus's DROP list. >> >> Problem is I am not entirely certain if my assumption is correct because >> Merits RA DB shows a different story. If I lookup X.X.0.0/16 in Merit's RA >> DB, the resource looks 100% legit. ?You dont see any mention of OrgID AAA, >> no bad POCs, everything in Merit's DB is related to Org FOO. >> >> Now, our upstreams all use different mechanisms to verify who has the >> right to announce certain blocks. Level3 for example uses RA DB, so in >> Level3's eye's there is nothing wrong here. But if Cogent uses Arin's whois >> database, then Cogent might refuse it because it cant be verified or if it >> is verified its very suspect. >> >> I dont know what to do here.... All of our other BGP customers have been >> easy since they all use post-Arin IP space which is very easy to verify, >> this is the first time we've had a customer try to announce "old" space. >> >> Any input would be appreciated. >> >> Thanks >> John Von Essen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. John, Given the scenario, I would take the customer. If their use of the space turns up malicious, you're always welcome to cancel them for AUP violation. Thanks, -- Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP President | (757) 304-0668 http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications From jesse at la-broadband.com Thu May 3 14:37:21 2012 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 18:37:21 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeffrey, Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone could just "cancel" people? I'm sure many on this list would dream of living within a legal framework where we can just up and pull the plug on people not to mention recover the network, personnel, and associated contracts signed to light that customer. -- Jesse D. Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 5/3/12 11:31 AM, "Jeffrey Lyon" wrote: >On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:22 PM, John Von Essen wrote: >> Well, that's sort of what I told the customer. Instead of insinuating >>that >> these are "stolen" IPs, I basically said that the block they plan on >>using >> MUST be properly reassigned within Arin's whois before I would accept >>them >> through my BGP filter. i.e. If I do a whois query on X.X.0.0/23, it has >>to >> return info that exactly matches the customer - not some defunct 1993 >>Org. >> >> The logic, like yours, is that if they are legit - there should be no >> difficulty with this request. If they drag their feet and protest a lot, >> that indicates to me that something fishy is going on. Though if they >>were >> legit, you'd think that they would have cleaned all of this up a long >>time >> ago - but they didn't. Thats why I am suspect. >> >> I made this request yesterday, haven't heard back yet. >> >> -John >> >> On May 3, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> >> As I understand it, any paying RADB customer can register route objects >>for >> any route they like, as long as no one else has already done so. So I >>don't >> think RADB tells you much about the proper holder of a block whose >>original >> registrant is now defunct. >> >> Probably the best thing for organization FOO to do would be to contact >>ARIN >> and arrange to update ARIN's records. That may require documenting >>their >> chain of custody of X.X.0.0/16 from AAA. It sounds like they've >>already >> done so with the Tech POC, so if it was a legitimate transfer they >>shouldn't >> have too much trouble demonstrating that to ARIN and getting all the >>records >> updated (and preferably getting the block transferred over to FOO). >> >> -Scott >> >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM, John Von Essen wrote: >>> >>> Not sure if this is the right forum, but something came up with a >>> potential new BGP customer regarding a legacy IP block (1993, >>>pre-Arin) they >>> want to advertise. This new customer is planning to buy internet from >>>us, a >>> 100MB pipe. >>> >>> Whenever a customer is advertising a subnet that is not directly >>>issued to >>> them via Arin, we have a process to verify authority before we allow >>>that >>> block to propagate out to our BGP upstreams. >>> >>> Since I dont want to get in trouble with the client, the info here is >>> fictitious but represents the situation we need help with. Names/IPs >>>have >>> been replaced. >>> >>> Here is the situation: >>> >>> 1. The IP block (say X.X.0.0/16) our new BGP customer wants to >>>advertise >>> is a 1993 IP block, pre-Arin, it is in the Arin whois database, as >>>well as >>> RA DB. >>> 2. The OrgID (say AAA) for X.X.0.0/16 is defunct, does not exist at all >>> anymore. >>> 3. There are 4 POCs listed for OrgID AAA, 3 of which are defunct and >>>even >>> labeled as bad within Arin whois, the 4th (Tech POC) is valid, and the >>>email >>> address for this POC is completely unrelated to OrgID AAA. This "4th >>>POC" is >>> clearly not associated with OrgID AAA, but another Organization will >>>call >>> FOO. >>> >>> At first glance, when I look at this, I think its a legacy hijacked IP >>> range. Somebody got a hold of the 4th POC in some way and changed it. >>>We DO >>> NOT work with people remotely connected to hijacked IP space, in fact, >>>we >>> use the SpamHaus DROP list and wont route any of those suspicious IP >>>ranges. >>> This range is not in SpamHaus's DROP list. >>> >>> Problem is I am not entirely certain if my assumption is correct >>>because >>> Merits RA DB shows a different story. If I lookup X.X.0.0/16 in >>>Merit's RA >>> DB, the resource looks 100% legit. You dont see any mention of OrgID >>>AAA, >>> no bad POCs, everything in Merit's DB is related to Org FOO. >>> >>> Now, our upstreams all use different mechanisms to verify who has the >>> right to announce certain blocks. Level3 for example uses RA DB, so in >>> Level3's eye's there is nothing wrong here. But if Cogent uses Arin's >>>whois >>> database, then Cogent might refuse it because it cant be verified or >>>if it >>> is verified its very suspect. >>> >>> I dont know what to do here.... All of our other BGP customers have >>>been >>> easy since they all use post-Arin IP space which is very easy to >>>verify, >>> this is the first time we've had a customer try to announce "old" >>>space. >>> >>> Any input would be appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks >>> John Von Essen >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >John, > >Given the scenario, I would take the customer. If their use of the >space turns up malicious, you're always welcome to cancel them for AUP >violation. > >Thanks, >-- >Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP >President | (757) 304-0668 >http://www.blacklotus.net >Black Lotus Communications >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage 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 ram at robertmarder.com Thu May 3 14:39:50 2012 From: ram at robertmarder.com (Robert Marder) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 13:39:50 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2012-05-03 13:12, Scott Leibrand wrote: > As I understand it, any paying RADB customer can register route > objects for any route they like, as long as no one else has already > done so. ?So I don't think RADB tells you much about the proper > holder of a block whose original registrant is now defunct. Yes, I believe this is the case. In any event, IANA/ARIN and the other RIRs are the authority on who controls a given IP block, not Merit. Your customer should contact ARIN with proof that the previous org still exists as a legal entity and they are the owners and have authority to change POC records, and then they should subsequently get the POC records updated, or if it doesn't, that it was sold/merged into a new org, and get the space assigned to a new OrgID. The way I would verify a case like this, since the names are different, would be to email the Tech POC and confirm that they have authorized you to announce their space. If you get a positive reply from that, then combined with a signed LOA from your customer, that should be enough verification for both you and your transit carriers. If you want to stick to your guns, you should inform your customer you were unable to verify that the IP space belongs to them, and for them to contact ARIN to fix the POC records associated with it. From heather.schiller at verizon.com Thu May 3 14:40:06 2012 From: heather.schiller at verizon.com (Schiller, Heather A) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:40:06 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So if you steal something, it's ok to use it as long as no one notices? And if you suspect something is stolen, look away and profit from it until it isn't worth it anymore? Awesome.. That's about the worst advice ever. John, it sounds like you care about your company's reputation, go with your gut. --Heather John, Given the scenario, I would take the customer. If their use of the space turns up malicious, you're always welcome to cancel them for AUP violation. Thanks, -- Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP President | (757) 304-0668 http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net Thu May 3 14:48:43 2012 From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:48:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > Jeffrey, > > Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone could just "cancel" people? I'm sure > many on this list would dream of living within a legal framework where we > can just up and pull the plug on people not to mention recover the > network, personnel, and associated contracts signed to light that customer. > > -- > Jesse D. Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > > > > > On 5/3/12 11:31 AM, "Jeffrey Lyon" wrote: > >>On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:22 PM, John Von Essen wrote: >>> Well, that's sort of what I told the customer. Instead of insinuating >>>that >>> these are "stolen" IPs, I basically said that the block they plan on >>>using >>> MUST be properly reassigned within Arin's whois before I would accept >>>them >>> through my BGP filter. i.e. If I do a whois query on X.X.0.0/23, it has >>>to >>> return info that exactly matches the customer - not some defunct 1993 >>>Org. >>> >>> The logic, like yours, is that if they are legit - there should be no >>> difficulty with this request. If they drag their feet and protest a lot, >>> that indicates to me that something fishy is going on. Though if they >>>were >>> legit, you'd think that they would have cleaned all of this up a long >>>time >>> ago - but they didn't. Thats why I am suspect. >>> >>> I made this request yesterday, haven't heard back yet. >>> >>> -John >>> >>> On May 3, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >>> >>> As I understand it, any paying RADB customer can register route objects >>>for >>> any route they like, as long as no one else has already done so. ?So I >>>don't >>> think RADB tells you much about the proper holder of a block whose >>>original >>> registrant is now defunct. >>> >>> Probably the best thing for organization FOO to do would be to contact >>>ARIN >>> and arrange to update ARIN's records. ?That may require documenting >>>their >>> chain of custody of ?X.X.0.0/16 from AAA. ?It sounds like they've >>>already >>> done so with the Tech POC, so if it was a legitimate transfer they >>>shouldn't >>> have too much trouble demonstrating that to ARIN and getting all the >>>records >>> updated (and preferably getting the block transferred over to FOO). >>> >>> -Scott >>> >>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM, John Von Essen wrote: >>>> >>>> Not sure if this is the right forum, but something came up with a >>>> potential new BGP customer regarding a legacy IP block (1993, >>>>pre-Arin) they >>>> want to advertise. This new customer is planning to buy internet from >>>>us, a >>>> 100MB pipe. >>>> >>>> Whenever a customer is advertising a subnet that is not directly >>>>issued to >>>> them via Arin, we have a process to verify authority before we allow >>>>that >>>> block to propagate out to our BGP upstreams. >>>> >>>> Since I dont want to get in trouble with the client, the info here is >>>> fictitious but represents the situation we need help with. Names/IPs >>>>have >>>> been replaced. >>>> >>>> Here is the situation: >>>> >>>> 1. The IP block (say X.X.0.0/16) our new BGP customer wants to >>>>advertise >>>> is a 1993 IP block, pre-Arin, it is in the Arin whois database, as >>>>well as >>>> RA DB. >>>> 2. The OrgID (say AAA) for X.X.0.0/16 is defunct, does not exist at all >>>> anymore. >>>> 3. There are 4 POCs listed for OrgID AAA, 3 of which are defunct and >>>>even >>>> labeled as bad within Arin whois, the 4th (Tech POC) is valid, and the >>>>email >>>> address for this POC is completely unrelated to OrgID AAA. This "4th >>>>POC" is >>>> clearly not associated with OrgID AAA, but another Organization will >>>>call >>>> FOO. >>>> >>>> At first glance, when I look at this, I think its a legacy hijacked IP >>>> range. Somebody got a hold of the 4th POC in some way and changed it. >>>>We DO >>>> NOT work with people remotely connected to hijacked IP space, in fact, >>>>we >>>> use the SpamHaus DROP list and wont route any of those suspicious IP >>>>ranges. >>>> This range is not in SpamHaus's DROP list. >>>> >>>> Problem is I am not entirely certain if my assumption is correct >>>>because >>>> Merits RA DB shows a different story. If I lookup X.X.0.0/16 in >>>>Merit's RA >>>> DB, the resource looks 100% legit. ?You dont see any mention of OrgID >>>>AAA, >>>> no bad POCs, everything in Merit's DB is related to Org FOO. >>>> >>>> Now, our upstreams all use different mechanisms to verify who has the >>>> right to announce certain blocks. Level3 for example uses RA DB, so in >>>> Level3's eye's there is nothing wrong here. But if Cogent uses Arin's >>>>whois >>>> database, then Cogent might refuse it because it cant be verified or >>>>if it >>>> is verified its very suspect. >>>> >>>> I dont know what to do here.... All of our other BGP customers have >>>>been >>>> easy since they all use post-Arin IP space which is very easy to >>>>verify, >>>> this is the first time we've had a customer try to announce "old" >>>>space. >>>> >>>> Any input would be appreciated. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> John Von Essen >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >>John, >> >>Given the scenario, I would take the customer. If their use of the >>space turns up malicious, you're always welcome to cancel them for AUP >>violation. >> >>Thanks, >>-- >>Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP >>President | (757) 304-0668 >>http://www.blacklotus.net >>Black Lotus Communications >>_______________________________________________ >>ARIN-Discuss >>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > I've never had an issue cancelling a customer in violation of AUP. -- Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP President | (757) 304-0668 http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications From jesse at la-broadband.com Thu May 3 14:53:53 2012 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 18:53:53 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RADB isn't a valid source. Anyone can create the objects. This sounds like a network engineer that found himself still the Tech POC on address space for a defunct company. Emailing his POC would not show anything of use. Thank you Heather. It seems like the obvious sometimes needs to be pointed out. Anyway, it seems like this thread may have run it's course. Personally, I wouldn't even follow up with this customer since it's crystal clear what's going on but then I don't deal in circuits that small. However, one would assume getting tangled up in a mess like that when working on the smaller scale would have a much larger financial impact (not to mention reputation) -- Jesse D. Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 5/3/12 11:39 AM, "Robert Marder" wrote: > > >On 2012-05-03 13:12, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> As I understand it, any paying RADB customer can register route >> objects for any route they like, as long as no one else has already >> done so. So I don't think RADB tells you much about the proper >> holder of a block whose original registrant is now defunct. > >Yes, I believe this is the case. > >In any event, IANA/ARIN and the other RIRs are the authority on who >controls a given IP block, not Merit. > >Your customer should contact ARIN with proof that the previous org >still exists as a legal entity and they are the owners and have >authority to change POC records, and then they should subsequently get >the POC records updated, or if it doesn't, that it was sold/merged into >a new org, and get the space assigned to a new OrgID. > >The way I would verify a case like this, since the names are different, >would be to email the Tech POC and confirm that they have authorized you >to announce their space. If you get a positive reply from that, then >combined with a signed LOA from your customer, that should be enough >verification for both you and your transit carriers. > >If you want to stick to your guns, you should inform your customer you >were unable to verify that the IP space belongs to them, and for them to >contact ARIN to fix the POC records associated with it. > >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage 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 otis at ocosa.com Thu May 3 15:01:10 2012 From: otis at ocosa.com (Otis L. Surratt, Jr.) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:01:10 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9F3473D352617F4BA92C65CAAC98E1AF1FEE78@ocsbs.ocosa.com> I agree. Reputation is an important variable here. Just remember what it would cost you to simply turn up this client and if it's worth it. Simply have the client verify that they indeed own the block and if they cannot simply move on. I would also notify ARIN as well. It's like playing the game dominoes, "All money is not good money." Otis L. Surratt, Jr. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 1:54 PM To: Robert Marder; ARIN-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB RADB isn't a valid source. Anyone can create the objects. This sounds like a network engineer that found himself still the Tech POC on address space for a defunct company. Emailing his POC would not show anything of use. Thank you Heather. It seems like the obvious sometimes needs to be pointed out. Anyway, it seems like this thread may have run it's course. Personally, I wouldn't even follow up with this customer since it's crystal clear what's going on but then I don't deal in circuits that small. However, one would assume getting tangled up in a mess like that when working on the smaller scale would have a much larger financial impact (not to mention reputation) -- Jesse D. Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 5/3/12 11:39 AM, "Robert Marder" wrote: > > >On 2012-05-03 13:12, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> As I understand it, any paying RADB customer can register route >> objects for any route they like, as long as no one else has already >> done so. So I don't think RADB tells you much about the proper >> holder of a block whose original registrant is now defunct. > >Yes, I believe this is the case. > >In any event, IANA/ARIN and the other RIRs are the authority on who >controls a given IP block, not Merit. > >Your customer should contact ARIN with proof that the previous org >still exists as a legal entity and they are the owners and have >authority to change POC records, and then they should subsequently get >the POC records updated, or if it doesn't, that it was sold/merged into >a new org, and get the space assigned to a new OrgID. > >The way I would verify a case like this, since the names are different, >would be to email the Tech POC and confirm that they have authorized you >to announce their space. If you get a positive reply from that, then >combined with a signed LOA from your customer, that should be enough >verification for both you and your transit carriers. > >If you want to stick to your guns, you should inform your customer you >were unable to verify that the IP space belongs to them, and for them to >contact ARIN to fix the POC records associated with it. > >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 rs at seastrom.com Thu May 3 15:12:00 2012 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 15:12:00 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: (Scott Leibrand's message of "Thu, 3 May 2012 11:12:42 -0700") References: Message-ID: <86r4v1xenz.fsf@seastrom.com> Scott Leibrand writes: > As I understand it, any paying RADB customer can register route objects for > any route they like, as long as no one else has already done so. ?So I don't > think RADB tells you much about the proper holder of a block whose original > registrant is now defunct. There is no "nobody else has already done so" constraint, except to the extent that if your maintainer has already put in a prefix for X.X.X.X/Y and you send in an object for the same prefix, it will be treated as an update not a new object. Nor is there anything keeping one from putting identical information in other IRR components. I recently had a big cleanup of stuff that people had decided to proxy-register on my behalf over the years. Basically, registration in the IRR (RADB and sister registries) can be used to adjust route filters on the fly, but in the case of any kind of conflict RIR (ARIN) data should be treated as authoritative. You are right to be suspicious. I smell a rat. -r From john at quonix.net Thu May 3 15:12:38 2012 From: john at quonix.net (John Von Essen) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 15:12:38 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for everyones insight. I learned a few things, mainly, RADB is not a valid source of authenticating rights to IP blocks, RIRs and Arin still trump RADB for legacy blocks. I also didn't think to check all the other RIR's whois databases. Just did that, and it didn't turn anything up. If the customer can't update the Arin info to make it look legit, then its a no-go and I wont accept their BGP prefixes and their business. At that point, I'll probably also send a friendly email to Arin with the /16 in question and they can take a closer look at it to see if any action should be taken. On a side note, the /16 in question is currently in the global BGP table, but... the two AS's it originates from are also "fishy" and suspect - i.e. outdated POC's, etc.,.. Thanks John On May 3, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > RADB isn't a valid source. Anyone can create the objects. This > sounds like > a network engineer that found himself still the Tech POC on address > space > for a defunct company. Emailing his POC would not show anything of > use. > > Thank you Heather. It seems like the obvious sometimes needs to be > pointed > out. Anyway, it seems like this thread may have run it's course. > Personally, I wouldn't even follow up with this customer since it's > crystal clear what's going on but then I don't deal in circuits that > small. However, one would assume getting tangled up in a mess like > that > when working on the smaller scale would have a much larger financial > impact (not to mention reputation) > > -- > Jesse D. Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > > > On 5/3/12 11:39 AM, "Robert Marder" wrote: > >> >> >> On 2012-05-03 13:12, Scott Leibrand wrote: >>> As I understand it, any paying RADB customer can register route >>> objects for any route they like, as long as no one else has already >>> done so. So I don't think RADB tells you much about the proper >>> holder of a block whose original registrant is now defunct. >> >> Yes, I believe this is the case. >> >> In any event, IANA/ARIN and the other RIRs are the authority on who >> controls a given IP block, not Merit. >> >> Your customer should contact ARIN with proof that the previous org >> still exists as a legal entity and they are the owners and have >> authority to change POC records, and then they should subsequently >> get >> the POC records updated, or if it doesn't, that it was sold/merged >> into >> a new org, and get the space assigned to a new OrgID. >> >> The way I would verify a case like this, since the names are >> different, >> would be to email the Tech POC and confirm that they have >> authorized you >> to announce their space. If you get a positive reply from that, then >> combined with a signed LOA from your customer, that should be enough >> verification for both you and your transit carriers. >> >> If you want to stick to your guns, you should inform your customer >> you >> were unable to verify that the IP space belongs to them, and for >> them to >> contact ARIN to fix the POC records associated with it. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Thu May 3 15:47:10 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 12:47:10 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: <002701cd2956$00f01841$481ca8c0@ocosa.com> References: <002701cd2956$00f01841$481ca8c0@ocosa.com> Message-ID: <517F7519-6F0A-4281-B9A4-C42F69481652@delong.com> I'd say let your customer know that they need to work with ARIN to get their control of the block properly recorded in whois before you can route it. ARIN will happily work with legitimate holders of resources to bring the data in whois in line with reality so long as said holder can document their legitimate holding of the resource. Owen On May 3, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote: > I would have the client talk to ARIN. Also speak with your upstreams. > > Does this client have their own ASN? > > Have your client prove that it's in fact their block. > > Otis L. Surratt, Jr. > President / Chief Engineer > OCOSA Communication, LLC > 321 S. Boston Ave. Suite LL06 > Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA 74103 > > E otis at ocosa.com > O (918) 585-9882 > F (918) 585-5857 > > http://www.ocosa.com > http://myportal.ocosa.net > > Sent from my LG Thrill? 