From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Jan 6 15:31:08 2003 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:31:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees Message-ID: <200301062031.PAA16459@ops.arin.net> During its November 17, 2002, meeting the ARIN Board of Trustees extended the waiver of fees for the allocation of IPv6 address space to current IPv4 subscribers from January 1, 2003 until either such time as December 31, 2003 or a new IPv6 fee schedule is published, whichever occurs first. The ARIN Board of Trustees also extended the waiver of additional fees that would otherwise be assessed based on the larger initial amount of IPv6 address space from January 1, 2003 until either such time as December 31, 2003 or a new IPv6 fee schedule is published, whichever occurs first. The Board meeting minutes can be viewed at: http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot2002_1117.html Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Jan 6 15:28:55 2003 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:28:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] New Policies Ratified Message-ID: <200301062028.PAA15628@ops.arin.net> Two new policies have been ratified in the ARIN region and were implemented on January 1, 2003: Policy 2002-1 Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_1.html Policy 2002-4 Bulk Copies of ARIN's WHOIS http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_4.html These policies were created in accordance with ARIN's Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process. Information about ARIN's Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process is available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Jan 6 15:29:48 2003 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:29:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IP and AS Number Transfer Fees Message-ID: <200301062029.PAA15724@ops.arin.net> During its November 17, 2002, meeting the ARIN Board of Trustees approved a motion to waive the fees for the transfer of AS Numbers and IP addresses for the period extending from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. The Board meeting minutes can be viewed at: http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot2002_1117.html The ARIN Board had previously waived these fees for the period extending from July 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002, as a means of encouraging subscribers to participate in database cleanup. Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From baptista at dot-god.com Mon Jan 6 16:33:34 2003 From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:33:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: <200301062031.PAA16459@ops.arin.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Member Services wrote: > During its November 17, 2002, meeting the ARIN Board of Trustees > extended the waiver of fees for the allocation of IPv6 address > space to current IPv4 subscribers from January 1, 2003 until > either such time as December 31, 2003 or a new IPv6 fee schedule > is published, whichever occurs first. Completely understandable - no one seems to want them. Maybe you should consider giving them away for as long as it takes to make IPv6 viable. Also - i understand a number of IPv4 subscibers who's original allocation was from the canadian registry have had their requests for free IPv6 turned down. Maybe that situation should be reviewed. And last of all - just give them away to anyone who wants them. No need to be a subscriber. You might find they'll move faster that way. regards joe baptista From woody at pch.net Mon Jan 6 16:57:59 2003 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:57:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > And last of all - just give them away to anyone who wants them. No need > to be a subscriber. You might find they'll move faster that way. Yeah, I think that if there were some sort of no-recurring-fees-for-early-adopters sort of thing it would get things moving a little more... Honestly, the way it worked with IPv4 was that the addresses got into the hands of the _individuals_ who were smart enough to do something with them, and then the individuals pushed them into companies and service providers. If we don't have some way for smart people (not corporations with budgets) to get v6 address space, we stay stuck in the chicken-and-egg position. This doesn't decrease RR revenues, since the people who'd pick up address space that way wouldn't be dues-payers otherwise. I mean, imagine a situation where a smart person's alternative to running a NAT on their home DSL was to run v6 behind their home DSL. That would get things moving. -Bill From john at chagres.net Mon Jan 6 17:28:10 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:28:10 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001d01c2b5d2$e5339dc0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Oh, but then you will have the "Sky is Falling", lets not make the same mistake and have swamp space issues. :) :) :( Personally, I'd like to have a small "public" prefix. Then I would bring up v6 services on various machines and start doing testing, knowledge growth, and helping others deploy. A /35 or similar and I'd never need space again.... Bill, since you are now a BOT, and the BOT is clearly the place where things happen within ARIN, maybe we can see some clarity happen..... John Brown Former Member of the ARIN AC > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Bill Woodcock > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 2:58 PM > To: Joe Baptista > Cc: Member Services; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > > And last of all - just give them away to anyone who > wants them. No need > > to be a subscriber. You might find they'll move faster > that way. > > Yeah, I think that if there were some sort of > no-recurring-fees-for-early-adopters sort of thing it would > get things moving a little more... Honestly, the way it > worked with IPv4 was that the addresses got into the hands of > the _individuals_ who were smart enough to do something with > them, and then the individuals pushed them into companies and > service providers. > > If we don't have some way for smart people (not corporations > with budgets) to get v6 address space, we stay stuck in the > chicken-and-egg position. > > This doesn't decrease RR revenues, since the people who'd > pick up address space that way wouldn't be dues-payers otherwise. > > I mean, imagine a situation where a smart person's > alternative to running a NAT on their home DSL was to run v6 > behind their home DSL. That would get things moving. > > -Bill > > From william at elan.net Mon Jan 6 18:00:00 2003 From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:00:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That is what 6bone was for - to help indviduals develop new protocol and adapt it. Its unfortunate it was decided to discontinue the project, instead RIRs should