4G smartphone with glasses-free 3D on AT&T > From : John Von Essen > Subject : [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB > > Not sure if this is the right forum, but something came up with a > potential new BGP customer regarding a legacy IP block (1993, pre- > Arin) they want to advertise. This new customer is planning to buy > internet from us, a 100MB pipe. > > Whenever a customer is advertising a subnet that is not directly > issued to them via Arin, we have a process to verify authority before > we allow that block to propagate out to our BGP upstreams. > > Since I dont want to get in trouble with the client, the info here is > fictitious but represents the situation we need help with. Names/IPs > have been replaced. > > Here is the situation: > > 1. The IP block (say X.X.0.0/16) our new BGP customer wants to > advertise is a 1993 IP block, pre-Arin, it is in the Arin whois > database, as well as RA DB. > 2. The OrgID (say AAA) for X.X.0.0/16 is defunct, does not exist at > all anymore. > 3. There are 4 POCs listed for OrgID AAA, 3 of which are defunct and > even labeled as bad within Arin whois, the 4th (Tech POC) is valid, > and the email address for this POC is completely unrelated to OrgID > AAA. This "4th POC" is clearly not associated with OrgID AAA, but > another Organization will call FOO. > > At first glance, when I look at this, I think its a legacy hijacked IP > range. Somebody got a hold of the 4th POC in some way and changed it. > We DO NOT work with people remotely connected to hijacked IP space, in > fact, we use the SpamHaus DROP list and wont route any of those > suspicious IP ranges. This range is not in SpamHaus's DROP list. > > Problem is I am not entirely certain if my assumption is correct > because Merits RA DB shows a different story. If I lookup X.X.0.0/16 > in Merit's RA DB, the resource looks 100% legit. You dont see any > mention of OrgID AAA, no bad POCs, everything in Merit's DB is related > to Org FOO. > > Now, our upstreams all use different mechanisms to verify who has the > right to announce certain blocks. Level3 for example uses RA DB, so in > Level3's eye's there is nothing wrong here. But if Cogent uses Arin's > whois database, then Cogent might refuse it because it cant be > verified or if it is verified its very suspect. > > I dont know what to do here.... All of our other BGP customers have > been easy since they all use post-Arin IP space which is very easy to > verify, this is the first time we've had a customer try to announce > "old" space. > > Any input would be appreciated. > > Thanks > John Von Essen > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnb at infinitie.net Sat May 5 10:21:36 2012 From: johnb at infinitie.net (John B) Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 07:21:36 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: <517F7519-6F0A-4281-B9A4-C42F69481652@delong.com> References: <002701cd2956$00f01841$481ca8c0@ocosa.com> <517F7519-6F0A-4281-B9A4-C42F69481652@delong.com> Message-ID: That is definitely an interesting circumstance that I haven't come across yet. Wouldn't it be pretty simple for them to get ARIN to update their poc in the database for the IP space so you could proceed? John Brancela On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I'd say let your customer know that they need to work with ARIN to get their > control of the block properly recorded in whois before you can route it. > > ARIN will happily work with legitimate holders of resources to bring the > data > in whois in line with reality so long as said holder can document their > legitimate holding of the resource. > > Owen > > On May 3, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote: > > I would have the client talk to ARIN. Also speak with your upstreams. > > > > Does this client have their own ASN? > > > > Have your client prove that it's in fact their block. > > Otis L. Surratt, Jr. > President / Chief Engineer > OCOSA Communication, LLC > 321 S. Boston Ave. Suite LL06 > Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA 74103 > > E otis at ocosa.com > O (918) 585-9882 > F (918) 585-5857 > > http://www.ocosa.com > http://myportal.ocosa.net > > Sent from my LG Thrill? 4G smartphone with glasses-free 3D on AT&T > ________________________________ > > From : John Von Essen > Subject : [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB > > > Not sure if this is the right forum, but something came up with a > potential new BGP customer regarding a legacy IP block (1993, pre- > Arin) they want to advertise. This new customer is planning to buy > internet from us, a 100MB pipe. > > Whenever a customer is advertising a subnet that is not directly > issued to them via Arin, we have a process to verify authority before > we allow that block to propagate out to our BGP upstreams. > > Since I dont want to get in trouble with the client, the info here is > fictitious but represents the situation we need help with. Names/IPs > have been replaced. > > Here is the situation: > > 1. The IP block (say X.X.0.0/16) our new BGP customer wants to > advertise is a 1993 IP block, pre-Arin, it is in the Arin whois > database, as well as RA DB. > 2. The OrgID (say AAA) for X.X.0.0/16 is defunct, does not exist at > all anymore. > 3. There are 4 POCs listed for OrgID AAA, 3 of which are defunct and > even labeled as bad within Arin whois, the 4th (Tech POC) is valid, > and the email address for this POC is completely unrelated to OrgID > AAA. This "4th POC" is clearly not associated with OrgID AAA, but > another Organization will call FOO. > > At first glance, when I look at this, I think its a legacy hijacked IP > range. Somebody got a hold of the 4th POC in some way and changed it. > We DO NOT work with people remotely connected to hijacked IP space, in > fact, we use the SpamHaus DROP list and wont route any of those > suspicious IP ranges. This range is not in SpamHaus's DROP list. > > Problem is I am not entirely certain if my assumption is correct > because Merits RA DB shows a different story. If I lookup X.X.0.0/16 > in Merit's RA DB, the resource looks 100% legit. ?You dont see any > mention of OrgID AAA, no bad POCs, everything in Merit's DB is related > to Org FOO. > > Now, our upstreams all use different mechanisms to verify who has the > right to announce certain blocks. Level3 for example uses RA DB, so in > Level3's eye's there is nothing wrong here. But if Cogent uses Arin's > whois database, then Cogent might refuse it because it cant be > verified or if it is verified its very suspect. > > I dont know what to do here.... All of our other BGP customers have > been easy since they all use post-Arin IP space which is very easy to > verify, this is the first time we've had a customer try to announce > "old" space. > > Any input would be appreciated. > > Thanks > John Von Essen > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 rs at seastrom.com Sat May 5 22:03:22 2012 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 22:03:22 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: (John B.'s message of "Sat, 5 May 2012 07:21:36 -0700") References: <002701cd2956$00f01841$481ca8c0@ocosa.com> <517F7519-6F0A-4281-B9A4-C42F69481652@delong.com> Message-ID: <86397ehxqt.fsf@seastrom.com> John B writes: > That is definitely an interesting circumstance that I haven't come across yet. > Wouldn't it be pretty simple for them to get ARIN to update their poc > in the database for the IP space > so you could proceed? > > John Brancela Actually, that depends on some nuances of the situation. If they're the same organization they've always been (incorporation / state registration not lapsed, continuously in business, etc) yes it's pretty straightforward. If there's been some M&A activity, getting ARIN to update the information is by not difficult, but getting together copies of all the corporate documentation they require in order to substantiate the claim can be a big pain, particularly when there's been more than one acquisition in succession. If this is an attempt to do something that is not quite on the up-and-up, getting the corporate documentation will of course be impossible, and generating a bogus documentation trail is probably some combination of conspiracy and fraud depending on how many people are in on it and what they do. ARIN staff is pretty good at determining the veracity of paper trails with which they're presented and figuring out when things look hinky. Under those circumstances, getting ARIN to update the POC will of course be impossible. -r From mjoseph at google.com Sun May 6 00:12:27 2012 From: mjoseph at google.com (Mike Joseph) Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 21:12:27 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Question about legacy IPv4 and RADB In-Reply-To: <86397ehxqt.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <002701cd2956$00f01841$481ca8c0@ocosa.com> <517F7519-6F0A-4281-B9A4-C42F69481652@delong.com> <86397ehxqt.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > John B writes: > > > That is definitely an interesting circumstance that I haven't come > across yet. > > Wouldn't it be pretty simple for them to get ARIN to update their poc > > in the database for the IP space > > so you could proceed? > > > > John Brancela > > Actually, that depends on some nuances of the situation. > > If they're the same organization they've always been (incorporation / > state registration not lapsed, continuously in business, etc) yes it's > pretty straightforward. > > If there's been some M&A activity, getting ARIN to update the > information is by not difficult, but getting together copies of all > the corporate documentation they require in order to substantiate the > claim can be a big pain, particularly when there's been more than one > acquisition in succession. > > If this is an attempt to do something that is not quite on the > up-and-up, getting the corporate documentation will of course be > impossible, and generating a bogus documentation trail is probably > some combination of conspiracy and fraud depending on how many people > are in on it and what they do. ARIN staff is pretty good at > determining the veracity of paper trails with which they're presented > and figuring out when things look hinky. Under those circumstances, > getting ARIN to update the POC will of course be impossible. > > -r > > Agree with everything RS said, but also worth noting that the discussion of "updating the POC" is somewhat inaccurate. Updating a POC is less important (from a resource verification perspective) than is updating the ORG itself. After all, the POC merely represents who can interact with ARIN (or as a designated point-of-contact for the Internet) for a given resource. The ORG represents the entity who is actually issued the resource and authorized to use it. -MJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgrundemann at gmail.com Mon May 14 10:53:43 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:53:43 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Message-ID: Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still some possible room for improvement: 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously. 1B) Move the Message-ID: <20120514152739.a68f808d@concur.batblue.com> Chris, This is an important topic and I find your latter points to be especially on target. Whenever I raise the IPv6 issue to my customers I get the same feedback: "Yeah - Yeah, we've have been hearing this for years." I believe that it is important for ARIN to develop more of an end-user campaign and in the effort to spell out the impact of lethargy and the failure to adapt. ARIN needs not just to educate, but build momentum with strategic outreach so that IPv6 takes its place on the CIO mandate list. This point is critical and I believe should be the center-piece of ARIN's efforts. Bring on-board more strategic CIO evangelists and have them drive more high-profile IPv6 projects and others will follow. Right now there is little to no IPv6 momentum in the US and thereby little to no CIO mandates for IPv6 projects which means lackluster industry engagement. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games _____ From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] To: ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Cc: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still some possible room for improvement: 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously. 1B) Move the From bpasdar at batblue.com Mon May 14 14:17:08 2012 From: bpasdar at batblue.com (Babak Pasdar) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:17:08 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20120514181708.4db80696@concur.batblue.com> Brilliant Bill -- Simply Brilliant! Anyone at Google biting? -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games _____ From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com] To: bpasdar at batblue.com Cc: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com], ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net], Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:13:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) What we need is a v6-only YouTube or other content segregation that allows those with v6 to get a larger view of the worlds resources in some empathic way. bd On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Babak Pasdar wrote: Chris, This is an important topic and I find your latter points to be especially on target. Whenever I raise the IPv6 issue to my customers I get the same feedback: "Yeah - Yeah, we've have been hearing this for years." I believe that it is important for ARIN to develop more of an end-user campaign and in the effort to spell out the impact of lethargy and the failure to adapt. ARIN needs not just to educate, but build momentum with strategic outreach so that IPv6 takes its place on the CIO mandate list. This point is critical and I believe should be the center-piece of ARIN's efforts. Bring on-board more strategic CIO evangelists and have them drive more high-profile IPv6 projects and others will follow. Right now there is little to no IPv6 momentum in the US and thereby little to no CIO mandates for IPv6 projects which means lackluster industry engagement. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games _____ From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] To: ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Cc: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still some possible room for improvement: 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously. 1B) Move the From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon May 14 14:46:51 2012 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:46:51 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <20120514181708.4db80696@concur.batblue.com> References: , <20120514181708.4db80696@concur.batblue.com> Message-ID: 1. That only impacts consumers an would have no pact on organisations like banks, hospitals, or other general IT organisations. Take for example an organisation like Westfield. That would mean what, exactly to an organisation like that? Very little methinks. 2. Attempting to enlist Google in driving global or nationwide IT budgets and directions makes me uncomfortable to say the least. 3. It's using the stick approach and that stick is already being wielded via a vis depletion of address space. I think the appropriate courses of action are the ones already being taken. There is only so much you can do and it seems to me the catalyst for most organisations will be the depletion. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On May 14, 2012, at 11:18 AM, "Babak Pasdar" > wrote: Brilliant Bill -- Simply Brilliant! Anyone at Google biting? -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com] To: bpasdar at batblue.com Cc: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com], ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net], Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:13:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) What we need is a v6-only YouTube or other content segregation that allows those with v6 to get a larger view of the worlds resources in some empathic way. bd On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Babak Pasdar > wrote: Chris, This is an important topic and I find your latter points to be especially on target. Whenever I raise the IPv6 issue to my customers I get the same feedback: "Yeah - Yeah, we've have been hearing this for years." I believe that it is important for ARIN to develop more of an end-user campaign and in the effort to spell out the impact of lethargy and the failure to adapt. ARIN needs not just to educate, but build momentum with strategic outreach so that IPv6 takes its place on the CIO mandate list. This point is critical and I believe should be the center-piece of ARIN's efforts. Bring on-board more strategic CIO evangelists and have them drive more high-profile IPv6 projects and others will follow. Right now there is little to no IPv6 momentum in the US and thereby little to no CIO mandates for IPv6 projects which means lackluster industry engagement. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] To: ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Cc: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still some possible room for improvement: 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously. 1B) Move the ). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Phil.Mack at controlcircle.com Mon May 14 14:52:39 2012 From: Phil.Mack at controlcircle.com (Phil Mack) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:52:39 +0100 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <20120514181708.4db80696@concur.batblue.com> Message-ID: <94601063F2F6284A9E20EAFCE95CF9B30662D137@CCMAIL.NetworkOverview.com> What we need is the major broadband providers to run 6rd/native v6 in the UK/EU/USA and then v6 might become more than a research network (this is very true in the UK, almost none of them support v6 in any way), their has to be a massive push here somehow. Or we might start to see broadband providers use super NAT or other such horrid tools. From: Babak Pasdar [mailto:bpasdar at batblue.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 07:17 PM To: Bill Darte Cc: ARIN Discussion List ; Jimmy Hess ; William Herrin Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Brilliant Bill -- Simply Brilliant! Anyone at Google biting? -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com] To: bpasdar at batblue.com Cc: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com], ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net], Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:13:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) What we need is a v6-only YouTube or other content segregation that allows those with v6 to get a larger view of the worlds resources in some empathic way. bd On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Babak Pasdar wrote: Chris, This is an important topic and I find your latter points to be especially on target. Whenever I raise the IPv6 issue to my customers I get the same feedback: "Yeah - Yeah, we've have been hearing this for years." I believe that it is important for ARIN to develop more of an end-user campaign and in the effort to spell out the impact of lethargy and the failure to adapt. ARIN needs not just to educate, but build momentum with strategic outreach so that IPv6 takes its place on the CIO mandate list. This point is critical and I believe should be the center-piece of ARIN's efforts. Bring on-board more strategic CIO evangelists and have them drive more high-profile IPv6 projects and others will follow. Right now there is little to no IPv6 momentum in the US and thereby little to no CIO mandates for IPv6 projects which means lackluster industry engagement. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] To: ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Cc: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still some possible room for improvement: 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously. 1B) Move the From scottleibrand at gmail.com Mon May 14 16:03:12 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 16:03:12 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <203A031A-F7F3-418B-8B0E-D452A037719E@gmail.com> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. Scott On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: > > 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to > get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one > maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still > some possible room for improvement: > 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 > and IPv6 simultaneously. > 1B) Move the > 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. > There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: > 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current > state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. > 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs > outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but > are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). > > Cheers, > ~Chris > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > http://chrisgrundemann.com > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From john at citylinkfiber.com Mon May 14 16:18:15 2012 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 20:18:15 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd like to see more outreach. City, County, State gov entities need to adopt IPv6. ARIN can help with this. ARIN should put a program together to touch every single state in the union. Have a State specific IPv6 day, co-hosted / sponsored by the university and local service providers. T From: "Jesse D. Geddis" > Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:46:51 +0000 To: ">" > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >, Jimmy Hess >, William Herrin >, Bill Darte > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) 1. That only impacts consumers an would have no pact on organisations like banks, hospitals, or other general IT organisations. Take for example an organisation like Westfield. That would mean what, exactly to an organisation like that? Very little methinks. 2. Attempting to enlist Google in driving global or nationwide IT budgets and directions makes me uncomfortable to say the least. 3. It's using the stick approach and that stick is already being wielded via a vis depletion of address space. I think the appropriate courses of action are the ones already being taken. There is only so much you can do and it seems to me the catalyst for most organisations will be the depletion. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On May 14, 2012, at 11:18 AM, "Babak Pasdar" > wrote: Brilliant Bill -- Simply Brilliant! Anyone at Google biting? -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com] To: bpasdar at batblue.com Cc: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com], ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net], Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:13:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) What we need is a v6-only YouTube or other content segregation that allows those with v6 to get a larger view of the worlds resources in some empathic way. bd On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Babak Pasdar > wrote: Chris, This is an important topic and I find your latter points to be especially on target. Whenever I raise the IPv6 issue to my customers I get the same feedback: "Yeah - Yeah, we've have been hearing this for years." I believe that it is important for ARIN to develop more of an end-user campaign and in the effort to spell out the impact of lethargy and the failure to adapt. ARIN needs not just to educate, but build momentum with strategic outreach so that IPv6 takes its place on the CIO mandate list. This point is critical and I believe should be the center-piece of ARIN's efforts. Bring on-board more strategic CIO evangelists and have them drive more high-profile IPv6 projects and others will follow. Right now there is little to no IPv6 momentum in the US and thereby little to no CIO mandates for IPv6 projects which means lackluster industry engagement. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] To: ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Cc: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still some possible room for improvement: 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously. 1B) Move the ). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon May 14 17:35:32 2012 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 21:35:32 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: To most organizations there is no impact (technical or financial) to v4 depletion. I think that also applies to State's and municipalities. Evangelizing to them will have very little impact aside from adding an IPv6 address to their source NAT. The organizations in which it does impact are service providers and carriers who rely on address space to light new customers and services. To my knowledge AT&T hasn't lit a single residence or phone with IPv6. Why? I would not generally suggest a stick approach but I think it would be appropriate for ARIN to take that approach to the verizons, AT&Ts, and the cable companies. Perhaps setting benchmarks for such companies as far as v6 rollouts before they can acquire any further v4 space would be the way to go. I think that would have an enormous impact that would have far reaching ripple effects beyond just the carrier sector. It would reach into the consumer sector as well as the enterprise sector. In addition it would have the added effect of slowing the depletion rate. So if the goal is to encourage adoption in advance of depletion the only way, really, to accomplish that is to make the organizations start to feel the effects in advance of depletion. I don't see AT&T (and I'm sorry to keep using them as an example but they're a prime one) adjusting course until there is a real reason to. To my knowledge they haven't been provided one to date. -- Jesse D. Geddis LA Broadband LLC From: , "Yi [NTK]" > Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 2:06 PM To: John Brown >, Jesse Geddis >, ">" > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >, Jimmy Hess >, William Herrin >, Bill Darte > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) If you work against economics, it is going to be very hard if not impossible, no matter how much outreach efforts ARIN or anyone else cares to invest. If it does not make sense economically, it is not going to happen. I am probably just stating the obvious. yi From: owner-arin at sprint.net [mailto:owner-arin at sprint.net] On Behalf Of John Brown Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:18 PM To: Jesse D. Geddis; > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; Jimmy Hess; William Herrin; Bill Darte Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) I'd like to see more outreach. City, County, State gov entities need to adopt IPv6. ARIN can help with this. ARIN should put a program together to touch every single state in the union. Have a State specific IPv6 day, co-hosted / sponsored by the university and local service providers. T From: "Jesse D. Geddis" > Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:46:51 +0000 To: ">" > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >, Jimmy Hess >, William Herrin >, Bill Darte > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) 1. That only impacts consumers an would have no pact on organisations like banks, hospitals, or other general IT organisations. Take for example an organisation like Westfield. That would mean what, exactly to an organisation like that? Very little methinks. 2. Attempting to enlist Google in driving global or nationwide IT budgets and directions makes me uncomfortable to say the least. 3. It's using the stick approach and that stick is already being wielded via a vis depletion of address space. I think the appropriate courses of action are the ones already being taken. There is only so much you can do and it seems to me the catalyst for most organisations will be the depletion. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On May 14, 2012, at 11:18 AM, "Babak Pasdar" > wrote: Brilliant Bill -- Simply Brilliant! Anyone at Google biting? -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com] To: bpasdar at batblue.com Cc: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com], ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net], Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:13:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) What we need is a v6-only YouTube or other content segregation that allows those with v6 to get a larger view of the worlds resources in some empathic way. bd On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Babak Pasdar > wrote: Chris, This is an important topic and I find your latter points to be especially on target. Whenever I raise the IPv6 issue to my customers I get the same feedback: "Yeah - Yeah, we've have been hearing this for years." I believe that it is important for ARIN to develop more of an end-user campaign and in the effort to spell out the impact of lethargy and the failure to adapt. ARIN needs not just to educate, but build momentum with strategic outreach so that IPv6 takes its place on the CIO mandate list. This point is critical and I believe should be the center-piece of ARIN's efforts. Bring on-board more strategic CIO evangelists and have them drive more high-profile IPv6 projects and others will follow. Right now there is little to no IPv6 momentum in the US and thereby little to no CIO mandates for IPv6 projects which means lackluster industry engagement. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] To: ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Cc: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still some possible room for improvement: 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously. 1B) Move the ). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Mon May 14 18:07:25 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:07:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <203A031A-F7F3-418B-8B0E-D452A037719E@gmail.com> References: <203A031A-F7F3-418B-8B0E-D452A037719E@gmail.com> Message-ID: I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). Owen Sent from my iPad On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. > > Scott > > On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > >> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: >> >> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >> some possible room for improvement: >> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >> and IPv6 simultaneously. >> 1B) Move the > >> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >> >> Cheers, >> ~Chris >> >> -- >> @ChrisGrundemann >> http://chrisgrundemann.com >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 cgrundemann at gmail.com Mon May 14 18:23:12 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 16:23:12 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: References: <203A031A-F7F3-418B-8B0E-D452A037719E@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may cause harm. I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." ~Chris > Owen > > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > >> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >> >> Scott >> >> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: >> >>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: >>> >>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>> some possible room for improvement: >>> ?1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>> ?1B) Move the >> >>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>> ?2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>> ?2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> ~Chris >>> >>> -- >>> @ChrisGrundemann >>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com From john at citylinkfiber.com Mon May 14 18:30:20 2012 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 22:30:20 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi folks, IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. When they care, then the $ervice providers care. I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people will really care and FAST. I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 available today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn and WANT IT. On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote: >On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment >>fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >>benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >>just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small >>benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I >>don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). > >You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee >waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >cause harm. > >I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. > >That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 >requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." > >~Chris > >> Owen >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand >>wrote: >> >>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. >>>A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >>>your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >>>overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann >>>wrote: >>> >>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >>>>discussion: >>>> >>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>> 1B) Move the >>> >>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> ~Chris >>>> >>>> -- >>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > >-- >@ChrisGrundemann >http://chrisgrundemann.com >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From james.cornick at jchost.net Mon May 14 18:33:00 2012 From: james.cornick at jchost.net (James Cornick - JCHost.net) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:33:00 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: References: <203A031A-F7F3-418B-8B0E-D452A037719E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3B2C2F3F-427B-48E0-8CF2-B1D7E1C62783@jchost.net> Until more residential ISPs adopt and deploy supported hardware it's not going to have enough market influence to move the translation in a substantial way. I'm sure this has been noted before but figured I'd reiterate. That being said the waiver is good but only natural market forces will really drive it home. James Sent from my iPhone On May 14, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). > > You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee > waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may > cause harm. > > I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let > us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to > end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. > > That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure > cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 > requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year > if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." > > ~Chris > >> Owen >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> >>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: >>> >>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: >>>> >>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>> 1B) Move the >>> >>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> ~Chris >>>> >>>> -- >>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > http://chrisgrundemann.com > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From bpasdar at batblue.com Mon May 14 18:45:44 2012 From: bpasdar at batblue.com (Babak Pasdar) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:45:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20120514224544.e940d0ed@concur.batblue.com> I am in agreement with John's premise, but as it relates to corporate customers. If you can make corporate customers care, then Service Providers WILL care and they will care A LOT. I believe the path to make the corporate customers care is via mobile devices. I see many of my colleagues are of the mind that the consumer will drive this. Perhaps they are correct. Perhaps the mobile device approach will drive both consumer and corporate initiatives and break the log jam. It seems as though most agree that customers (be they corporate or consumer) are the key to a break-through. No? Great conversation folks and I appreciate the healthy dialogue and the varying points of view. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games _____ From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] To: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com], Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:30:20 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Hi folks, IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. When they care, then the $ervice providers care. I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people will really care and FAST. I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 available today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn and WANT IT. On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote: >On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment >>fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >>benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >>just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small >>benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I >>don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). > >You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee >waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >cause harm. > >I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. > >That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 >requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." > >~Chris > >> Owen >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand >>wrote: >> >>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. >>>A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >>>your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >>>overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann >>>wrote: >>> >>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >>>>discussion: >>>> >>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>> 1B) Move the >>> >>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> ~Chris >>>> >>>> -- >>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > >-- >@ChrisGrundemann >http://chrisgrundemann.com >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From otis at ocosa.com Mon May 14 19:09:11 2012 From: otis at ocosa.com (Otis L. Surratt, Jr.) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:09:11 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <20120514224544.e940d0ed@concur.batblue.com> References: <20120514224544.e940d0ed@concur.batblue.com> Message-ID: <9F3473D352617F4BA92C65CAAC98E1AF1FEF31@ocsbs.ocosa.com> It's going to boil down to customers in general sparking this. However, what really needs to /could happen is Service Providers should all join forces and agree to a date they will cease turning up new clients over IPv4 on say Jan 1, 2015. This will force the issue and cause manufactures of (routers, switches, ip phones, etc) that don't yet support IPv6 yet to add in a firmware / software update. This is the only way I believe otherwise you are stuck will wise guys saying, there is still about 50 million addresses left in IPv4. You cannot steer the flock with a gentle voice. I believe the best bet for massive adoption would be the largest cable and DSL providers (first then, medium to small), they won't lose all of their client base I'm sure. Heck, even the media could help with the transition, since they like to blast things. At some point you just have to pull the plug and say it was fun while it lasted. OLSJ OCOSA From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Babak Pasdar Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:46 PM To: John Brown; Chris Grundemann; Owen DeLong Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) I am in agreement with John's premise, but as it relates to corporate customers. If you can make corporate customers care, then Service Providers WILL care and they will care A LOT. I believe the path to make the corporate customers care is via mobile devices. I see many of my colleagues are of the mind that the consumer will drive this. Perhaps they are correct. Perhaps the mobile device approach will drive both consumer and corporate initiatives and break the log jam. It seems as though most agree that customers (be they corporate or consumer) are the key to a break-through. No? Great conversation folks and I appreciate the healthy dialogue and the varying points of view. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] To: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com], Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:30:20 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Hi folks, IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. When they care, then the $ervice providers care. I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people will really care and FAST. I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 available today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn and WANT IT. On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote: >On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment >>fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >>benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >>just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small >>benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I >>don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). > >You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee >waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >cause harm. > >I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. > >That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 >requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." > >~Chris > >> Owen >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand >>wrote: >> >>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. >>>A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >>>your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >>>overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann >>>wrote: >>> >>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >>>>discussion: >>>> >>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>> 1B) Move the >>> >>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> ~Chris >>>> >>>> -- >>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > >-- >@ChrisGrundemann >http://chrisgrundemann.com >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon May 14 19:09:13 2012 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 23:09:13 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <3B2C2F3F-427B-48E0-8CF2-B1D7E1C62783@jchost.net> References: <203A031A-F7F3-418B-8B0E-D452A037719E@gmail.com> , <3B2C2F3F-427B-48E0-8CF2-B1D7E1C62783@jchost.net> Message-ID: The relevance of this is pretty minimal. There is nothing stopping AT&T from putting v6 in their end user pools. They have not done this to date. Today even if you had v6 capable hardware on AT&T's network (as I do) you get nothing. There's no excuse for that IMHO. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC ASN 16602 On May 14, 2012, at 3:40 PM, "James Cornick - JCHost.net" wrote: > Until more residential ISPs adopt and deploy supported hardware it's not going to have enough market influence to move the translation in a substantial way. I'm sure this has been noted before but figured I'd reiterate. That being said the waiver is good but only natural market forces will really drive it home. > > James > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 14, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). >> >> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee >> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >> cause harm. >> >> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. >> >> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 >> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." >> >> ~Chris >> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >>> >>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: >>>> >>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>>> 1B) Move the >>>> >>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> ~Chris >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> -- >> @ChrisGrundemann >> http://chrisgrundemann.com >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 jesse at la-broadband.com Mon May 14 19:16:40 2012 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 23:16:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <38D55ADC-C421-423C-BD13-65C9376D3403@la-broadband.com> I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until they show they are on board is much more compelling. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC ASN 16602 On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" wrote: > Hi folks, > > IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. > When they care, then the $ervice providers care. > > I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people will > really care and FAST. > > I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 available > today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. > > We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn and > WANT IT. > > On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote: > >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment >>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small >>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I >>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). >> >> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee >> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >> cause harm. >> >> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. >> >> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 >> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." >> >> ~Chris >> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand >>> wrote: >>> >>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. >>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >>>>> discussion: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>>> 1B) Move the >>>> >>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> ~Chris >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> -- >> @ChrisGrundemann >> http://chrisgrundemann.com >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 bpasdar at batblue.com Mon May 14 19:24:06 2012 From: bpasdar at batblue.com (Babak Pasdar) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:24:06 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <38D55ADC-C421-423C-BD13-65C9376D3403@la-broadband.com> Message-ID: <20120514232406.83e996d8@concur.batblue.com> Jesse, Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average. The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of the respondents in this thread) are targeting. Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile to be a leader in this space. Others have and most likely will continue to lead on this. When they do, AT&T will follow. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games _____ From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until they show they are on board is much more compelling. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC ASN 16602 On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" wrote: > Hi folks, > > IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. > When they care, then the $ervice providers care. > > I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people will > really care and FAST. > > I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 available > today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. > > We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn and > WANT IT. > > On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote: > >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment >>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small >>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I >>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). >> >> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee >> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >> cause harm. >> >> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. >> >> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 >> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." >> >> ~Chris >> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand >>> wrote: >>> >>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. >>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >>>>> discussion: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>>> 1B) Move the >>>> >>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> ~Chris >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> -- >> @ChrisGrundemann >> http://chrisgrundemann.com >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.cornick at jchost.net Mon May 14 19:29:41 2012 From: james.cornick at jchost.net (James Cornick - JCHost.net) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:29:41 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <20120514232406.83e996d8@concur.batblue.com> References: <20120514232406.83e996d8@concur.batblue.com> Message-ID: <19C40834-AC6D-470C-B564-F5F3B2C71FCE@jchost.net> Can't we just make ipv6 sexy? I know it sounds stupid as it is. But let's be honest that's what we are really looking at. Sent from my iPhone On May 14, 2012, at 6:24 PM, "Babak Pasdar" wrote: > Jesse, > > Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average. The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of the respondents in this thread) are targeting. > > Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile to be a leader in this space. Others have and most likely will continue to lead on this. When they do, AT&T will follow. > > Best Regards, > > Babak > > -- > Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks > (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue > > Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video > > Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games > From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] > To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] > Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400 > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > > I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until they show they are on board is much more compelling. > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > ASN 16602 > > On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. > > When they care, then the $ervice providers care. > > > > I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people will > > really care and FAST. > > > > I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 available > > today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. > > > > We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn and > > WANT IT. > > > > On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote: > > > >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment > >>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no > >>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 > >>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small > >>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I > >>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). > >> > >> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee > >> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may > >> cause harm. > >> > >> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let > >> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to > >> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. > >> > >> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure > >> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 > >> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year > >> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." > >> > >> ~Chris > >> > >>> Owen > >>> > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPad > >>> > >>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. > >>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with > >>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the > >>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. > >>>> > >>>> Scott > >>>> > >>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and > >>>>> discussion: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to > >>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one > >>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still > >>>>> some possible room for improvement: > >>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 > >>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. > >>>>> 1B) Move the >>>>> > >>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. > >>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: > >>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current > >>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. > >>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs > >>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but > >>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> ~Chris > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> @ChrisGrundemann > >>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> @ChrisGrundemann > >> http://chrisgrundemann.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Discuss > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon May 14 19:44:07 2012 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 23:44:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <20120514232406.83e996d8@concur.batblue.com> Message-ID: Lets explore that question. First, my point of reference. I have over 20,000 residential consumers (end users) directly connected on my network. I am a service provider and the owner. I also have an equal number of enterprise and service provider customers but they aren't in scope of this conversation. I rolled out IPv6 to all of my residential users and NAT their v4. I didn't get any complaints about things not working. Tellingly, I also didn't get a single user out of that 20,000 end users that even noticed they had a v6 address. AT&T as well as any other carrier can do this today. The technology to do this has existed for over a decade. I am Joe Blow next door to you. My internet works, all my needs are met, we'll say it's FiOS so it's "fast". What would compel me to ask verizon why they aren't supporting IPv6? Will my internet be faster? Will my internet be more reliable? Will I gain any functionality by utilizing v6? The answer to all these questions is invariably "no". Trumpeting v6 to end users is both inefficient and un-compelling. Again, using Westfield as an example. What would compel me to go to my carrier and demand v6 address space? It's more work for me, it provides no additional functionality in the next budgetary cycle. Why bother? ARIN has a tool (the only tool ARIN has in fact) of setting requirements before assigning additional address space. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is that this tool is either not being wielded or it is not being wielded effectively. Otherwise I would be getting assigned a v6 address by AT&T today. By directly targeting enterprise and end users we would be going about it backwards. I as a service provider chose to put all my residential users on v6 space. The size of perceived nimbleness of AT&T or Verizon is irrelevant. Remember the adage Necessity breeds ingenuity? If they can't get more address space unless they start making concrete efforts to roll out v6 to their end users they will not change their behaviour. -- Jesse D. Geddis LA Broadband LLC From: Babak Pasdar > Organization: Bat Blue Networks Reply-To: "bpasdar at batblue.com" > Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:24 PM To: Jesse Geddis >, John Brown > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Jesse, Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average. The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of the respondents in this thread) are targeting. Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile to be a leader in this space. Others have and most likely will continue to lead on this. When they do, AT&T will follow. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until they show they are on board is much more compelling. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC ASN 16602 On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" > wrote: > Hi folks, > > IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. > When they care, then the $ervice providers care. > > I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people will > really care and FAST. > > I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 available > today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. > > We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn and > WANT IT. > > On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" > wrote: > >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment >>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small >>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I >>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). >> >> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee >> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >> cause harm. >> >> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. >> >> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 >> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." >> >> ~Chris >> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. >>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >>>>> discussion: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>>> 1B) Move the >>>> >>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> ~Chris >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> -- >> @ChrisGrundemann >> http://chrisgrundemann.com >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnb at infinitie.net Mon May 14 19:43:56 2012 From: johnb at infinitie.net (John B) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 23:43:56 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <19C40834-AC6D-470C-B564-F5F3B2C71FCE@jchost.net> References: <20120514232406.83e996d8@concur.batblue.com> <19C40834-AC6D-470C-B564-F5F3B2C71FCE@jchost.net> Message-ID: <748344843-1337039037-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1722523587-@b4.c14.bise6.blackberry> I think if IPv6 was too sexy we might run out!! Lol John -----Original Message----- From: "James Cornick - JCHost.net" Sender: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:29:41 To: bpasdar at batblue.com Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 bpasdar at batblue.com Mon May 14 19:58:35 2012 From: bpasdar at batblue.com (Babak Pasdar) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:58:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20120514235835.7f0ca6a6@concur.batblue.com> Jesse, Thank you for your detailed response. I would imagine the folks you are referencing are not the ones to be motivated to make a decision with IPv6 as a factor. In a previous post I mentioned IPv6 for mobile as being a driver. I think this is a hot area that 1) addresses a pain point for the wireless telcos and by virtue of that it would 2) drive corporations to enable IPv6 to support advanced functionality on their perimeter. Again, there are some assumptions here, but we have to find the model that works and will kick things off. Not every model no matter how functional will be "Sexy" as someone put it. I concur that we need to find the one model that seems sexy to get things kicked off. Perhaps your model was not / is not / will not be it. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games _____ From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] To: bpasdar at batblue.com [mailto:bpasdar at batblue.com], John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:44:07 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Lets explore that question. First, my point of reference. I have over 20,000 residential consumers (end users) directly connected on my network. I am a service provider and the owner. I also have an equal number of enterprise and service provider customers but they aren't in scope of this conversation. I rolled out IPv6 to all of my residential users and NAT their v4. I didn't get any complaints about things not working. Tellingly, I also didn't get a single user out of that 20,000 end users that even noticed they had a v6 address. AT&T as well as any other carrier can do this today. The technology to do this has existed for over a decade. I am Joe Blow next door to you. My internet works, all my needs are met, we'll say it's FiOS so it's "fast". What would compel me to ask verizon why they aren't supporting IPv6? Will my internet be faster? Will my internet be more reliable? Will I gain any functionality by utilizing v6? The answer to all these questions is invariably "no". Trumpeting v6 to end users is both inefficient and un-compelling. Again, using Westfield as an example. What would compel me to go to my carrier and demand v6 address space? It's more work for me, it provides no additional functionality in the next budgetary cycle. Why bother? ARIN has a tool (the only tool ARIN has in fact) of setting requirements before assigning additional address space. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is that this tool is either not being wielded or it is not being wielded effectively. Otherwise I would be getting assigned a v6 address by AT&T today. By directly targeting enterprise and end users we would be going about it backwards. I as a service provider chose to put all my residential users on v6 space. The size of perceived nimbleness of AT&T or Verizon is irrelevant. Remember the adage Necessity breeds ingenuity? If they can't get more address space unless they start making concrete efforts to roll out v6 to their end users they will not change their behaviour. -- Jesse D. Geddis LA Broadband LLC From: Babak Pasdar Organization: Bat Blue Networks Reply-To: "bpasdar at batblue.com" Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:24 PM To: Jesse Geddis , John Brown Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Jesse, Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average. The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of the respondents in this thread) are targeting. Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile to be a leader in this space. Others have and most likely will continue to lead on this. When they do, AT&T will follow. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games _____ From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until they show they are on board is much more compelling. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC ASN 16602 On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" wrote: > Hi folks, > > IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. > When they care, then the $ervice providers care. > > I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people will > really care and FAST. > > I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 available > today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. > > We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn and > WANT IT. > > On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote: > >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment >>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small >>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I >>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). >> >> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee >> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >> cause harm. >> >> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. >> >> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 >> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." >> >> ~Chris >> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand >>> wrote: >>> >>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. >>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >>>>> discussion: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>>> 1B) Move the >>>> >>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> ~Chris >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> -- >> @ChrisGrundemann >> http://chrisgrundemann.com >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alec at ionity.com Mon May 14 20:02:34 2012 From: alec at ionity.com (Alec Ginsberg) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 20:02:34 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with this. Targeting end users will have minimal impact. If you look at some numbers.. What percentage will even understand the issue? Of those that do who will care? For example go to a neighborhood with docsis 3 cable and ask to charge them a small fee to upgrade to pon or active optical.. Docsis 3 is plenty fast for most users. They are going to stop paying attention. Some sort of cutover date say 5 years out with ramped up ipv4 fees each year. In the hosting business there are still companies buying gear that doesn't even know what ipv6 is. Knowing ipv4 will cease to be used in say 5 years would change the mindset of a lot into transitioning faster. /me prepares to get yelled at for this comment. On May 14, 2012, at 6:45 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" > wrote: Lets explore that question. First, my point of reference. I have over 20,000 residential consumers (end users) directly connected on my network. I am a service provider and the owner. I also have an equal number of enterprise and service provider customers but they aren't in scope of this conversation. I rolled out IPv6 to all of my residential users and NAT their v4. I didn't get any complaints about things not working. Tellingly, I also didn't get a single user out of that 20,000 end users that even noticed they had a v6 address. AT&T as well as any other carrier can do this today. The technology to do this has existed for over a decade. I am Joe Blow next door to you. My internet works, all my needs are met, we'll say it's FiOS so it's "fast". What would compel me to ask verizon why they aren't supporting IPv6? Will my internet be faster? Will my internet be more reliable? Will I gain any functionality by utilizing v6? The answer to all these questions is invariably "no". Trumpeting v6 to end users is both inefficient and un-compelling. Again, using Westfield as an example. What would compel me to go to my carrier and demand v6 address space? It's more work for me, it provides no additional functionality in the next budgetary cycle. Why bother? ARIN has a tool (the only tool ARIN has in fact) of setting requirements before assigning additional address space. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is that this tool is either not being wielded or it is not being wielded effectively. Otherwise I would be getting assigned a v6 address by AT&T today. By directly targeting enterprise and end users we would be going about it backwards. I as a service provider chose to put all my residential users on v6 space. The size of perceived nimbleness of AT&T or Verizon is irrelevant. Remember the adage Necessity breeds ingenuity? If they can't get more address space unless they start making concrete efforts to roll out v6 to their end users they will not change their behaviour. -- Jesse D. Geddis LA Broadband LLC From: Babak Pasdar > Organization: Bat Blue Networks Reply-To: "bpasdar at batblue.com" > Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:24 PM To: Jesse Geddis >, John Brown > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Jesse, Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average. The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of the respondents in this thread) are targeting. Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile to be a leader in this space. Others have and most likely will continue to lead on this. When they do, AT&T will follow. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until they show they are on board is much more compelling. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC (626) 675-3176 ASN 16602 On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" > wrote: > Hi folks, > > IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. > When they care, then the $ervice providers care. > > I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people will > really care and FAST. > > I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 available > today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. > > We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn and > WANT IT. > > On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" > wrote: > >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment >>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small >>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I >>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). >> >> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee >> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >> cause harm. >> >> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. >> >> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 >> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." >> >> ~Chris >> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. >>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >>>>> discussion: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>>> 1B) Move the >>>> >>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> ~Chris >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> -- >> @ChrisGrundemann >> http://chrisgrundemann.com >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at quonix.net Mon May 14 20:17:08 2012 From: john at quonix.net (john at quonix.net) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 20:17:08 -400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) References: Message-ID: <201205150017.q4F0H8cA007673@blondie.quonix.net> I've been following this thread today, many good points, and some of these points answer the fundamental issue... Why is v6 transition going so slowly? Its a chicken and egg scenario. The internet is a combination of people who use content (i.e. users behind an ISP), and people who host up content (i.e. servers in a datacenter). Right now there is very little global v6 use. People in datacenters aren't jumping into v6 because very few people are using content over v6. Likewise, even if the end user cared, very little content exists on v6 for end users to request anyway. One of these groups needs to "jump" so to speak. If the top 4 ISPs in the US moved over to v6 - content providers in datacenters would start to care about using v6. But thats not going to happen anytime soon. Here is my idea.... Get more end users requesting data over v6 through v4 tunnels that are built into their operating system and browser - without them knowing it! This will cause a jump start. If the newer Mac and Windows OS's had built-in v4-to-v6 tunneling, and the browsers forced requests to AAAA records, then the worlds content providers would see larger and larger amounts of traffic coming in over v6 and this would cause people to start to change. Just my 2 cents.... -John Von Essen ---------------------------------------------------- >From : Jesse D. Geddis To : bpasdar at batblue.com , John Brown Subject : Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Date : Mon, 14 May 2012 23:44:07 +0000 > Lets explore that question. First, my point of reference. I have over 20,000 residential consumers (end users) directly connected on my network. I am a service provider and the owner. I also have an equal number of enterprise and service provider customers but they aren't in scope of this conversation. I rolled out IPv6 to all of my residential users and NAT their v4. I didn't get any complaints about things not working. Tellingly, I also didn't get a single user out of that 20,000 end users that even noticed they had a v6 address. AT&T as well as any other carrier can do this today. The technology to do this has existed for over a decade. > > I am Joe Blow next door to you. My internet works, all my needs are met, we'll say it's FiOS so it's "fast". What would compel me to ask verizon why they aren't supporting IPv6? Will my internet be faster? Will my internet be more reliable? Will I gain any functionality by utilizing v6? The answer to all these questions is invariably "no". Trumpeting v6 to end users is both inefficient and un-compelling. > > Again, using Westfield as an example. What would compel me to go to my carrier and demand v6 address space? It's more work for me, it provides no additional functionality in the next budgetary cycle. Why bother? > > ARIN has a tool (the only tool ARIN has in fact) of setting requirements before assigning additional address space. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is that this tool is either not being wielded or it is not being wielded effectively. Otherwise I would be getting assigned a v6 address by AT&T today. > > By directly targeting enterprise and end users we would be going about it backwards. I as a service provider chose to put all my residential users on v6 space. The size of perceived nimbleness of AT&T or Verizon is irrelevant. Remember the adage Necessity breeds ingenuity? If they can't get more address space unless they start making concrete efforts to roll out v6 to their end users they will not change their behaviour. > > -- > Jesse D. Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > > From: Babak Pasdar > > Organization: Bat Blue Networks > Reply-To: "bpasdar at batblue.com" > > Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:24 PM > To: Jesse Geddis >, John Brown > > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > > Jesse, > > Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average. The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of the respondents in this thread) are targeting. > > Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile to be a leader in this space. Others have and most likely will continue to lead on this. When they do, AT&T will follow. > > Best Regards, > > Babak > > -- > Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks > (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue > > Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video > > Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games > ________________________________ > From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] > To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] > Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400 > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > > I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until they show they are on board is much more compelling. > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > ASN 16602 > > On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" > wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. > > When they care, then the $ervice providers care. > > > > I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people will > > really care and FAST. > > > > I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 available > > today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. > > > > We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn and > > WANT IT. > > > > On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment > >>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no > >>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 > >>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small > >>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I > >>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). > >> > >> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee > >> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may > >> cause harm. > >> > >> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let > >> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to > >> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. > >> > >> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure > >> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 > >> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year > >> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." > >> > >> ~Chris > >> > >>> Owen > >>> > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPad > >>> > >>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. > >>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with > >>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the > >>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. > >>>> > >>>> Scott > >>>> > >>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and > >>>>> discussion: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to > >>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one > >>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still > >>>>> some possible room for improvement: > >>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 > >>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. > >>>>> 1B) Move the >>>>> > >>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. > >>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: > >>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current > >>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. > >>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs > >>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but > >>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> ~Chris > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> @ChrisGrundemann > >>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> @ChrisGrundemann > >> http://chrisgrundemann.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Discuss > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 justin.oeder at beyondhosting.net Mon May 14 20:33:11 2012 From: justin.oeder at beyondhosting.net (Justin Oeder) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 20:33:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <201205150017.q4F0H8cA007673@blondie.quonix.net> Message-ID: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> Agreed! Content/hosting providers will not make the change until they can guarantee all of their clients will still be able to access their content without issue. ISPs will have to make the transition first using tunnels. Then, and only then, will you see content/hosting providers move to IPv6 only. Regards, Justin Oeder P. 513-299-7108 ext 11 C. 513-432-5152 E. Justin.Oeder at BeyondHosting.net ----- Original Message ----- From: john at quonix.net To: arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 8:17:08 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) I've been following this thread today, many good points, and some of these points answer the fundamental issue... Why is v6 transition going so slowly? Its a chicken and egg scenario. The internet is a combination of people who use content (i.e. users behind an ISP), and people who host up content (i.e. servers in a datacenter). Right now there is very little global v6 use. People in datacenters aren't jumping into v6 because very few people are using content over v6. Likewise, even if the end user cared, very little content exists on v6 for end users to request anyway. One of these groups needs to "jump" so to speak. If the top 4 ISPs in the US moved over to v6 - content providers in datacenters would start to care about using v6. But thats not going to happen anytime soon. Here is my idea.... Get more end users requesting data over v6 through v4 tunnels that are built into their operating system and browser - without them knowing it! This will cause a jump start. If the newer Mac and Windows OS's had built-in v4-to-v6 tunneling, and the browsers forced requests to AAAA records, then the worlds content providers would see larger and larger amounts of traffic coming in over v6 and this would cause people to start to change. Just my 2 cents.... -John Von Essen ---------------------------------------------------- >From : Jesse D. Geddis To : bpasdar at batblue.com , John Brown Subject : Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Date : Mon, 14 May 2012 23:44:07 +0000 > Lets explore that question. First, my point of reference. I have over 20,000 residential consumers (end users) directly connected on my network. I am a service provider and the owner. I also have an equal number of enterprise and service provider customers but they aren't in scope of this conversation. I rolled out IPv6 to all of my residential users and NAT their v4. I didn't get any complaints about things not working. Tellingly, I also didn't get a single user out of that 20,000 end users that even noticed they had a v6 address. AT&T as well as any other carrier can do this today. The technology to do this has existed for over a decade. > > I am Joe Blow next door to you. My internet works, all my needs are met, we'll say it's FiOS so it's "fast". What would compel me to ask verizon why they aren't supporting IPv6? Will my internet be faster? Will my internet be more reliable? Will I gain any functionality by utilizing v6? The answer to all these questions is invariably "no". Trumpeting v6 to end users is both inefficient and un-compelling. > > Again, using Westfield as an example. What would compel me to go to my carrier and demand v6 address space? It's more work for me, it provides no additional functionality in the next budgetary cycle. Why bother? > > ARIN has a tool (the only tool ARIN has in fact) of setting requirements before assigning additional address space. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is that this tool is either not being wielded or it is not being wielded effectively. Otherwise I would be getting assigned a v6 address by AT&T today. > > By directly targeting enterprise and end users we would be going about it backwards. I as a service provider chose to put all my residential users on v6 space. The size of perceived nimbleness of AT&T or Verizon is irrelevant. Remember the adage Necessity breeds ingenuity? If they can't get more address space unless they start making concrete efforts to roll out v6 to their end users they will not change their behaviour. > > -- > Jesse D. Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > > > From: Babak Pasdar > > Organization: Bat Blue Networks > Reply-To: "bpasdar at batblue.com" > > Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:24 PM > To: Jesse Geddis >, John Brown > > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > > Jesse, > > Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average. The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of the respondents in this thread) are targeting. > > Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile to be a leader in this space. Others have and most likely will continue to lead on this. When they do, AT&T will follow. > > Best Regards, > > Babak > > -- > Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks > (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue > > Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video > > Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games > ________________________________ > From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] > To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] > Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400 > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > > I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until they show they are on board is much more compelling. > > Jesse Geddis > LA Broadband LLC > ASN 16602 > > On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" > wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. > > When they care, then the $ervice providers care. > > > > I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people will > > really care and FAST. > > > > I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 available > > today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. > > > > We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn and > > WANT IT. > > > > On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment > >>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no > >>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 > >>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small > >>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I > >>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). > >> > >> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee > >> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may > >> cause harm. > >> > >> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let > >> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to > >> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. > >> > >> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure > >> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 > >> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year > >> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." > >> > >> ~Chris > >> > >>> Owen > >>> > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPad > >>> > >>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. > >>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with > >>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the > >>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. > >>>> > >>>> Scott > >>>> > >>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and > >>>>> discussion: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to > >>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one > >>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still > >>>>> some possible room for improvement: > >>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 > >>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. > >>>>> 1B) Move the >>>>> > >>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. > >>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: > >>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current > >>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. > >>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs > >>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but > >>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> ~Chris > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> @ChrisGrundemann > >>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> ARIN-Discuss > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> @ChrisGrundemann > >> http://chrisgrundemann.