have donated some resources to keep it running. What should have been done is to have RIRs allocate special block (from each RIRs allocation) to 6bone and have 6bone then allocate to individuals from it with 6bone becoming LIR for all practical purposes. Its possible RIRs could have also acted as agents for allocation purposes on behalf of 6bone but I do not believe RIRs should directly be allocating in the same manner swamp space was allocated by internic before. And even now I think RIRs (ARIN in particular, RIPE and APNIC are already doing some) should do more to get involved in encoraging adoptations of ipv6. Instead of trying to decide what schedule to adopt, ARIN should instead be using ipv4 money to compensate (up to some set amount that ARIN board should decide on) ipv6 related expenses (which I do not think are large at all) and not only that but to encorage companies to use ipv6 (i.e. for example send letters or brochures to members & subscribers about availability of ipv6 and need to change to new ip standards for future, etc). What is being done now with extension of no charges for ipv6 is good, but the way it sounds is "we do it free for now, but just wait couple more months and we'll be happy to charge you for it". And remember - it will not matter what schedule you adopt, in reality ipv6 will be flat-rate for all practical purposes. Even now ARIN says they get over 80% of revenue from smallest ip blocks - just imagine what this number will be when ipv6 is used commercially everywhere! On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > And last of all - just give them away to anyone who wants them. No need > > to be a subscriber. You might find they'll move faster that way. > > Yeah, I think that if there were some sort of > no-recurring-fees-for-early-adopters sort of thing it would get things > moving a little more... Honestly, the way it worked with IPv4 was that > the addresses got into the hands of the _individuals_ who were smart > enough to do something with them, and then the individuals pushed them > into companies and service providers. > > If we don't have some way for smart people (not corporations with budgets) > to get v6 address space, we stay stuck in the chicken-and-egg position. > > This doesn't decrease RR revenues, since the people who'd pick up address > space that way wouldn't be dues-payers otherwise. > > I mean, imagine a situation where a smart person's alternative to running > a NAT on their home DSL was to run v6 behind their home DSL. That would > get things moving. > > -Bill > > From william at elan.net Mon Jan 6 18:12:52 2003 From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:12:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock is proposing, I just think it should have been done slightly differently. But if nothing else, doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small or no charge to encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be clear from the start that such allocations would be temporary and not like swamp space... On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 william at elan.net wrote: > That is what 6bone was for - to help indviduals develop new protocol and > adapt it. Its unfortunate it was decided to discontinue the project, > instead RIRs should have donated some resources to keep it running. > What should have been done is to have RIRs allocate special block (from > each RIRs allocation) to 6bone and have 6bone then allocate to individuals > from it with 6bone becoming LIR for all practical purposes. Its possible > RIRs could have also acted as agents for allocation purposes on behalf of > 6bone but I do not believe RIRs should directly be allocating in the same > manner swamp space was allocated by internic before. > > And even now I think RIRs (ARIN in particular, RIPE and APNIC are already > doing some) should do more to get involved in encoraging adoptations of > ipv6. Instead of trying to decide what schedule to adopt, ARIN should > instead be using ipv4 money to compensate (up to some set amount that > ARIN board should decide on) ipv6 related expenses (which I do not think > are large at all) and not only that but to encorage companies to use ipv6 > (i.e. for example send letters or brochures to members & subscribers > about availability of ipv6 and need to change to new ip standards for > future, etc). What is being done now with extension of no charges for > ipv6 is good, but the way it sounds is "we do it free for now, but just > wait couple more months and we'll be happy to charge you for it". > > And remember - it will not matter what schedule you adopt, in reality > ipv6 will be flat-rate for all practical purposes. Even now ARIN says they > get over 80% of revenue from smallest ip blocks - just imagine what this > number will be when ipv6 is used commercially everywhere! > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > > And last of all - just give them away to anyone who wants them. No need > > > to be a subscriber. You might find they'll move faster that way. > > > > Yeah, I think that if there were some sort of > > no-recurring-fees-for-early-adopters sort of thing it would get things > > moving a little more... Honestly, the way it worked with IPv4 was that > > the addresses got into the hands of the _individuals_ who were smart > > enough to do something with them, and then the individuals pushed them > > into companies and service providers. > > > > If we don't have some way for smart people (not corporations with budgets) > > to get v6 address space, we stay stuck in the chicken-and-egg position. > > > > This doesn't decrease RR revenues, since the people who'd pick up address > > space that way wouldn't be dues-payers otherwise. > > > > I mean, imagine a situation where a smart person's alternative to running > > a NAT on their home DSL was to run v6 behind their home DSL. That would > > get things moving. > > > > -Bill > > From woody at pch.net Mon Jan 6 18:49:51 2003 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:49:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock is proposing, I just > think it should have been done slightly differently. But if nothing else, > doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small or no charge to > encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be clear from the > start that such allocations would be temporary and not like swamp space... I'm not for temporary. I think that's exactly the problem we have now. Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it going, because they know that success means that they have to start paying someone else for the privelege of using what they just built. That's not the way things get done on the Internet. -Bill From baptista at dot-god.com Mon Jan 6 20:03:56 2003 From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 20:03:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote: > I'm not for temporary. I think that's exactly the problem we have now. > Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it going, because they > know that success means that they have to start paying someone else for > the privelege of using what they just built. That's not the way things > get done on the Internet. Agreed - anyone who has had to renumber understands the horror of temporary. From john at chagres.net Mon Jan 6 20:53:58 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:53:58 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001b01c2b5ef$a4d09720$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> you are asking ARIN to become more involved with their membership community. Not something I see them doing any time soon. This was weakly attempted by the AC and via CLEW, but did not receive "support" from the membership, nor was it actively pushed by ARIN management, the AC, or the BOT. CLEW was a good idea and could have provided resources to help get IPv6 up and going. When I was an AC member (before I resigned in disgust), I tried to help promote CLEW or similar as a way of providing more technical training programs, similar to the way RIPE does. Deaf ears was the result. John Brown Former ARIN AC Member > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of william at elan.net > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:00 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > That is what 6bone was for - to help indviduals develop new > protocol and > adapt it. Its unfortunate it was decided to discontinue the project, > instead RIRs should have donated some resources to keep it > running. What should have been done is to have RIRs allocate > special block (from > each RIRs allocation) to 6bone and have 6bone then allocate > to individuals from it with 6bone becoming LIR for all > practical purposes. Its possible > RIRs could have also acted as agents for allocation purposes > on behalf of > 6bone but I do not believe RIRs should directly be allocating > in the same > manner swamp space was allocated by internic before. > > And even now I think RIRs (ARIN in particular, RIPE and APNIC > are already > doing some) should do more to get involved in encoraging > adoptations of > ipv6. Instead of trying to decide what schedule to adopt, ARIN should > instead be using ipv4 money to compensate (up to some set amount that > ARIN board should decide on) ipv6 related expenses (which I > do not think > are large at all) and not only that but to encorage companies > to use ipv6 > (i.e. for example send letters or brochures to members & subscribers > about availability of ipv6 and need to change to new ip standards for > future, etc). What is being done now with extension of no charges for > ipv6 is good, but the way it sounds is "we do it free for > now, but just > wait couple more months and we'll be happy to charge you for it". > > And remember - it will not matter what schedule you adopt, > in reality > ipv6 will be flat-rate for all practical purposes. Even now > ARIN says they > get over 80% of revenue from smallest ip blocks - just > imagine what this > number will be when ipv6 is used commercially everywhere! > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > > And last of all - just give them away to anyone who > wants them. No need > > > to be a subscriber. You might find they'll move faster that > > way. > > > > Yeah, I think that if there were some sort of > > no-recurring-fees-for-early-adopters sort of thing it would > get things > > moving a little more... Honestly, the way it worked with IPv4 was > > that the addresses got into the hands of the _individuals_ who were > > smart enough to do something with them, and then the individuals > > pushed them into companies and service providers. > > > > If we don't have some way for smart people (not corporations with > > budgets) to get v6 address space, we stay stuck in the > chicken-and-egg > > position. > > > > This doesn't decrease RR revenues, since the people who'd pick up > > address space that way wouldn't be dues-payers otherwise. > > > > I mean, imagine a situation where a smart person's alternative to > > running a NAT on their home DSL was to run v6 behind their > home DSL. > > That would get things moving. > > > > -Bill > > > > > > From john at chagres.net Mon Jan 6 20:58:34 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:58:34 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001c01c2b5f0$4a0cda50$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> what is temporary ?? why temporary ?? why not allow 6BONE to continue ?? Current policy prevents end user orgs to get v6 space. Calling my local Verio, UUNET, Sprint providers resulted in a great big HUH, when I asked them for IPv6 space, and a further HUH, when I asked them to provide a native IPv6 connection... Given that the "core" isn't selling access to IPv6 the edge isn't going to start using it anytime soon. But, if the Edge could get IPv6 space then we may see more people wanting to use the space, and this would create a market for transit vendors to sell v6 based connectivity or services. We have the great chicken and egg, neither are hatching in ARIN space at this time. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of william at elan.net > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:13 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock is > proposing, I just > think it should have been done slightly differently. But if > nothing else, > doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small or no charge to > encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be clear > from the > start that such allocations would be temporary and not like > swamp space... > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 william at elan.net wrote: > > > That is what 6bone was for - to help indviduals develop new > protocol > > and > > adapt it. Its unfortunate it was decided to discontinue the > project, > > instead RIRs should have donated some resources to keep it running. > > What should have been done is to have RIRs allocate special > block (from > > each RIRs allocation) to 6bone and have 6bone then allocate > to individuals > > from it with 6bone becoming LIR for all practical purposes. > Its possible > > RIRs could have also acted as agents for allocation > purposes on behalf of > > 6bone but I do not believe RIRs should directly be > allocating in the same > > manner swamp space was allocated by internic before. > > > > And even now I think RIRs (ARIN in particular, RIPE and APNIC are > > already > > doing some) should do more to get involved in encoraging > adoptations of > > ipv6. Instead of trying to decide what schedule to adopt, > ARIN should > > instead be using ipv4 money to compensate (up to some set > amount that > > ARIN board should decide on) ipv6 related expenses (which I > do not think > > are large at all) and not only that but to encorage > companies to use ipv6 > > (i.e. for example send letters or brochures to members & > subscribers > > about availability of ipv6 and need to change to new ip > standards for > > future, etc). What is being done now with extension of no > charges for > > ipv6 is good, but the way it sounds is "we do it free for > now, but just > > wait couple more months and we'll be happy to charge you for it". > > > > And remember - it will not matter what schedule you adopt, > in reality > > ipv6 will be flat-rate for all practical purposes. Even now > ARIN says they > > get over 80% of revenue from smallest ip blocks - just > imagine what this > > number will be when ipv6 is used commercially everywhere! > > > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > > > > And last of all - just give them away to anyone who > wants them. No need > > > > to be a subscriber. You might find they'll move > faster that > > > way. > > > > > > Yeah, I think that if there were some sort of > > > no-recurring-fees-for-early-adopters sort of thing it would get > > > things moving a little more... Honestly, the way it worked with > > > IPv4 was that the addresses got into the hands of the > _individuals_ > > > who were smart enough to do something with them, and then the > > > individuals pushed them into companies and service providers. > > > > > > If we don't have some way for smart people (not corporations with > > > budgets) to get v6 address space, we stay stuck in the > > > chicken-and-egg position. > > > > > > This doesn't decrease RR revenues, since the people who'd pick up > > > address space that way wouldn't be dues-payers otherwise. > > > > > > I mean, imagine a situation where a smart person's alternative to > > > running a NAT on their home DSL was to run v6 behind > their home DSL. > > > That would get things moving. > > > > > > -Bill > > > > From john at chagres.net Mon Jan 6 21:02:26 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 19:02:26 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001d01c2b5f0$d3b9e8b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> There are multiple ISP's in NM that would like to start building v6 networks. Some are ARIN clients, most are not. They can't get the space. We have stalled the system. Cool apps won't be built without people playing around and building. Like Bill says, this isn't how things are done. john brown former AC member > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Bill Woodcock > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:50 PM > To: william at elan.net > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > > Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock > is proposing, I just > > think it should have been done slightly differently. > But if nothing else, > > doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small > or no charge to > > encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be > clear from the > > start that such allocations would be temporary and not > like swamp space... > > I'm not for temporary. I think that's exactly the problem we > have now. Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it > going, because they know that success means that they have to > start paying someone else for the privelege of using what > they just built. That's not the way things get done on the Internet. > > -Bill > > From john at chagres.net Mon Jan 6 21:03:16 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 19:03:16 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001e01c2b5f0$f1414400$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Joe if you understood v6, then you would understand that your statement below is less valid with v6 than with v4. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Joe Baptista > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 6:04 PM > To: Bill Woodcock > Cc: william at elan.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > I'm not for temporary. I think that's exactly the problem we have > > now. Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it going, > > because they know that success means that they have to start paying > > someone else for the privelege of using what they just > built. That's > > not the way things get done on the Internet. > > Agreed - anyone who has had to renumber understands the > horror of temporary. > From william at elan.net Mon Jan 6 21:28:09 2003 From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:28:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well sure, I'd take a medal of ip6 space, who could refuse that :) But in reality I think providing ips at no charge for some forever is not right - neither democratic, nor can we know for sure what will happen to arin & other rirs in far future. On the other hand providing ip6 until new technology is well established would be good idea to help technology. And I'm talking about long period of time when saying "temporary" - 10 years or more with extensions for the future possible if goals have not been meat on the establishment of technology and availability of ips. And at some point, I'd expect people to be able to get ip6 easily from their local dsl/cable/dialup/etc isp for their use. I do not see the problem of renumbering as big thing - if we use A6 dns records for example and setup dns server & computers properly, then changing ISPs would involve only one line in dns server setup for entire network (no changes on computers, dns zone files, etc - everything can be hierchical and point to root of your /32 to your upstream dns, etc). Personally I'd probably prefer to keep ips I get, but if we want to do that, I'd prefer to see 6bone or alike organization officially established as non-profit and when people who were founders and early users of such, got so far as creating new technologies, establishing new companies and making lot of money they could donate some of what they made and at some point enough money could be available in the bank for interest payments along to be enough to pay for continuing service of that particular ip space to RIR (at say $5000/year expense, it would need to be around $500,000 which is not an impossibly high emount), so that for those in the organization the ips would continue to be free. As I said before, i better idea is to have > > Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock is proposing, I just > > think it should have been done slightly differently. But if nothing else, > > doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small or no charge to > > encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be clear from the > > start that such allocations would be temporary and not like swamp space... > > I'm not for temporary. I think that's exactly the problem we have now. > Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it going, because they > know that success means that they have to start paying someone else for > the privelege of using what they just built. That's not the way things > get done on the Internet. > > -Bill From david.conrad at nominum.com Tue Jan 7 01:57:32 2003 From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:57:32 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: <001d01c2b5f0$d3b9e8b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: <4B572ECB-220D-11D7-A5A8-000393DB42B2@nominum.com> I would be very interested in hearing the details as to why they could not get space. Rgds, -drc On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 06:02 PM, John M. Brown wrote: > There are multiple ISP's in NM that would like to > start building v6 networks. Some are ARIN clients, most > are not. > > They can't get the space. We have stalled the system. > > Cool apps won't be built without people playing around and > building. Like Bill says, this isn't how things are done. > > john brown > former AC member > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Bill Woodcock >> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:50 PM >> To: william at elan.net >> Cc: ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees >> >> >>> Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock >> is proposing, I just >>> think it should have been done slightly differently. >> But if nothing else, >>> doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small >> or no charge to >>> encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be >> clear from the >>> start that such allocations would be temporary and not >> like swamp space... >> >> I'm not for temporary. I think that's exactly the problem we >> have now. Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it >> going, because they know that success means that they have to >> start paying someone else for the privelege of using what >> they just built. That's not the way things get done on the Internet. >> >> -Bill >> >> > From john at chagres.net Tue Jan 7 02:46:32 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 00:46:32 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: <4B572ECB-220D-11D7-A5A8-000393DB42B2@nominum.com> Message-ID: <000301c2b620$e7515130$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> hmm, for those that are not ARIN clients, that means they aren't an LIR, and as per 511 of the policy, they can't get space... unless I'm missing something..... > -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 11:58 PM > To: john at chagres.net > Cc: 'Bill Woodcock'; william at elan.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > I would be very interested in hearing the details as to why > they could > not get space. > > Rgds, > -drc > > On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 06:02 PM, John M. Brown wrote: > > > There are multiple ISP's in NM that would like to > > start building v6 networks. Some are ARIN clients, most > > are not. > > > > They can't get the space. We have stalled the system. > > > > Cool apps won't be built without people playing around and > building. > > Like Bill says, this isn't how things are done. > > > > john brown > > former AC member > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of > >> Bill Woodcock > >> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:50 PM > >> To: william at elan.net > >> Cc: ppml at arin.net > >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > >> > >> > >>> Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock > >> is proposing, I just > >>> think it should have been done slightly differently. > >> But if nothing else, > >>> doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small > >> or no charge to > >>> encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be > >> clear from the > >>> start that such allocations would be temporary and not > >> like swamp space... > >> > >> I'm not for temporary. I think that's exactly the problem we have > >> now. Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it going, > >> because they know that success means that they have to > start paying > >> someone else for the privelege of using what they just > built. That's > >> not the way things get done on the Internet. > >> > >> -Bill > >> > >> > > > From david.conrad at nominum.com Tue Jan 7 02:58:15 2003 From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 23:58:15 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: <000301c2b620$e7515130$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> Message-ID: The ARIN clients? On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 11:46 PM, John M. Brown wrote: > hmm, for those that are not ARIN clients, that means > they aren't an LIR, and as per 511 of the policy, they > can't get space... > > unless I'm missing something..... > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] >> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 11:58 PM >> To: john at chagres.net >> Cc: 'Bill Woodcock'; william at elan.net; ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees >> >> >> I would be very interested in hearing the details as to why >> they could >> not get space. >> >> Rgds, >> -drc >> >> On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 06:02 PM, John M. Brown wrote: >> >>> There are multiple ISP's in NM that would like to >>> start building v6 networks. Some are ARIN clients, most >>> are not. >>> >>> They can't get the space. We have stalled the system. >>> >>> Cool apps won't be built without people playing around and >> building. >>> Like Bill says, this isn't how things are done. >>> >>> john brown >>> former AC member >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of >>>> Bill Woodcock >>>> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:50 PM >>>> To: william at elan.net >>>> Cc: ppml at arin.net >>>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees >>>> >>>> >>>>> Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock >>>> is proposing, I just >>>>> think it should have been done slightly differently. >>>> But if nothing else, >>>>> doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small >>>> or no charge to >>>>> encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be >>>> clear from the >>>>> start that such allocations would be temporary and not >>>> like swamp space... >>>> >>>> I'm not for temporary. I think that's exactly the problem we have >>>> now. Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it going, >>>> because they know that success means that they have to >> start paying >>>> someone else for the privelege of using what they just >> built. That's >>>> not the way things get done on the Internet. >>>> >>>> -Bill >>>> >>>> >>> >> > From john at chagres.net Tue Jan 7 03:02:57 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 01:02:57 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: <4B572ECB-220D-11D7-A5A8-000393DB42B2@nominum.com> Message-ID: <000401c2b623$329fcfc0$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> and for those orgs that are "end sites" that wish to deploy a v6 network now typically can't. in talking with a number of national transit providers that provide service in NM, they don't allocate v6 space to end users at this time... so you have to build a tunnel to someplace "far" away like Calif.. so you have in affect a non-starter and people that want to deploy unable to deploy.... the policies are focused on "not repeating v4 swamp" and other errors. I'd say that those "errors now" where the key to growth in the early days. I'd hate to see the error of today be stifling the growth of v6..... john brown > -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 11:58 PM > To: john at chagres.net > Cc: 'Bill Woodcock'; william at elan.