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Discuss > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From drechsau at iphouse.net Mon May 14 21:07:35 2012 From: drechsau at iphouse.net (Mike Horwath) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 20:07:35 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> References: <201205150017.q4F0H8cA007673@blondie.quonix.net> <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> Message-ID: <20120515010735.GA5608@iphouse.net> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 08:33:11PM -0400, Justin Oeder wrote: > Agreed! > > Content/hosting providers will not make the change until they can > guarantee all of their clients will still be able to access their > content without issue. ISPs will have to make the transition first > using tunnels. Then, and only then, will you see content/hosting > providers move to IPv6 only. My opinion: ISPs don't need to 'transition first using tunnels'. That's just silly and backwards. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune From jcurran at arin.net Mon May 14 22:47:48 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 02:47:48 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> Message-ID: Justin - Major content providers are actually moving first to support dual-stack (IPv6 and IPv4), and for many of them, 6 June 2012 is the date on which they are enabling IPv6 access permanently - FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On May 14, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Justin Oeder wrote: > Agreed! > > Content/hosting providers will not make the change until they can guarantee all of their clients will still be able to access their content without issue. ISPs will have to make the transition first using tunnels. Then, and only then, will you see content/hosting providers move to IPv6 only. > > Regards, > Justin Oeder > P. 513-299-7108 ext 11 > C. 513-432-5152 > E. Justin.Oeder at BeyondHosting.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: john at quonix.net > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 8:17:08 PM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > > I've been following this thread today, many good points, and some of these > points answer the fundamental issue... Why is v6 transition going so > slowly? > > Its a chicken and egg scenario. The internet is a combination of people > who use content (i.e. users behind an ISP), and people who host up content > (i.e. servers in a datacenter). > > Right now there is very little global v6 use. People in datacenters aren't > jumping into v6 because very few people are using content over v6. > Likewise, even if the end user cared, very little content exists on v6 for > end users to request anyway. > > One of these groups needs to "jump" so to speak. If the top 4 ISPs in the > US moved over to v6 - content providers in datacenters would start to care > about using v6. But thats not going to happen anytime soon. > > Here is my idea.... Get more end users requesting data over v6 through v4 > tunnels that are built into their operating system and browser - without > them knowing it! This will cause a jump start. If the newer Mac and > Windows OS's had built-in v4-to-v6 tunneling, and the browsers forced > requests to AAAA records, then the worlds content providers would see > larger and larger amounts of traffic coming in over v6 and this would > cause people to start to change. > > Just my 2 cents.... > > -John Von Essen > > ---------------------------------------------------- >> From : Jesse D. Geddis > To : bpasdar at batblue.com , John Brown > > Subject : Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > Date : Mon, 14 May 2012 23:44:07 +0000 >> Lets explore that question. First, my point of reference. I have over > 20,000 residential consumers (end users) directly connected on my network. > I am a service provider and the owner. I also have an equal number of > enterprise and service provider customers but they aren't in scope of this > conversation. I rolled out IPv6 to all of my residential users and NAT > their v4. I didn't get any complaints about things not working. Tellingly, > I also didn't get a single user out of that 20,000 end users that even > noticed they had a v6 address. AT&T as well as any other carrier can do > this today. The technology to do this has existed for over a decade. >> >> I am Joe Blow next door to you. My internet works, all my needs are met, > we'll say it's FiOS so it's "fast". What would compel me to ask verizon > why they aren't supporting IPv6? Will my internet be faster? Will my > internet be more reliable? Will I gain any functionality by utilizing v6? > The answer to all these questions is invariably "no". Trumpeting v6 to end > users is both inefficient and un-compelling. >> >> Again, using Westfield as an example. What would compel me to go to my > carrier and demand v6 address space? It's more work for me, it provides no > additional functionality in the next budgetary cycle. Why bother? >> >> ARIN has a tool (the only tool ARIN has in fact) of setting requirements > before assigning additional address space. Please correct me if I'm wrong > but my impression is that this tool is either not being wielded or it is > not being wielded effectively. Otherwise I would be getting assigned a v6 > address by AT&T today. >> >> By directly targeting enterprise and end users we would be going about > it backwards. I as a service provider chose to put all my residential > users on v6 space. The size of perceived nimbleness of AT&T or Verizon is > irrelevant. Remember the adage Necessity breeds ingenuity? If they can't > get more address space unless they start making concrete efforts to roll > out v6 to their end users they will not change their behaviour. >> >> -- >> Jesse D. Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> >> >> From: Babak Pasdar > >> Organization: Bat Blue Networks >> Reply-To: "bpasdar at batblue.com" > > >> Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:24 PM >> To: Jesse Geddis > >, John Brown > > >> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > > >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >> >> Jesse, >> >> Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with > carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average. > The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how > the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of > the respondents in this thread) are targeting. >> >> Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile > to be a leader in this space. Others have and most likely will continue > to lead on this. When they do, AT&T will follow. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Babak >> >> -- >> Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue > Networks >> (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) > @bpasdar : > @batblue >> >> Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security > Video | Cloud Network > Video >> >> Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X > Games >> ________________________________ >> From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] >> To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] >> Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >> >> I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract > for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I > talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have > any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct > benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their > "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the > major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until > they show they are on board is much more compelling. >> >> Jesse Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> ASN 16602 >> >> On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" > > wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. >>> When they care, then the $ervice providers care. >>> >>> I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people > will >>> really care and FAST. >>> >>> I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 > available >>> today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. >>> >>> We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn > and >>> WANT IT. >>> >>> On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" > > wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong > > wrote: >>>>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 > assignment >>>>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >>>>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >>>>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a > small >>>>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, > but, I >>>>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). >>>> >>>> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total > fee >>>> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >>>> cause harm. >>>> >>>> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >>>> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >>>> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. >>>> >>>> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >>>> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial > IPv6 >>>> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >>>> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." >>>> >>>> ~Chris >>>> >>>>> Owen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand > > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick > approach. >>>>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >>>>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >>>>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann > > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 > to >>>>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is > still >>>>>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>>>>> 1B) Move the >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy > IPv6. >>>>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) > ARINs >>>>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years > but >>>>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> ~Chris >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience > any issues. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience > any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Mon May 14 22:53:02 2012 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1337050382.35040.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> >________________________________ > From: Jesse D. Geddis >To: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:35 PM >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > > >To most organizations there is no impact (technical or financial) to v4 depletion. I think that also applies to State's and municipalities. Evangelizing to them will have very little impact aside from adding an IPv6 address to their source NAT. The organizations in which it does impact are service providers and carriers who rely on address space to light new customers and services. > > > > >To my knowledge AT&T hasn't lit a single residence or phone with IPv6. > Uh, y'all are aware of this, right? http://www.worldipv6launch.org/participants/?q=2 You've seen this, right?? http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics/ Just checking to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Lee --? Jesse D. Geddis >LA Broadband LLC > > > >From: , "Yi [NTK]" >Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 2:06 PM >To: John Brown , Jesse Geddis , "" >Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" , Jimmy Hess , William Herrin , Bill Darte >Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > > > > >If you work against economics, it is going to be very hard if not impossible, no matter how much outreach efforts ARIN or anyone else cares to invest.? If it does not make sense economically, it is not going to happen. >? >I am probably just stating the obvious. >? >yi >? >From:owner-arin at sprint.net [mailto:owner-arin at sprint.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:18 PM >To: Jesse D. Geddis; >Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; Jimmy Hess; William Herrin; Bill Darte >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >? >I'd like to see more outreach. ? City, County, State gov entities need to adopt IPv6. >ARIN can help with this. >? >ARIN should put a program together to touch every single state in the union. ?Have a State specific IPv6 day, co-hosted / sponsored by the university and local service providers. ? >? >T >? >From: "Jesse D. Geddis" >Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:46:51 +0000 >To: "" >Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" , Jimmy Hess , William Herrin , Bill Darte >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >? >1. That only impacts consumers an would have no pact on organisations like banks, hospitals, or other general IT organisations. Take for example an organisation like Westfield. That would mean what, exactly to an organisation like that? Very little methinks. > > > >2. Attempting to enlist Google in driving global or nationwide IT budgets and directions makes me uncomfortable to say the least. > > > > > >3. It's using the stick approach and that stick is already being wielded via a vis depletion of address space. > > > >I think the appropriate courses of action are the ones already being taken. There is only so much you can do and it seems to me the catalyst for most organisations will be the depletion. > >Jesse Geddis >LA Broadband LLC > >On May 14, 2012, at 11:18 AM, "Babak Pasdar" wrote: >Brilliant Bill -- Simply Brilliant!? Anyone at Google biting? >> >>-- >>Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks >>(p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue >> >>Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video >> >>Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games >> >>________________________________ >> >>From:Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com] >>To: bpasdar at batblue.com >>Cc: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com], ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net], Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] >>Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:13:06 -0400 >>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >> >>What we need is a v6-only YouTube or other content segregation that allows those with v6 to get a larger view of the worlds resources in some empathic way. >>bd >>On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Babak Pasdar wrote: >>Chris, >> >>This is an important topic and I find your latter points to be especially on target.? Whenever I raise the IPv6 issue to my customers I get the same feedback:?? "Yeah - Yeah, we've have been hearing this for years." >> >>I believe that it is important for ARIN to develop more of an end-user campaign and in the effort to spell out the impact of lethargy and the failure to adapt.? ARIN needs not just to educate, but build momentum with strategic outreach so that IPv6 takes its place on the CIO mandate list.? This point is critical and I believe should be the center-piece of ARIN's efforts.? Bring on-board more strategic CIO evangelists and have them drive more high-profile IPv6 projects and others will follow.? >> >>Right now there is little to no IPv6 momentum in the US and thereby little to no CIO mandates for IPv6 projects which means lackluster industry engagement. >> >>Best Regards, >> >>Babak? >> >>-- >>Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks >>(p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue >> >>Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video >> >>Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games >> >>________________________________ >> >>From:Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] >>To: ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] >>Cc: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] >>Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:53:43 -0400 >>Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >> >> >>Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: >> >>1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>some possible room for improvement: >>1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>and IPv6 simultaneously. >>1B) Move the > >>2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >> >>Cheers, >>~Chris >> >>-- >>@ChrisGrundemann >>http://chrisgrundemann.com >>_______________________________________________ >>ARIN-Discuss >>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ARIN-Discuss >>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>? >_______________________________________________ >>ARIN-Discuss >>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >_______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Mon May 14 22:59:38 2012 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <201205150017.q4F0H8cA007673@blondie.quonix.net> References: <201205150017.q4F0H8cA007673@blondie.quonix.net> Message-ID: <1337050778.11227.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> >________________________________ > From: "john at quonix.net" >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:17 PM >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > >I've been following this thread today, many good points, and some of these >points answer the fundamental issue... Why is v6 transition going so >slowly? > >Its a chicken and egg scenario. The internet is a combination of people >who use content (i.e. users behind an ISP), and people who host up content >(i.e. servers in a datacenter). > >Right now there is very little global v6 use. People in datacenters aren't >jumping into v6 because very few people are using content over v6. >Likewise, even if the end user cared, very little content exists on v6 for >end users to request anyway > > Content wanted to break the chicken and egg dilemma last year and ran World IPv6 Day.? Worked great, and big content is turning it on forever on June 6: http://www.worldipv6launch.org/participants/?q=1 Google, Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo, Bing, Netflix, AOL.? And a couple thousand others.? By the way, you can sign up your own website and your own ISP.? It's coordinated by ISOC. >One of these groups needs to "jump" so to speak. If the top 4 ISPs in the >US moved over to v6 - content providers in datacenters would start to care >about using v6. But thats not going to happen anytime soon. >Next month. >Here is my idea.... Get more end users requesting data over v6 through v4 >tunnels that are built into their operating system and browser - without >them knowing it! This will cause a jump start. If the newer Mac and >Windows OS's had built-in v4-to-v6 tunneling, and the browsers forced >requests to AAAA records, then the worlds content providers would see >larger and larger amounts of traffic coming in over v6 and this would >cause people to start to change. > > 6to4 had a lot of problems.? See ARIN's wiki, http://getipv6.info/index.php/Customer_problems_that_could_occur for example. Dual stack is the way to go, and it's on by default in Vista, Win7, Mac OS X, and *nix. More home gateways need it, but that's why there's a CPE category in World IPv6 Launch. Lee >Just my 2 cents.... > >-John Von Essen > >---------------------------------------------------- >>From : Jesse D. Geddis >To : bpasdar at batblue.com , John Brown > >Subject : Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >Date : Mon, 14 May 2012 23:44:07 +0000 >> Lets explore that question. First, my point of reference. I have over >20,000 residential consumers (end users) directly connected on my network. >I am a service provider and the owner. I also have an equal number of >enterprise and service provider customers but they aren't in scope of this >conversation. I rolled out IPv6 to all of my residential users and NAT >their v4. I didn't get any complaints about things not working. Tellingly, >I also didn't get a single user out of that 20,000 end users that even >noticed they had a v6 address. AT&T as well as any other carrier can do >this today. The technology to do this has existed for over a decade. >> >> I am Joe Blow next door to you. My internet works, all my needs are met, >we'll say it's FiOS so it's "fast". What would compel me to ask verizon >why they aren't supporting IPv6? Will my internet be faster? Will my >internet be more reliable? Will I gain any functionality by utilizing v6? >The answer to all these questions is invariably "no". Trumpeting v6 to end >users is both inefficient and un-compelling. >> >> Again, using Westfield as an example. What would compel me to go to my >carrier and demand v6 address space? It's more work for me, it provides no >additional functionality in the next budgetary cycle. Why bother? >> >> ARIN has a tool (the only tool ARIN has in fact) of setting requirements >before assigning additional address space. Please correct me if I'm wrong >but my impression is that this tool is either not being wielded or it is >not being wielded effectively. Otherwise I would be getting assigned a v6 >address by AT&T today. >> >> By directly targeting enterprise and end users we would be going about >it backwards. I as a service provider chose to put all my residential >users on v6 space. The size of perceived nimbleness of AT&T or Verizon is >irrelevant. Remember the adage Necessity breeds ingenuity? If they can't >get more address space unless they start making concrete efforts to roll >out v6 to their end users they will not change their behaviour. >> >> -- >> Jesse D. Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> >> >> From: Babak Pasdar > >> Organization: Bat Blue Networks >> Reply-To: "bpasdar at batblue.com" >> >> Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:24 PM >> To: Jesse Geddis >>, John Brown >> >> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >> >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >> >> Jesse, >> >> Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with >carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average.? >The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how >the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of >the respondents in this thread) are targeting. >> >> Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile >to be a leader in this space.? Others have and most likely will continue >to lead on this.? When they do, AT&T will follow. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Babak >> >> -- >> Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue >Networks >> (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) >@bpasdar : >@batblue >> >> Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security >Video | Cloud Network >Video >> >> Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X >Games >> ________________________________ >> From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] >> To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >[mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] >> Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >> >> I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract >for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I >talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have >any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct >benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their >"Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the >major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until >they show they are on board is much more compelling. >> >> Jesse Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> ASN 16602 >> >> On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" >> wrote: >> >> > Hi folks, >> > >> > IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. >> > When they care, then the $ervice providers care. >> > >> > I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people >will >> > really care and FAST. >> > >> > I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 >available >> > today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. >> > >> > We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn >and >> > WANT IT. >> > >> > On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" >> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong >> wrote: >> >>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 >assignment >> >>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >> >>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >> >>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a >small >> >>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, >but, I >> >>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). >> >> >> >> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total >fee >> >> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >> >> cause harm. >> >> >> >> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >> >> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >> >> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. >> >> >> >> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >> >> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial >IPv6 >> >> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >> >> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." >> >> >> >> ~Chris >> >> >> >>> Owen >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Sent from my iPad >> >>> >> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand >> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick >approach. >> >>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >> >>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >> >>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >> >>>> >> >>>> Scott >> >>>> >> >>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >> >>>>> discussion: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 >to >> >>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >> >>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is >still >> >>>>> some possible room for improvement: >> >>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >> >>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >> >>>>> 1B) Move the > >>>>> >> >>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy >IPv6. >> >>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >> >>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >> >>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >> >>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) >ARINs >> >>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years >but >> >>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Cheers, >> >>>>> ~Chris >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> @ChrisGrundemann >> >>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >> >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >(ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you >experience any issues. >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> ARIN-Discuss >> >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >(ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you >experience any issues. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> @ChrisGrundemann >> >> http://chrisgrundemann.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> ARIN-Discuss >> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >(ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience >any issues. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Discuss >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >(ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience >any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >(ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any >issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesse at la-broadband.com Mon May 14 23:16:43 2012 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 03:16:43 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <1337050382.35040.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: , <1337050382.35040.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Very aware, thank you. AT&T is still not doing it for Dsl or vdsl. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC ASN 16602 On May 14, 2012, at 7:53 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: ________________________________ From: Jesse D. Geddis > To: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) To most organizations there is no impact (technical or financial) to v4 depletion. I think that also applies to State's and municipalities. Evangelizing to them will have very little impact aside from adding an IPv6 address to their source NAT. The organizations in which it does impact are service providers and carriers who rely on address space to light new customers and services. To my knowledge AT&T hasn't lit a single residence or phone with IPv6. Uh, y'all are aware of this, right? http://www.worldipv6launch.org/participants/?q=2 You've seen this, right? http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics/ Just checking to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Lee -- Jesse D. Geddis LA Broadband LLC From: , "Yi [NTK]" > Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 2:06 PM To: John Brown >, Jesse Geddis >, ">" > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >, Jimmy Hess >, William Herrin >, Bill Darte > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) If you work against economics, it is going to be very hard if not impossible, no matter how much outreach efforts ARIN or anyone else cares to invest. If it does not make sense economically, it is not going to happen. I am probably just stating the obvious. yi From: owner-arin at sprint.net [mailto:owner-arin at sprint.net] On Behalf Of John Brown Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:18 PM To: Jesse D. Geddis; > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; Jimmy Hess; William Herrin; Bill Darte Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) I'd like to see more outreach. City, County, State gov entities need to adopt IPv6. ARIN can help with this. ARIN should put a program together to touch every single state in the union. Have a State specific IPv6 day, co-hosted / sponsored by the university and local service providers. T From: "Jesse D. Geddis" > Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:46:51 +0000 To: ">" > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >, Jimmy Hess >, William Herrin >, Bill Darte > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) 1. That only impacts consumers an would have no pact on organisations like banks, hospitals, or other general IT organisations. Take for example an organisation like Westfield. That would mean what, exactly to an organisation like that? Very little methinks. 2. Attempting to enlist Google in driving global or nationwide IT budgets and directions makes me uncomfortable to say the least. 3. It's using the stick approach and that stick is already being wielded via a vis depletion of address space. I think the appropriate courses of action are the ones already being taken. There is only so much you can do and it seems to me the catalyst for most organisations will be the depletion. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On May 14, 2012, at 11:18 AM, "Babak Pasdar" > wrote: Brilliant Bill -- Simply Brilliant! Anyone at Google biting? -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com] To: bpasdar at batblue.com Cc: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com], ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net], Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:13:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) What we need is a v6-only YouTube or other content segregation that allows those with v6 to get a larger view of the worlds resources in some empathic way. bd On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Babak Pasdar > wrote: Chris, This is an important topic and I find your latter points to be especially on target. Whenever I raise the IPv6 issue to my customers I get the same feedback: "Yeah - Yeah, we've have been hearing this for years." I believe that it is important for ARIN to develop more of an end-user campaign and in the effort to spell out the impact of lethargy and the failure to adapt. ARIN needs not just to educate, but build momentum with strategic outreach so that IPv6 takes its place on the CIO mandate list. This point is critical and I believe should be the center-piece of ARIN's efforts. Bring on-board more strategic CIO evangelists and have them drive more high-profile IPv6 projects and others will follow. Right now there is little to no IPv6 momentum in the US and thereby little to no CIO mandates for IPv6 projects which means lackluster industry engagement. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] To: ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Cc: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still some possible room for improvement: 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously. 1B) Move the ). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Cameron.Byrne at T-Mobile.com Tue May 15 00:04:50 2012 From: Cameron.Byrne at T-Mobile.com (Byrne, Cameron) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 21:04:50 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: References: , <1337050382.35040.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, Message-ID: <1F4ED938D73A4242BBBB1E7DD492EA0C166DE38765@PMBX03.gsm1900.org> C.R.E.A.M. https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch Less talk, more $ Don't forget to bring the RFP. CB ________________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis [jesse at la-broadband.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 8:16 PM To: Lee Howard Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Very aware, thank you. AT&T is still not doing it for Dsl or vdsl. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC ASN 16602 On May 14, 2012, at 7:53 PM, "Lee Howard" > wrote: ________________________________ From: Jesse D. Geddis > To: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) To most organizations there is no impact (technical or financial) to v4 depletion. I think that also applies to State's and municipalities. Evangelizing to them will have very little impact aside from adding an IPv6 address to their source NAT. The organizations in which it does impact are service providers and carriers who rely on address space to light new customers and services. To my knowledge AT&T hasn't lit a single residence or phone with IPv6. Uh, y'all are aware of this, right? http://www.worldipv6launch.org/participants/?q=2 You've seen this, right? http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics/ Just checking to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Lee -- Jesse D. Geddis LA Broadband LLC From: , "Yi [NTK]" > Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 2:06 PM To: John Brown >, Jesse Geddis >, ">" > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >, Jimmy Hess >, William Herrin >, Bill Darte > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) If you work against economics, it is going to be very hard if not impossible, no matter how much outreach efforts ARIN or anyone else cares to invest. If it does not make sense economically, it is not going to happen. I am probably just stating the obvious. yi From: owner-arin at sprint.net [mailto:owner-arin at sprint.net] On Behalf Of John Brown Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:18 PM To: Jesse D. Geddis; > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; Jimmy Hess; William Herrin; Bill Darte Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) I'd like to see more outreach. City, County, State gov entities need to adopt IPv6. ARIN can help with this. ARIN should put a program together to touch every single state in the union. Have a State specific IPv6 day, co-hosted / sponsored by the university and local service providers. T From: "Jesse D. Geddis" > Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:46:51 +0000 To: ">" > Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >, Jimmy Hess >, William Herrin >, Bill Darte > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) 1. That only impacts consumers an would have no pact on organisations like banks, hospitals, or other general IT organisations. Take for example an organisation like Westfield. That would mean what, exactly to an organisation like that? Very little methinks. 2. Attempting to enlist Google in driving global or nationwide IT budgets and directions makes me uncomfortable to say the least. 3. It's using the stick approach and that stick is already being wielded via a vis depletion of address space. I think the appropriate courses of action are the ones already being taken. There is only so much you can do and it seems to me the catalyst for most organisations will be the depletion. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On May 14, 2012, at 11:18 AM, "Babak Pasdar" > wrote: Brilliant Bill -- Simply Brilliant! Anyone at Google biting? -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com] To: bpasdar at batblue.com Cc: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com], ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net], Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:13:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) What we need is a v6-only YouTube or other content segregation that allows those with v6 to get a larger view of the worlds resources in some empathic way. bd On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Babak Pasdar > wrote: Chris, This is an important topic and I find your latter points to be especially on target. Whenever I raise the IPv6 issue to my customers I get the same feedback: "Yeah - Yeah, we've have been hearing this for years." I believe that it is important for ARIN to develop more of an end-user campaign and in the effort to spell out the impact of lethargy and the failure to adapt. ARIN needs not just to educate, but build momentum with strategic outreach so that IPv6 takes its place on the CIO mandate list. This point is critical and I believe should be the center-piece of ARIN's efforts. Bring on-board more strategic CIO evangelists and have them drive more high-profile IPv6 projects and others will follow. Right now there is little to no IPv6 momentum in the US and thereby little to no CIO mandates for IPv6 projects which means lackluster industry engagement. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games ________________________________ From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] To: ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] Cc: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still some possible room for improvement: 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously. 1B) Move the ). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Tue May 15 04:51:08 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 01:51:08 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0A20EE82-E80D-4C66-A4CC-1A147AE53D36@delong.com> On May 14, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote: > To most organizations there is no impact (technical or financial) to v4 depletion. I think that also applies to State's and municipalities. Evangelizing to them will have very little impact aside from adding an IPv6 address to their source NAT. The organizations in which it does impact are service providers and carriers who rely on address space to light new customers and services. You're kidding, right? IPv4 depletion means a growing portion of the internet will be moving to IPv6 and may or may not have IPv4 connectivity. Indeed, there are already end-points that do not have access to the IPv4 internet and only have IPv6. This will be an increasing fraction of the internet from now until the deprecation of IPv4. Assuming such organizations are on the internet to connect to other organizations on the internet, their reach will soon stop expanding and eventually begin to contract unless they deploy IPv6. Why would an organization go to the additional expense of supporting IPv6 NAT instead of just deploying IPv6 within their enterprise and gaining all the benefits that can come from end-to-end addressing? > To my knowledge AT&T hasn't lit a single residence or phone with IPv6. Why? I would not generally Incorrect. I know of several AT&T residential DSL customers that have IPv6. It just started working one day with no real fanfare from AT&T. > suggest a stick approach but I think it would be appropriate for ARIN to take that approach to the verizons, AT&Ts, and the cable companies. Perhaps setting benchmarks for such companies as far as v6 You just named the three residential providers that appear to be making the most IPv6 progress in north America. Taking a stick to them (as attractive as it may seem) would seem counter-productive in this case. > rollouts before they can acquire any further v4 space would be the way to go. I think that would have an enormous impact that would have far reaching ripple effects beyond just the carrier sector. It would reach into the consumer sector as well as the enterprise sector. In addition it would have the added effect of slowing the depletion rate. I'm not sure that any of those three companies have plans to or expectations of acquiring additional space from ARIN. Do you know something I don't about their internal processes? If not, I would say that basing policy, especially such invasive policy on speculation is ill-advised at best. > So if the goal is to encourage adoption in advance of depletion the only way, really, to accomplish that is to make the organizations start to feel the effects in advance of depletion. I don't see AT&T (and I'm sorry to keep using them as an example but they're a prime one) adjusting course until there is a real reason to. To my knowledge they haven't been provided one to date. I think that it is far more important to encourage content providers to deploy IPv6 prior to depletion than eyeballs. If all of the content is available on IPv6, then, new IPv6-only eyeballs are not a problem. If all the eyeballs are dual-stack and most of the content still isn't, OTOH, you still can't deploy a new IPv6-only eyeball without having issues. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue May 15 05:05:12 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 02:05:12 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: References: <203A031A-F7F3-418B-8B0E-D452A037719E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CBDC436-1810-4D8D-85A1-F9217A9BED9C@delong.com> On May 14, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). > > You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee > waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may > cause harm. I would welcome such a problem, frankly. I don't think that the end-user fees ARIN collects amount to much, especially from x-small organizations. Perhaps a $1,250 discount off of your initial IPv6 assignment would be a good start. (Though, frankly, I resent being punished for getting my IPv6 assignment early if this happens, but, I'll get over it.) That way, if you're x-small, you get your first block(s) for free and if you're not, you pay something, but, quite a bit less. > > I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let > us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to > end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. I'm sure John will either chime in shortly, or, have Bob do so. ;-) > That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure > cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6 > requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year > if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." > Agreed. I will point out that some years ago, there was a partial waiver for IPv6 assignments. I only paid $500 for mine at that time. Owen > ~Chris > >> Owen >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> >>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach. A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: >>> >>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: >>>> >>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>> 1B) Move the >>> >>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> ~Chris >>>> >>>> -- >>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > http://chrisgrundemann.com From owen at delong.com Tue May 15 06:05:49 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 03:05:49 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> Message-ID: <95EAA13C-1630-4124-90A3-E2AD1CDEBF0C@delong.com> If the content/hosting providers go to dual stack, then everyone can access their content. This is the only rational way forward. End users will migrate when they cannot get IPv4 addresses or when there is content that they want which is unreachable on IPv6. (This will be much later and probably IPv4 will be deprecated from service provider networks prior to that time, forcing them to IPv6). Eyeballs, when forced to move will be moving from IPv4 only to IPv6 only or IPv6+severely degraded IPv4. Some eyeballs will move early and will move to dual-stack and that is a good thing. However, a drop in the bucket for overall migration. OTOH, if the Alexa 1000 were available dual-stack, that would be a HUGE step towards allowing eyeball providers to deploy IPv6 to their clients without concerns about unreachable content. Owen On May 14, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Justin Oeder wrote: > Agreed! > > Content/hosting providers will not make the change until they can guarantee all of their clients will still be able to access their content without issue. ISPs will have to make the transition first using tunnels. Then, and only then, will you see content/hosting providers move to IPv6 only. > > Regards, > Justin Oeder > P. 513-299-7108 ext 11 > C. 513-432-5152 > E. Justin.Oeder at BeyondHosting.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: john at quonix.net > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 8:17:08 PM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > > I've been following this thread today, many good points, and some of these > points answer the fundamental issue... Why is v6 transition going so > slowly? > > Its a chicken and egg scenario. The internet is a combination of people > who use content (i.e. users behind an ISP), and people who host up content > (i.e. servers in a datacenter). > > Right now there is very little global v6 use. People in datacenters aren't > jumping into v6 because very few people are using content over v6. > Likewise, even if the end user cared, very little content exists on v6 for > end users to request anyway. > > One of these groups needs to "jump" so to speak. If the top 4 ISPs in the > US moved over to v6 - content providers in datacenters would start to care > about using v6. But thats not going to happen anytime soon. > > Here is my idea.... Get more end users requesting data over v6 through v4 > tunnels that are built into their operating system and browser - without > them knowing it! This will cause a jump start. If the newer Mac and > Windows OS's had built-in v4-to-v6 tunneling, and the browsers forced > requests to AAAA records, then the worlds content providers would see > larger and larger amounts of traffic coming in over v6 and this would > cause people to start to change. > > Just my 2 cents.... > > -John Von Essen > > ---------------------------------------------------- >> From : Jesse D. Geddis > To : bpasdar at batblue.com , John Brown > > Subject : Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > Date : Mon, 14 May 2012 23:44:07 +0000 >> Lets explore that question. First, my point of reference. I have over > 20,000 residential consumers (end users) directly connected on my network. > I am a service provider and the owner. I also have an equal number of > enterprise and service provider customers but they aren't in scope of this > conversation. I rolled out IPv6 to all of my residential users and NAT > their v4. I didn't get any complaints about things not working. Tellingly, > I also didn't get a single user out of that 20,000 end users that even > noticed they had a v6 address. AT&T as well as any other carrier can do > this today. The technology to do this has existed for over a decade. >> >> I am Joe Blow next door to you. My internet works, all my needs are met, > we'll say it's FiOS so it's "fast". What would compel me to ask verizon > why they aren't supporting IPv6? Will my internet be faster? Will my > internet be more reliable? Will I gain any functionality by utilizing v6? > The answer to all these questions is invariably "no". Trumpeting v6 to end > users is both inefficient and un-compelling. >> >> Again, using Westfield as an example. What would compel me to go to my > carrier and demand v6 address space? It's more work for me, it provides no > additional functionality in the next budgetary cycle. Why bother? >> >> ARIN has a tool (the only tool ARIN has in fact) of setting requirements > before assigning additional address space. Please correct me if I'm wrong > but my impression is that this tool is either not being wielded or it is > not being wielded effectively. Otherwise I would be getting assigned a v6 > address by AT&T today. >> >> By directly targeting enterprise and end users we would be going about > it backwards. I as a service provider chose to put all my residential > users on v6 space. The size of perceived nimbleness of AT&T or Verizon is > irrelevant. Remember the adage Necessity breeds ingenuity? If they can't > get more address space unless they start making concrete efforts to roll > out v6 to their end users they will not change their behaviour. >> >> -- >> Jesse D. Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> >> >> From: Babak Pasdar > >> Organization: Bat Blue Networks >> Reply-To: "bpasdar at batblue.com" > > >> Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:24 PM >> To: Jesse Geddis > >, John Brown > > >> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > > >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >> >> Jesse, >> >> Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with > carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average. > The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how > the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of > the respondents in this thread) are targeting. >> >> Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile > to be a leader in this space. Others have and most likely will continue > to lead on this. When they do, AT&T will follow. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Babak >> >> -- >> Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue > Networks >> (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) > @bpasdar : > @batblue >> >> Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security > Video | Cloud Network > Video >> >> Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X > Games >> ________________________________ >> From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] >> To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] >> Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >> >> I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract > for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I > talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have > any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct > benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their > "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the > major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until > they show they are on board is much more compelling. >> >> Jesse Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> ASN 16602 >> >> On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" > > wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. >>> When they care, then the $ervice providers care. >>> >>> I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people > will >>> really care and FAST. >>> >>> I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 > available >>> today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. >>> >>> We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn > and >>> WANT IT. >>> >>> On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" > > wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong > > wrote: >>>>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 > assignment >>>>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >>>>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >>>>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a > small >>>>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, > but, I >>>>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). >>>> >>>> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total > fee >>>> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >>>> cause harm. >>>> >>>> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >>>> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >>>> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. >>>> >>>> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >>>> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial > IPv6 >>>> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >>>> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." >>>> >>>> ~Chris >>>> >>>>> Owen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand > > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick > approach. >>>>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >>>>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >>>>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann > > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 > to >>>>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is > still >>>>>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>>>>> 1B) Move the >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy > IPv6. >>>>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) > ARINs >>>>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years > but >>>>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> ~Chris >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience > any issues. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience > any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 dk at intuix.com Tue May 15 07:11:41 2012 From: dk at intuix.com (Dmitry Kohmanyuk) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:11:41 +0300 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <0A20EE82-E80D-4C66-A4CC-1A147AE53D36@delong.com> References: <0A20EE82-E80D-4C66-A4CC-1A147AE53D36@delong.com> Message-ID: <5080B008-C4D5-4A79-90C2-2D9CEFAFA3EF@intuix.com> On May 15, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> To my knowledge AT&T hasn't lit a single residence or phone with IPv6. Why? I would not generally > > Incorrect. I know of several AT&T residential DSL customers that have IPv6. It just started working one day with no real fanfare from AT&T. > >> suggest a stick approach but I think it would be appropriate for ARIN to take that approach to the verizons, AT&Ts, and the cable companies. Perhaps setting benchmarks for such companies as far as v6 > > You just named the three residential providers that appear to be making the most IPv6 progress in north America. Taking a stick to them (as attractive as it may seem) would seem counter-productive in this case. Somebody also mentioned T-Mobile - while being a small carrier, they are going IPv6-native on their mobile network, which is quite hard. >> hink that it is far more important to encourage content providers to deploy IPv6 prior to depletion than eyeballs. If all of the content is available on IPv6, then, new IPv6-only eyeballs are not a problem. If all the eyeballs are dual-stack and most of the content still isn't, OTOH, you still can't deploy a new IPv6-only eyeball without having issues. This pretty much sums it up -- content MUST be dual-stack, customers SHOULD, and providers MAY start migration to dual-stack (the latter would convert to SHOULD and then to MUST as depletion approaches.) Also, point-to-point applications that cannot run on IPv4 can be a game-changer. All it takes is a Skype-alike to make customers demand IPv6. From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Tue May 15 07:49:52 2012 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 04:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: References: , <1337050382.35040.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1337082592.57135.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> > AT&T is still not doing it for Dsl or vdsl. That is not my understanding. http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB409112&cv=801,902&title=What+is+IPv6+and+how+will+it+affect+me%3F#fbid=0Cm9JPhO4kk I know that they have some IPv6 residences. With IPv6 Launch, participating ISPs have agreed to turn IPv6 on by default.? They aren't stopping at 1% (and have to have very large deployments to even get to 1%).? The only things stopping large ISPs from 100% deployment are time (not enough bodies during maint windows, don't want to change everything all at once), and money (specifically, the cost to replace modems and gateways that will never support IPv6).? I haven't heard anything official from Verizon, but other large ISPs are moving. Oh, and as Cameron pointed out, mobile providers are moving, too.? T-Mobile is way ahead in IPv6 deployment, but still needs more handsets.? The others need less buggy LTE, which should be RSN. Content is moving.? Several hosting companies enabled IPv6 for all of their hosted domains last year for World IPv6 Day.? The major CDNs are able to host content over IPv6 now.? In addition to IPv6 Launch, there are some sites showing a significant number of websites available over IPv6, such as http://eggert.org/meter/ipv6.html and http://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/ (check again in a month to see how they've changed). The slow part now is home electronics.? IPv4 is required until Xbox, PS3, Tivo, Blu-ray, Nintendo DSi, and all of those miscellaneous wi-fi devices support IPv6.? Home gateways, in particular, need to be swapped out, and many of them are consumer-owned, not ISP-provided.? Also, WinXP is still ~43% of computers, and unless somebody enables IPv6 on them and ISPs provides private resolvers in private IPv4 address space, they're going to drag the deployment. My thoughts on how to motivate consumers are in www.asgard.org/documents.html in the TCO of CGN paper (and summarized in the slides).? In short, if ISPs run out of IPv4 addresses, they'll have to buy IPv4 addresses or deploy CGN, both of which cost money.? The consumer will get to decide, based on price. Lee >________________________________ > From: Jesse D. Geddis >To: Lee Howard >Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 11:16 PM >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > > >Very aware, thank you. AT&T is still not doing it for Dsl or vdsl.? > >Jesse Geddis >LA Broadband LLC >ASN 16602 > >On May 14, 2012, at 7:53 PM, "Lee Howard" wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> >>>________________________________ >>> From: Jesse D. Geddis >>>To: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >>>Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:35 PM >>>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >>> >>> >>>To most organizations there is no impact (technical or financial) to v4 depletion. I think that also applies to State's and municipalities. Evangelizing to them will have very little impact aside from adding an IPv6 address to their source NAT. The organizations in which it does impact are service providers and carriers who rely on address space to light new customers and services. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>To my knowledge AT&T hasn't lit a single residence or phone with IPv6. >>> >>Uh, y'all are aware of this, right? >>http://www.worldipv6launch.org/participants/?q=2 >> >> >>You've seen this, right?? http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics/ >> >>Just checking to make sure we're talking about the same thing. >> >>Lee >> >> >>--? >>Jesse D. Geddis >>>LA Broadband LLC >>> >>> >>> >>>From: , "Yi [NTK]" >>>Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 2:06 PM >>>To: John Brown , Jesse Geddis , "" >>>Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" , Jimmy Hess , William Herrin , Bill Darte >>>Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>If you work against economics, it is going to be very hard if not impossible, no matter how much outreach efforts ARIN or anyone else cares to invest.? If it does not make sense economically, it is not going to happen. >>>? >>>I am probably just stating the obvious. >>>? >>>yi >>>? >>>From:owner-arin at sprint.net [mailto:owner-arin at sprint.net] On Behalf Of John Brown >>>Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:18 PM >>>To: Jesse D. Geddis; >>>Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; Jimmy Hess; William Herrin; Bill Darte >>>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >>>? >>>I'd like to see more outreach. ? City, County, State gov entities need to adopt IPv6. >>>ARIN can help with this. >>>? >>>ARIN should put a program together to touch every single state in the union. ?Have a State specific IPv6 day, co-hosted / sponsored by the university and local service providers. ? >>>? >>>T >>>? >>>From: "Jesse D. Geddis" >>>Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:46:51 +0000 >>>To: "" >>>Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" , Jimmy Hess , William Herrin , Bill Darte >>>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >>>? >>>1. That only impacts consumers an would have no pact on organisations like banks, hospitals, or other general IT organisations. Take for example an organisation like Westfield. That would mean what, exactly to an organisation like that? Very little methinks. >>> >>> >>> >>>2. Attempting to enlist Google in driving global or nationwide IT budgets and directions makes me uncomfortable to say the least. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>3. It's using the stick approach and that stick is already being wielded via a vis depletion of address space. >>> >>> >>> >>>I think the appropriate courses of action are the ones already being taken. There is only so much you can do and it seems to me the catalyst for most organisations will be the depletion. >>> >>>Jesse Geddis >>>LA Broadband LLC >>> >>>On May 14, 2012, at 11:18 AM, "Babak Pasdar" wrote: >>>Brilliant Bill -- Simply Brilliant!? Anyone at Google biting? >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks >>>>(p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue >>>> >>>>Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video >>>> >>>>Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games >>>> >>>>________________________________ >>>> >>>>From:Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com] >>>>To: bpasdar at batblue.com >>>>Cc: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com], ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net], Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] >>>>Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:13:06 -0400 >>>>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >>>> >>>>What we need is a v6-only YouTube or other content segregation that allows those with v6 to get a larger view of the worlds resources in some empathic way. >>>>bd >>>>On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Babak Pasdar wrote: >>>>Chris, >>>> >>>>This is an important topic and I find your latter points to be especially on target.? Whenever I raise the IPv6 issue to my customers I get the same feedback:?? "Yeah - Yeah, we've have been hearing this for years." >>>> >>>>I believe that it is important for ARIN to develop more of an end-user campaign and in the effort to spell out the impact of lethargy and the failure to adapt.? ARIN needs not just to educate, but build momentum with strategic outreach so that IPv6 takes its place on the CIO mandate list.? This point is critical and I believe should be the center-piece of ARIN's efforts.? Bring on-board more strategic CIO evangelists and have them drive more high-profile IPv6 projects and others will follow.? >>>> >>>>Right now there is little to no IPv6 momentum in the US and thereby little to no CIO mandates for IPv6 projects which means lackluster industry engagement. >>>> >>>>Best Regards, >>>> >>>>Babak? >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks >>>>(p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) @bpasdar : @batblue >>>> >>>>Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video >>>> >>>>Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games >>>> >>>>________________________________ >>>> >>>>From:Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] >>>>To: ARIN Discussion List [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] >>>>Cc: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com], William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] >>>>Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:53:43 -0400 >>>>Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >>>> >>>> >>>>Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and discussion: >>>> >>>>1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to >>>>get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>>maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still >>>>some possible room for improvement: >>>>1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>>and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>>1B) Move the >>> >>>>2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6. >>>>There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>>2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>>state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>>2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs >>>>outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but >>>>are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>> >>>>Cheers, >>>>~Chris >>>> >>>>-- >>>>@ChrisGrundemann >>>>http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>ARIN-Discuss >>>>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>ARIN-Discuss >>>>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>>? >>>_______________________________________________ >>>>ARIN-Discuss >>>>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>_______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ARIN-Discuss >>>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jkirby at datawareservices.com Tue May 15 08:32:28 2012 From: jkirby at datawareservices.com (Jim Kirby) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 12:32:28 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> Message-ID: <8975DE11-E002-4842-AE30-D1537CC91202@datawaresrevices.com> Many of is small hosting providers turned on IPv6 last June 8 and just never bothered to turn it off. -- Jim Kirby Director of Engineering Dataware Services main: 605.336.0820 x368 fax: 605.336.0228 On May 14, 2012, at 9:47 PM, John Curran wrote: > Justin - > > Major content providers are actually moving first to support > dual-stack (IPv6 and IPv4), and for many of them, 6 June 2012 > is the date on which they are enabling IPv6 access permanently - > > > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > On May 14, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Justin Oeder wrote: > >> Agreed! >> >> Content/hosting providers will not make the change until they can guarantee all of their clients will still be able to access their content without issue. ISPs will have to make the transition first using tunnels. Then, and only then, will you see content/hosting providers move to IPv6 only. >> >> Regards, >> Justin Oeder >> P. 513-299-7108 ext 11 >> C. 513-432-5152 >> E. Justin.Oeder at BeyondHosting.net >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: john at quonix.net >> To: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 8:17:08 PM >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >> >> I've been following this thread today, many good points, and some of these >> points answer the fundamental issue... Why is v6 transition going so >> slowly? >> >> Its a chicken and egg scenario. The internet is a combination of people >> who use content (i.e. users behind an ISP), and people who host up content >> (i.e. servers in a datacenter). >> >> Right now there is very little global v6 use. People in datacenters aren't >> jumping into v6 because very few people are using content over v6. >> Likewise, even if the end user cared, very little content exists on v6 for >> end users to request anyway. >> >> One of these groups needs to "jump" so to speak. If the top 4 ISPs in the >> US moved over to v6 - content providers in datacenters would start to care >> about using v6. But thats not going to happen anytime soon. >> >> Here is my idea.... Get more end users requesting data over v6 through v4 >> tunnels that are built into their operating system and browser - without >> them knowing it! This will cause a jump start. If the newer Mac and >> Windows OS's had built-in v4-to-v6 tunneling, and the browsers forced >> requests to AAAA records, then the worlds content providers would see >> larger and larger amounts of traffic coming in over v6 and this would >> cause people to start to change. >> >> Just my 2 cents.... >> >> -John Von Essen >> >> ---------------------------------------------------- >>> From : Jesse D. Geddis >> To : bpasdar at batblue.com , John Brown >> >> Subject : Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >> Date : Mon, 14 May 2012 23:44:07 +0000 >>> Lets explore that question. First, my point of reference. I have over >> 20,000 residential consumers (end users) directly connected on my network. >> I am a service provider and the owner. I also have an equal number of >> enterprise and service provider customers but they aren't in scope of this >> conversation. I rolled out IPv6 to all of my residential users and NAT >> their v4. I didn't get any complaints about things not working. Tellingly, >> I also didn't get a single user out of that 20,000 end users that even >> noticed they had a v6 address. AT&T as well as any other carrier can do >> this today. The technology to do this has existed for over a decade. >>> >>> I am Joe Blow next door to you. My internet works, all my needs are met, >> we'll say it's FiOS so it's "fast". What would compel me to ask verizon >> why they aren't supporting IPv6? Will my internet be faster? Will my >> internet be more reliable? Will I gain any functionality by utilizing v6? >> The answer to all these questions is invariably "no". Trumpeting v6 to end >> users is both inefficient and un-compelling. >>> >>> Again, using Westfield as an example. What would compel me to go to my >> carrier and demand v6 address space? It's more work for me, it provides no >> additional functionality in the next budgetary cycle. Why bother? >>> >>> ARIN has a tool (the only tool ARIN has in fact) of setting requirements >> before assigning additional address space. Please correct me if I'm wrong >> but my impression is that this tool is either not being wielded or it is >> not being wielded effectively. Otherwise I would be getting assigned a v6 >> address by AT&T today. >>> >>> By directly targeting enterprise and end users we would be going about >> it backwards. I as a service provider chose to put all my residential >> users on v6 space. The size of perceived nimbleness of AT&T or Verizon is >> irrelevant. Remember the adage Necessity breeds ingenuity? If they can't >> get more address space unless they start making concrete efforts to roll >> out v6 to their end users they will not change their behaviour. >>> >>> -- >>> Jesse D. Geddis >>> LA Broadband LLC >>> >>> >>> From: Babak Pasdar > >>> Organization: Bat Blue Networks >>> Reply-To: "bpasdar at batblue.com" >> > >>> Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:24 PM >>> To: Jesse Geddis >> >, John Brown >> > >>> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >> > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >>> >>> Jesse, >>> >>> Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with >> carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average. >> The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how >> the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of >> the respondents in this thread) are targeting. >>> >>> Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile >> to be a leader in this space. Others have and most likely will continue >> to lead on this. When they do, AT&T will follow. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Babak >>> >>> -- >>> Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue >> Networks >>> (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) >> @bpasdar : >> @batblue >>> >>> Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security >> Video | Cloud Network >> Video >>> >>> Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X >> Games >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] >>> To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] >>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] >>> Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400 >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >>> >>> I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract >> for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I >> talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have >> any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct >> benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their >> "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the >> major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until >> they show they are on board is much more compelling. >>> >>> Jesse Geddis >>> LA Broadband LLC >>> ASN 16602 >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. >>>> When they care, then the $ervice providers care. >>>> >>>> I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people >> will >>>> really care and FAST. >>>> >>>> I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 >> available >>>> today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. >>>> >>>> We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn >> and >>>> WANT IT. >>>> >>>> On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" >> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong >> > wrote: >>>>>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 >> assignment >>>>>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >>>>>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >>>>>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a >> small >>>>>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, >> but, I >>>>>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). >>>>> >>>>> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total >> fee >>>>> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >>>>> cause harm. >>>>> >>>>> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >>>>> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >>>>> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. >>>>> >>>>> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >>>>> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial >> IPv6 >>>>> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >>>>> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." >>>>> >>>>> ~Chris >>>>> >>>>>> Owen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand >> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick >> approach. >>>>>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >>>>>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >>>>>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann >> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >>>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 >> to >>>>>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>>>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is >> still >>>>>>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>>>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>>>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>>>>>> 1B) Move the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy >> IPv6. >>>>>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>>>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>>>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>>>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) >> ARINs >>>>>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years >> but >>>>>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> ~Chris >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>>>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >> (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you >> experience any issues. >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >> (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you >> experience any issues. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >> (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience >> any issues. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >> (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience >> any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List >> (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any >> issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 jkirby at datawareservices.com Tue May 15 08:42:27 2012 From: jkirby at datawareservices.com (Jim Kirby) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 12:42:27 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> Message-ID: <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> I would argue that the inverse is true: Hosting providers will make the change as soon as they have hosting clients who in turn have clients who cannot reach sites on an IPv4 only network. This is the argument that got me the resources to deploy dual stack at our small hosting company for last year's World IPv6 day. And we left it up permanently: www.datawareservices.com. 3600 IN AAAA 2604:7a00:2:200::110 As Owen pointed out, dual stack is the only real option for hosting providers. And it works a treat. -- Jim Kirby Director of Engineering Dataware Services main: 605.336.0820 x368 fax: 605.336.0228 On May 14, 2012, at 7:33 PM, Justin Oeder wrote: > Agreed! > > Content/hosting providers will not make the change until they can guarantee all of their clients will still be able to access their content without issue. ISPs will have to make the transition first using tunnels. Then, and only then, will you see content/hosting providers move to IPv6 only. > > Regards, > Justin Oeder > P. 513-299-7108 ext 11 > C. 513-432-5152 > E. Justin.Oeder at BeyondHosting.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: john at quonix.net > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 8:17:08 PM > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > > I've been following this thread today, many good points, and some of these > points answer the fundamental issue... Why is v6 transition going so > slowly? > > Its a chicken and egg scenario. The internet is a combination of people > who use content (i.e. users behind an ISP), and people who host up content > (i.e. servers in a datacenter). > > Right now there is very little global v6 use. People in datacenters aren't > jumping into v6 because very few people are using content over v6. > Likewise, even if the end user cared, very little content exists on v6 for > end users to request anyway. > > One of these groups needs to "jump" so to speak. If the top 4 ISPs in the > US moved over to v6 - content providers in datacenters would start to care > about using v6. But thats not going to happen anytime soon. > > Here is my idea.... Get more end users requesting data over v6 through v4 > tunnels that are built into their operating system and browser - without > them knowing it! This will cause a jump start. If the newer Mac and > Windows OS's had built-in v4-to-v6 tunneling, and the browsers forced > requests to AAAA records, then the worlds content providers would see > larger and larger amounts of traffic coming in over v6 and this would > cause people to start to change. > > Just my 2 cents.... > > -John Von Essen > > ---------------------------------------------------- >> From : Jesse D. Geddis > To : bpasdar at batblue.com , John Brown > > Subject : Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > Date : Mon, 14 May 2012 23:44:07 +0000 >> Lets explore that question. First, my point of reference. I have over > 20,000 residential consumers (end users) directly connected on my network. > I am a service provider and the owner. I also have an equal number of > enterprise and service provider customers but they aren't in scope of this > conversation. I rolled out IPv6 to all of my residential users and NAT > their v4. I didn't get any complaints about things not working. Tellingly, > I also didn't get a single user out of that 20,000 end users that even > noticed they had a v6 address. AT&T as well as any other carrier can do > this today. The technology to do this has existed for over a decade. >> >> I am Joe Blow next door to you. My internet works, all my needs are met, > we'll say it's FiOS so it's "fast". What would compel me to ask verizon > why they aren't supporting IPv6? Will my internet be faster? Will my > internet be more reliable? Will I gain any functionality by utilizing v6? > The answer to all these questions is invariably "no". Trumpeting v6 to end > users is both inefficient and un-compelling. >> >> Again, using Westfield as an example. What would compel me to go to my > carrier and demand v6 address space? It's more work for me, it provides no > additional functionality in the next budgetary cycle. Why bother? >> >> ARIN has a tool (the only tool ARIN has in fact) of setting requirements > before assigning additional address space. Please correct me if I'm wrong > but my impression is that this tool is either not being wielded or it is > not being wielded effectively. Otherwise I would be getting assigned a v6 > address by AT&T today. >> >> By directly targeting enterprise and end users we would be going about > it backwards. I as a service provider chose to put all my residential > users on v6 space. The size of perceived nimbleness of AT&T or Verizon is > irrelevant. Remember the adage Necessity breeds ingenuity? If they can't > get more address space unless they start making concrete efforts to roll > out v6 to their end users they will not change their behaviour. >> >> -- >> Jesse D. Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> >> >> From: Babak Pasdar > >> Organization: Bat Blue Networks >> Reply-To: "bpasdar at batblue.com" > > >> Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:24 PM >> To: Jesse Geddis > >, John Brown > > >> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > > >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >> >> Jesse, >> >> Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with > carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average. > The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how > the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of > the respondents in this thread) are targeting. >> >> Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile > to be a leader in this space. Others have and most likely will continue > to lead on this. When they do, AT&T will follow. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Babak >> >> -- >> Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue > Networks >> (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com | (t) > @bpasdar : > @batblue >> >> Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security > Video | Cloud Network > Video >> >> Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X > Games >> ________________________________ >> From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] >> To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net] >> Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) >> >> I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract > for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I > talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have > any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct > benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their > "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the > major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until > they show they are on board is much more compelling. >> >> Jesse Geddis >> LA Broadband LLC >> ASN 16602 >> >> On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" > > wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care. >>> When they care, then the $ervice providers care. >>> >>> I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people > will >>> really care and FAST. >>> >>> I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 > available >>> today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet. >>> >>> We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn > and >>> WANT IT. >>> >>> On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" > > wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong > > wrote: >>>>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 > assignment >>>>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no >>>>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4 >>>>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a > small >>>>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, > but, I >>>>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship). >>>> >>>> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total > fee >>>> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may >>>> cause harm. >>>> >>>> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let >>>> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to >>>> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year. >>>> >>>> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure >>>> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial > IPv6 >>>> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year >>>> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..." >>>> >>>> ~Chris >>>> >>>>> Owen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand > > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick > approach. >>>>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with >>>>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the >>>>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space. >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann > > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and >>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 > to >>>>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one >>>>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is > still >>>>>>> some possible room for improvement: >>>>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4 >>>>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously. >>>>>>> 1B) Move the >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy > IPv6. >>>>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this: >>>>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current >>>>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements. >>>>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) > ARINs >>>>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years > but >>>>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> ~Chris >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> @ChrisGrundemann >>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience > any issues. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience > any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From drechsau at iphouse.net Tue May 15 09:54:41 2012 From: drechsau at iphouse.net (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 13:54:41 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net>, <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> Message-ID: <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> Some have had IPv6 running for a long time. I think one area everyone has skipped is the "cloud" providers. By default most hypervisor management systems do to support IPv6 at all, or the company itself hasn't started the work of coding such. I've seen nothing from Amazon or Rackspace, and vCloud-based providers don't have the pieces from VMware (though vSphere 4+ support IPv6 natively). CloudStack and OpenStack are both lacking as well. (we support IPv6 in our vCloud environment but only on direct connect or external firewall set ups) I bring this up because that is an area where big content also lives. Netflix on IPv6 would create some traction.. -- Mike Horwath via iPad 2, electric boogaloo! From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Tue May 15 10:02:17 2012 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 07:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net>, <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> Message-ID: <1337090537.88295.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Amazon Web Services (AWS) supports IPv6 to a significant extent. Rackspace participated in World IPv6 Day, and offers IPv6. Netflix has signed up for World IPv6 Launch, and from what I hear, they're including streaming. I don't have recent information about VMware or other virtualization software.? Some CDN appliance vendors are behind. Lee >________________________________ > From: Mike Horwath >To: Jim Kirby >Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:54 AM >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > >Some have had IPv6 running for a long time. > >I think one area everyone has skipped is the "cloud" providers.? By default most hypervisor management systems do to support IPv6 at all, or the company itself hasn't started the work of coding such. > >I've seen nothing from Amazon or Rackspace, and vCloud-based providers don't have the pieces from VMware (though vSphere 4+ support IPv6 natively).? CloudStack and OpenStack are both lacking as well. (we support IPv6 in our vCloud environment but only on direct connect or external firewall set ups) > >I bring this up because that is an area where big content also lives.? Netflix on IPv6 would create some traction.. > >-- >Mike Horwath via iPad 2, electric boogaloo! >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drechsau at iphouse.net Tue May 15 10:41:35 2012 From: drechsau at iphouse.net (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:41:35 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <1337090537.88295.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> <1337090537.88295.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20120515144134.GA10054@iphouse.net> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 07:02:17AM -0700, Lee Howard wrote: > Amazon Web Services (AWS) supports IPv6 to a significant extent. > Rackspace participated in World IPv6 Day, and offers IPv6. Netflix > has signed up for World IPv6 Launch, and from what I hear, they're > including streaming. Because *their* website supports it doesn't mean any of the cloud services delivered support it. > I don't have recent information about VMware or other virtualization > software. Some CDN appliance vendors are behind. Management software for the cloud stacks. Nothing to do with the hypervisor itself. Xen, KVM, vSphere - they don't care about IPv6 and things are fine. It is the management applications that don't have anything. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune From jcurran at arin.net Tue May 15 10:58:54 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:58:54 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <20120515144134.GA10054@iphouse.net> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> <1337090537.88295.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20120515144134.GA10054@iphouse.net> Message-ID: <72AC3E41-76AB-4A3B-B92C-2600EAC4A0F8@corp.arin.net> On May 15, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Mike Horwath wrote: > ... > Management software for the cloud stacks. Nothing to do with the > hypervisor itself. > > Xen, KVM, vSphere - they don't care about IPv6 and things are fine. > > It is the management applications that don't have anything. Mike - Do you have a suggestion for how ARIN should respond to this situation? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jake at recol.com Tue May 15 10:44:12 2012 From: jake at recol.com (Jacob Epstein) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:44:12 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <1337090537.88295.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net>, <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> <1337090537.88295.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4FB26BBC.8080009@recol.com> Hello Lee, IPv6 is supported on VMWare. I am working this week on upgrading an ESX 5i host and bringing up a dual stack FreeBSD 9.0 guest for demonstration purposes. This replaces and older Dual Stacked Physical Demo server. I will report my findings when I have completed the work. We have been updating Data Center customers and professional organizations such as Infragard CT, however interest in adopting IPv6 is low. Our strategy for driving adoption is "Future Proofing" applications with Dual Stacked networking. People love the idea, but rather not touch their virtual or physical servers. Jake On 5/15/12 10:02 AM, Lee Howard wrote: > Amazon Web Services (AWS) supports IPv6 to a significant extent. > Rackspace participated in World IPv6 Day, and offers IPv6. > Netflix has signed up for World IPv6 Launch, and from what I hear, > they're including streaming. > > I don't have recent information about VMware or other virtualization > software. Some CDN appliance vendors are behind. > > Lee > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Mike Horwath > *To:* Jim Kirby > *Cc:* "arin-discuss at arin.net" > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:54 AM > *Subject:* Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) > > Some have had IPv6 running for a long time. > > I think one area everyone has skipped is the "cloud" providers. > By default most hypervisor management systems do to support IPv6 > at all, or the company itself hasn't started the work of coding such. > > I've seen nothing from Amazon or Rackspace, and vCloud-based > providers don't have the pieces from VMware (though vSphere 4+ > support IPv6 natively). CloudStack and OpenStack are both lacking > as well. (we support IPv6 in our vCloud environment but only on > direct connect or external firewall set ups) > > I bring this up because that is an area where big content also > lives. Netflix on IPv6 would create some traction.. > > -- > Mike Horwath via iPad 2, electric boogaloo! > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Sent from Home (Mac Pro) Jacob Epstein RECOL, LLC - An Internet Solutions Provider 4 Pin Oak Drive, Branford, CT 06405 phone: 203.315.8130 fax: 203.315.8206 web: http://www.recol.net email: jake at recol.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drechsau at iphouse.net Tue May 15 11:33:51 2012 From: drechsau at iphouse.net (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:33:51 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <72AC3E41-76AB-4A3B-B92C-2600EAC4A0F8@corp.arin.net> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> <1337090537.88295.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20120515144134.GA10054@iphouse.net> <72AC3E41-76AB-4A3B-B92C-2600EAC4A0F8@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <20120515153351.GB10299@iphouse.net> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 02:58:54PM +0000, John Curran wrote: > On May 15, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Mike Horwath wrote: > > ... > > Management software for the cloud stacks. Nothing to do with the > > hypervisor itself. > > > > Xen, KVM, vSphere - they don't care about IPv6 and things are fine. > > > > It is the management applications that don't have anything. > > Mike - > > Do you have a suggestion for how ARIN should respond to this situation? I wish I had an idea! I know I have pushed on my side back to VMware already (we use their stuff all over our network for our customers). But as I said, this is about all management systems for the different virtualization hypervisors. I haven't seen anything in the UI for Amazon or Rackspace (been a while and someone already responded saying that something was done and then referenced worldipv6day which has nothing to do with whether their system supports it for their customers). I know it is not there for vCloud Director (VMware), CloudStack (verison 2 series for sure but no mention in the 3 documentation either), OpenStack (nova and prior, I'm a little behind on the current release). I see nothing from the other large players like Terremark, Bluelock, Virtacore (all VMware based), nor GoGrid, Linode, Slicehost (now Rackspace) either. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau at iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune From jmaimon at chl.com Tue May 15 11:33:58 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:33:58 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <72AC3E41-76AB-4A3B-B92C-2600EAC4A0F8@corp.arin.net> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> <1337090537.88295.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20120515144134.GA10054@iphouse.net> <72AC3E41-76AB-4A3B-B92C-2600EAC4A0F8@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <4FB27766.6090502@chl.com> John Curran wrote: > On May 15, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Mike Horwath wrote: >> ... >> Management software for the cloud stacks. Nothing to do with the >> hypervisor itself. >> >> Xen, KVM, vSphere - they don't care about IPv6 and things are fine. >> >> It is the management applications that don't have anything. > > Mike - > > Do you have a suggestion for how ARIN should respond to this situation? > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > Perhaps we should be discussing what kind of outreach and to what extent, if any, should ARIN engage with community member identified entities that could use some IPv6 deployment prodding. Or perhaps ARIN could limit themselves to being a backstop, supporting information, presentations, compatibility lists, IPv6 deployment awards, etc... However, I am not a fan of trying to use policy as a stick, any more than absolutely necessary. That costs goodwill and willing compliance and that is not in limitless supply. Joe From jcurran at arin.net Tue May 15 11:59:00 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:59:00 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <4FB27766.6090502@chl.com> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> <1337090537.88295.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20120515144134.GA10054@iphouse.net> <72AC3E41-76AB-4A3B-B92C-2600EAC4A0F8@corp.arin.net> <4FB27766.6090502@chl.com> Message-ID: <1AB0005D-2372-4DF0-84B1-FDBA4A5FF0F1@arin.net> On May 15, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > Perhaps we should be discussing what kind of outreach and to what extent, if any, should ARIN engage with community member identified entities that could use some IPv6 deployment prodding. > > Or perhaps ARIN could limit themselves to being a backstop, supporting information, presentations, compatibility lists, IPv6 deployment awards, etc... Both of the above are options; which do you feel ARIN should be doing? We presently make reference presentations, supporting handouts and educational materials available to anyone who asks, and will even coordinate getting speakers (ARIN, or members of the community) for those who need someone knowledgeable to present. Obviously, it is best for us (from a scaling perspective) to enable the community to reach out to others about IPv6, but also do quite a bit of outreach directly. For more information on current resources that we make available, see Thanks! /John From john at quonix.net Tue May 15 12:42:50 2012 From: john at quonix.net (John Von Essen) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 12:42:50 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <1AB0005D-2372-4DF0-84B1-FDBA4A5FF0F1@arin.net> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> <1337090537.88295.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20120515144134.GA10054@iphouse.net> <72AC3E41-76AB-4A3B-B92C-2600EAC4A0F8@corp.arin.net> <4FB27766.6090502@chl.com> <1AB0005D-2372-4DF0-84B1-FDBA4A5FF0F1@arin.net> Message-ID: <98F746FE-F322-414A-8434-103782DD261C@quonix.net> Here's an idea I'll just through out there... There are people (i.e. ISPs, datacenters, etc.,.) who "could" push more IPv6 usage if they were properly motivated. Take me for example, in my datacenter less then 2% of our users are using IPv6. Now, IPv6 dual stack is enabled for all our customers, but just because its enabled and we emailed them the info doesn't mean they'll use it - especially if I am unwilling to call each customer and convince them to start using the IPv6 addresses in a dual stack config. What would make me more willing to do that? Simple. Recognition on the Arin.net website with a "link" to my company. The "link" is key, because that link will help my google rank and get my company more public exposure. Thats enough incentive for me to start calling my datacenter customers and getting their dual stack configs into use. So Arin could run a monthly or quarterly contest to find Org's that have high levels of IPv6 usage. Providers would "enter" the contest and say how people they turned up on IPv6 or converted, how many IPs with live sites behind them, etc.,. Arin would review and pick say 5 winners. Those 5 winners would get profiled on the arin.net website. Now this sort of happens right now with alot of the worldipv6 websites where providers can have their company name and link added as long as they can submit a working IPv6 IP and website to test, but those are new sites and dont carry alot of weight. If the Arin contest placed the 5 winners somewhere in the homepage of Arin.net - that carries alot more weight. I would total pester some of my users to use dual stack v6 so I could win and get that exposure. -John Von Essen On May 15, 2012, at 11:59 AM, John Curran wrote: > On May 15, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > >> Perhaps we should be discussing what kind of outreach and to what >> extent, if any, should ARIN engage with community member identified >> entities that could use some IPv6 deployment prodding. >> >> Or perhaps ARIN could limit themselves to being a backstop, >> supporting information, presentations, compatibility lists, IPv6 >> deployment awards, etc... > > Both of the above are options; which do you feel ARIN should be doing? > > We presently make reference presentations, supporting handouts and > educational materials available to anyone who asks, and will even > coordinate getting speakers (ARIN, or members of the community) for > those who need someone knowledgeable to present. Obviously, it is > best for us (from a scaling perspective) to enable the community to > reach out to others about IPv6, but also do quite a bit of outreach > directly. > > For more information on current resources that we make available, > see > > Thanks! > /John > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Wed May 16 05:46:12 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 02:46:12 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net>, <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> Message-ID: > > I bring this up because that is an area where big content also lives. Netflix on IPv6 would create some traction.. > Netflix was available on IPv6 quite some time ago. Sadly, ipv6.netflix.com apparently no longer works. Hopefully they will put it back up soon. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed May 16 06:00:50 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 03:00:50 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <98F746FE-F322-414A-8434-103782DD261C@quonix.net> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> <1337090537.88295.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20120515144134.GA10054@iphouse.net> <72AC3E41-76AB-4A3B-B92C-2600EAC4A0F8@corp.arin.net> <4FB27766.6090502@chl.com> <1AB0005D-2372-4DF0-84B1-FDBA4A5FF0F1@arin.net> <98F746FE-F322-414A-8434-103782DD261C@quonix.net> Message-ID: <23EB1778-FA1D-486E-9B0D-616E7C0540B5@delong.com> On May 15, 2012, at 9:42 AM, John Von Essen wrote: > Here's an idea I'll just through out there... > > There are people (i.e. ISPs, datacenters, etc.,.) who "could" push more IPv6 usage if they were properly motivated. Take me for example, in my datacenter less then 2% of our users are using IPv6. Now, IPv6 dual stack is enabled for all our customers, but just because its enabled and we emailed them the info doesn't mean they'll use it - especially if I am unwilling to call each customer and convince them to start using the IPv6 addresses in a dual stack config. > > What would make me more willing to do that? > > Simple. Recognition on the Arin.net website with a "link" to my company. The "link" is key, because that link will help my google rank and get my company more public exposure. Thats enough incentive for me to start calling my datacenter customers and getting their dual stack configs into use. > I like this idea... I really like it a lot. (Of course, I might be biased because I think my company would be well represented in such links). > So Arin could run a monthly or quarterly contest to find Org's that have high levels of IPv6 usage. Providers would "enter" the contest and say how people they turned up on IPv6 or converted, how many IPs with live sites behind them, etc.,. Arin would review and pick say 5 winners. Those 5 winners would get profiled on the arin.net website. > Again, I really like this idea. Since we turn up hundreds if not thousands of IPv6 users every month, I'm sure this would be good for us. > Now this sort of happens right now with alot of the worldipv6 websites where providers can have their company name and link added as long as they can submit a working IPv6 IP and website to test, but those are new sites and dont carry alot of weight. If the Arin contest placed the 5 winners somewhere in the homepage of Arin.net - that carries alot more weight. I would total pester some of my users to use dual stack v6 so I could win and get that exposure. +1 These are great ideas as far as I am concerned. Owen (Speaking only as myself and partially in my role as an IPv6 Evangelist at Hurricane Electric. This has nothing to do with my role as an AC member whatsoever.) From greg at zerolag.com Wed May 16 23:32:34 2012 From: greg at zerolag.com (greg at zerolag.com) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 20:32:34 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML) In-Reply-To: <23EB1778-FA1D-486E-9B0D-616E7C0540B5@delong.com> References: <671f8c7f-d88c-475b-9934-0aae724611ab@zimbra.beyondhosting.net> <1E4D9C64-4B4E-4846-B4FE-40FC6715F761@datawaresrevices.com> <16F50CD3-BAFA-4F0F-AB5A-CBED6BBCCE27@iphouse.net> <1337090537.88295.YahooMailNeo@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20120515144134.GA10054@iphouse.net> <72AC3E41-76AB-4A3B-B92C-2600EAC4A0F8@corp.arin.net> <4FB27766.6090502@chl.com> <1AB0005D-2372-4DF0-84B1-FDBA4A5FF0F1@arin.net> <98F746FE-F322-414A-8434-103782DD261C@quonix.net> <23EB1778-FA1D-486E-9B0D-616E7C0540B5@delong.com> Message-ID: <20120517033234.GG31328@zerolag.com> I agree with all of this except limiting it to 5. Id suggest the first movers, the nimble, should get the profile. On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:00:50AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On May 15, 2012, at 9:42 AM, John Von Essen wrote: > > > Here's an idea I'll just through out there... > > > > There are people (i.e. ISPs, datacenters, etc.,.) who "could" push more IPv6 usage if they were properly motivated. Take me for example, in my datacenter less then 2% of our users are using IPv6. Now, IPv6 dual stack is enabled for all our customers, but just because its enabled and we emailed them the info doesn't mean they'll use it - especially if I am unwilling to call each customer and convince them to start using the IPv6 addresses in a dual stack config. > > > > What would make me more willing to do that? > > > > Simple. Recognition on the Arin.net website with a "link" to my company. The "link" is key, because that link will help my google rank and get my company more public exposure. Thats enough incentive for me to start calling my datacenter customers and getting their dual stack configs into use. > > > > I like this idea... I really like it a lot. (Of course, I might be biased because I think my company would be well represented in such links). > > > So Arin could run a monthly or quarterly contest to find Org's that have high levels of IPv6 usage. Providers would "enter" the contest and say how people they turned up on IPv6 or converted, how many IPs with live sites behind them, etc.,. Arin would review and pick say 5 winners. Those 5 winners would get profiled on the arin.net website. > > > > Again, I really like this idea. Since we turn up hundreds if not thousands of IPv6 users every month, I'm sure this would be good for us. > > > Now this sort of happens right now with alot of the worldipv6 websites where providers can have their company name and link added as long as they can submit a working IPv6 IP and website to test, but those are new sites and dont carry alot of weight. If the Arin contest placed the 5 winners somewhere in the homepage of Arin.net - that carries alot more weight. I would total pester some of my users to use dual stack v6 so I could win and get that exposure. > > +1 > > These are great ideas as far as I am concerned. > > Owen > (Speaking only as myself and partially in my role as an IPv6 Evangelist at Hurricane Electric. This has nothing to do with my role as an AC member whatsoever.) > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Greg Strelzoff Office:(310) 306 7333 Cell: (310) 714 6217 Fax: (310) 919 3120 Skype: Greg.Strelzoff One of the first hosting companies on the planet to support IPv6: http://www.zerolag.com/ipv6/