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > I would be very interested in hearing the details as to why > they could > not get space. > > Rgds, > -drc > > On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 06:02 PM, John M. Brown wrote: > > > There are multiple ISP's in NM that would like to > > start building v6 networks. Some are ARIN clients, most > > are not. > > > > They can't get the space. We have stalled the system. > > > > Cool apps won't be built without people playing around and > building. > > Like Bill says, this isn't how things are done. > > > > john brown > > former AC member > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of > >> Bill Woodcock > >> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:50 PM > >> To: william at elan.net > >> Cc: ppml at arin.net > >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > >> > >> > >>> Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock > >> is proposing, I just > >>> think it should have been done slightly differently. > >> But if nothing else, > >>> doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small > >> or no charge to > >>> encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be > >> clear from the > >>> start that such allocations would be temporary and not > >> like swamp space... > >> > >> I'm not for temporary. I think that's exactly the problem we have > >> now. Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it going, > >> because they know that success means that they have to > start paying > >> someone else for the privelege of using what they just > built. That's > >> not the way things get done on the Internet. > >> > >> -Bill > >> > >> > > > From john at chagres.net Tue Jan 7 03:04:36 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 01:04:36 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c2b623$6d2691b0$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> didn't have 200 clients to allocate to within 2 years... > -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:58 AM > To: john at chagres.net > Cc: 'Bill Woodcock'; william at elan.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > The ARIN clients? > > On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 11:46 PM, John M. Brown wrote: > > > hmm, for those that are not ARIN clients, that means > > they aren't an LIR, and as per 511 of the policy, they > > can't get space... > > > > unless I'm missing something..... > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > >> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 11:58 PM > >> To: john at chagres.net > >> Cc: 'Bill Woodcock'; william at elan.net; ppml at arin.net > >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > >> > >> > >> I would be very interested in hearing the details as to why they > >> could not get space. > >> > >> Rgds, > >> -drc > >> > >> On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 06:02 PM, John M. Brown wrote: > >> > >>> There are multiple ISP's in NM that would like to > >>> start building v6 networks. Some are ARIN clients, most are not. > >>> > >>> They can't get the space. We have stalled the system. > >>> > >>> Cool apps won't be built without people playing around and > >> building. > >>> Like Bill says, this isn't how things are done. > >>> > >>> john brown > >>> former AC member > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > >> Behalf Of > >>>> Bill Woodcock > >>>> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:50 PM > >>>> To: william at elan.net > >>>> Cc: ppml at arin.net > >>>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock > >>>> is proposing, I just > >>>>> think it should have been done slightly differently. > >>>> But if nothing else, > >>>>> doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small > >>>> or no charge to > >>>>> encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be > >>>> clear from the > >>>>> start that such allocations would be temporary and not > >>>> like swamp space... > >>>> > >>>> I'm not for temporary. I think that's exactly the > problem we have > >>>> now. Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it going, > >>>> because they know that success means that they have to > >> start paying > >>>> someone else for the privelege of using what they just > >> built. That's > >>>> not the way things get done on the Internet. > >>>> > >>>> -Bill > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > From baptista at dot-god.com Tue Jan 7 04:23:08 2003 From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 04:23:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: <000301c2b620$e7515130$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, John M. Brown wrote: > hmm, for those that are not ARIN clients, that means > they aren't an LIR, and as per 511 of the policy, they > can't get space... > > unless I'm missing something..... i heard they won't give any space to the swamp, at least the addresses assigned by the old canadian registry. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 11:58 PM > > To: john at chagres.net > > Cc: 'Bill Woodcock'; william at elan.net; ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > > > > I would be very interested in hearing the details as to why > > they could > > not get space. > > > > Rgds, > > -drc > > > > On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 06:02 PM, John M. Brown wrote: > > > > > There are multiple ISP's in NM that would like to > > > start building v6 networks. Some are ARIN clients, most > > > are not. > > > > > > They can't get the space. We have stalled the system. > > > > > > Cool apps won't be built without people playing around and > > building. > > > Like Bill says, this isn't how things are done. > > > > > > john brown > > > former AC member > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of > > >> Bill Woodcock > > >> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:50 PM > > >> To: william at elan.net > > >> Cc: ppml at arin.net > > >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > >> > > >> > > >>> Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock > > >> is proposing, I just > > >>> think it should have been done slightly differently. > > >> But if nothing else, > > >>> doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small > > >> or no charge to > > >>> encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be > > >> clear from the > > >>> start that such allocations would be temporary and not > > >> like swamp space... > > >> > > >> I'm not for temporary. I think that's exactly the problem we have > > >> now. Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it going, > > >> because they know that success means that they have to > > start paying > > >> someone else for the privelege of using what they just > > built. That's > > >> not the way things get done on the Internet. > > >> > > >> -Bill > > >> > > >> > > > > > > From ddiller at cogentco.com Tue Jan 7 13:29:58 2003 From: ddiller at cogentco.com (Dave Diller) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 13:29:58 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees References: <001b01c2b5ef$a4d09720$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: <3E1B1CA6.15ED9D7@cogentco.com> > you are asking ARIN to become more involved with their > membership community. Not something I see them doing any > time soon. > Seeing as how this is PPML, perhaps you should formulate a "You All Suck A Whole Lot" Policy Proposal and have it put to a vote? Then at least we'd be on-topic for once... ;-) Personally, I fail to see how waiving the fees is a BAD thing if you are trying to promote v6 adoption, which was all the scope of the notice covered. If one year is too short a time-frame for an extension that's one thing that can be discussed and "Policy-fied". Similarly, if there is a sense that the policies for Allocs are completely useless, will never work, and should be done over, well fine - good luck, get some discussion going, but where were the complaints when they were being formulated initially before they were adopted by ALL the RIRs? Seems to be a bit late now... -dd From john at chagres.net Tue Jan 7 13:52:38 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:52:38 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: <3E1B1CA6.15ED9D7@cogentco.com> Message-ID: <000e01c2b67d$f42025f0$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> waiving the fee is a good thing. having barriers that prevent people from even being able to apply is a bad thing. thus, having it be free (for some period of time) doesn't mean much to those that can't get the space because of other barriers. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Dave Diller > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:30 AM > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > > you are asking ARIN to become more involved with their membership > > community. Not something I see them doing any time soon. > > > > Seeing as how this is PPML, perhaps you should formulate a > "You All Suck A > Whole Lot" Policy Proposal and have it put to a vote? Then > at least we'd be > on-topic for once... ;-) > > Personally, I fail to see how waiving the fees is a BAD thing > if you are trying > to promote v6 adoption, which was all the scope of the notice > covered. If one > year is too short a time-frame for an extension that's one > thing that can be > discussed and "Policy-fied". Similarly, if there is a sense > that the policies > for Allocs are completely useless, will never work, and > should be done over, > well fine - good luck, get some discussion going, but where > were the complaints > when they were being formulated initially before they were > adopted by ALL the > RIRs? Seems to be a bit late now... > > -dd > From mury at goldengate.net Tue Jan 7 14:21:14 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:21:14 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: <3E1B1CA6.15ED9D7@cogentco.com> Message-ID: Here's a couple thoughts from a LIR that is close to clueless about IPv6 address space. I would venture to guess that I'm not the only one. To get IPv6 space I need to be able to make 200 /48 assignments within two years to other organizations. That's a significant number of assignments, which isn't the real problem. The real problem is I'm not going to go through that work if this address space is not permanent. Typically ISPs are up to their necks in work. Most are trying to stay above water until the market settles down. My todo list has about 5000 items on it. I'm not going to spend time working on something that is possibly going to make my life more difficult in the future. On the other hand, if I was given some leeway in deployment time and a promise that it wasn't going to be in vain I would be very interested in getting a head start on the IPv6 world. I have made sure that all the hardware and software we purchase is IPv6 compatible. I'm willing to make some changes, but not until it's time. And in my world it's not time until it's a production ready product. Temporary is not production ready. I'm also not going to spend money on something that is either unneccesary or does not give us an advantage in some way. Ambiguity will keep IPv6 in university test environments and as something for the rest of us to think about in the future. Guarantee the address space will be permanent and provide it for free until an estimated wide-spread implementation date will be achieved. 5-10 years? This does not mean that people receiving space next year would also receive it for free. Just a couple thoughts from, Joe Average ISP On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Dave Diller wrote: > > you are asking ARIN to become more involved with their > > membership community. Not something I see them doing any > > time soon. > > > > Seeing as how this is PPML, perhaps you should formulate a "You All Suck A > Whole Lot" Policy Proposal and have it put to a vote? Then at least we'd be > on-topic for once... ;-) > > Personally, I fail to see how waiving the fees is a BAD thing if you are trying > to promote v6 adoption, which was all the scope of the notice covered. If one > year is too short a time-frame for an extension that's one thing that can be > discussed and "Policy-fied". Similarly, if there is a sense that the policies > for Allocs are completely useless, will never work, and should be done over, > well fine - good luck, get some discussion going, but where were the complaints > when they were being formulated initially before they were adopted by ALL the > RIRs? Seems to be a bit late now... > > -dd > From baptista at dot-god.com Tue Jan 7 14:20:41 2003 From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:20:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] SWAMP SPACE 192/8 thru 205/8 Message-ID: I understand swamp space is 192/8 thru 205/8. Am I correct. Also can anyone provide me with a history of how these allocation got that name ??? swamp space ??? Thanks in advance and feel free to reply in private. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communications & Computing Facility a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited From david at iprg.nokia.com Tue Jan 7 15:02:56 2003 From: david at iprg.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:02:56 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: <000e01c2b67d$f42025f0$7f7ba8c0@laptoy>; from john@chagres.net on Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:52:38AM -0700 References: <3E1B1CA6.15ED9D7@cogentco.com> <000e01c2b67d$f42025f0$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> Message-ID: <20030107120256.F1967@iprg.nokia.com> John, On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:52:38AM -0700, John M. Brown wrote: > waiving the fee is a good thing. > > having barriers that prevent people from even being able > to apply is a bad thing. > > thus, having it be free (for some period of time) doesn't > mean much to those that can't get the space because of > other barriers. In my experience it is easier to remove barriers one by one. Let's not keep complaining about the fees while we really want to complain about the policy. After the fee structure, it is pretty clear that many people think that the policy is a problem too. However, so far, I have seen many people complaining about the policy but very little evidence that they were really unable to get addresses. Yes, the barriers in the policy seem high, but after closely reading it, you will find that it is really not so hard to get addresses. At the same time the policy is not perfect and there are certainly some issues for a number of different business models that in my opinion should be able to get addresses but that cannot right now. Let's try to collect these cases and see if we can revise the policy with such cases in mind at some later time in the future. John M. Brown wrote in an earlier mail: > > Calling my local Verio, UUNET, Sprint providers resulted > in a great big HUH, when I asked them for IPv6 space, and > a further HUH, when I asked them to provide a native IPv6 > connection... You evidently called the wrong number or didn't ask enough questions since at least one of the above mentioned ISPs is able to help you out. Quite frankly, I don't expect every sales guy in small town New Mexico to know about ipv6 (yet), but I do know that there are people in the above mentioned companies that I was able to contact who know more about ipv6 and who can help you with your needs. David K. --- From Scott.Whipple at cox.com Tue Jan 7 15:04:35 2003 From: Scott.Whipple at cox.com (Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:04:35 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees Message-ID: <4B8EA05057E49E4F940B74AC3AEC23F40BB71E@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> A couple questions and comments. How many people out there do you think want IPv6 space but do not qualify? If they don't qualify what makes anyone think they have the expertise or resources to constructively use an IPv6 block? I'm not saying that there aren't people out there but I don't remember at the last meeting or any lists that this has been a huge discussion topic. (like the minimum allocation size) I just don't think there is community felt urgency to deploy v6 space at this time. Maybe, in the future there will be, at that point policies and guidelines can be reviewed and possibly changed. I think instead of ARIN encouraging the community to use IPv6 space they should be using their resources to educate the community on how to better use their IPv4 space, seeing that this is the most widely used protocol today. I do think ARIN should educate us about IPv6 but not necessarily ask people to deploy it. IPv6 may be the wave of the future but I don't believe it's ARINs job to take us there. It should be the internet community that takes us there. I also don't think ARIN should hinder the deployment of IPv6 space through high fees and at this point they don't need the money so I support the waiver. If it is thought that the current policies for an IPv6 allocation hinder then there should be a proposal to change the policies. However, this is a globally excepted policy and if we change it in the ARIN region we then move away from what the other registries are doing. I'm not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing just something to think about. -----Original Message----- From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:53 PM To: ddiller at cogentco.com Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees waiving the fee is a good thing. having barriers that prevent people from even being able to apply is a bad thing. thus, having it be free (for some period of time) doesn't mean much to those that can't get the space because of other barriers. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Dave Diller > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:30 AM > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > > you are asking ARIN to become more involved with their membership > > community. Not something I see them doing any time soon. > > > > Seeing as how this is PPML, perhaps you should formulate a > "You All Suck A > Whole Lot" Policy Proposal and have it put to a vote? Then > at least we'd be > on-topic for once... ;-) > > Personally, I fail to see how waiving the fees is a BAD thing > if you are trying > to promote v6 adoption, which was all the scope of the notice > covered. If one > year is too short a time-frame for an extension that's one > thing that can be > discussed and "Policy-fied". Similarly, if there is a sense > that the policies > for Allocs are completely useless, will never work, and > should be done over, > well fine - good luck, get some discussion going, but where > were the complaints > when they were being formulated initially before they were > adopted by ALL the > RIRs? Seems to be a bit late now... > > -dd > From john at chagres.net Tue Jan 7 15:11:52 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:11:52 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: <20030107120256.F1967@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <001e01c2b689$0570f9a0$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> I'm not complaining about the fees, and sorry if that seemed to be the case. The issue is that people that wish to deploy IPv6 networks today are finding it difficult to meet the requirements to submit an application. Others have made comments that current pre-ARIN holders of v4 space have been refused v6 space. I don't know the validity of this case. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Kessens [mailto:david at IPRG.nokia.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:03 PM > To: John M. Brown > Cc: ddiller at cogentco.com; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > > John, > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:52:38AM -0700, John M. Brown wrote: > > waiving the fee is a good thing. > > > > having barriers that prevent people from even being able > > to apply is a bad thing. > > > > thus, having it be free (for some period of time) doesn't > mean much to > > those that can't get the space because of other barriers. > > In my experience it is easier to remove barriers one by one. > Let's not keep complaining about the fees while we really > want to complain about the policy. > > After the fee structure, it is pretty clear that many people > think that the policy is a problem too. > > However, so far, I have seen many people complaining about > the policy but very little evidence that they were really > unable to get addresses. > > Yes, the barriers in the policy seem high, but after closely > reading it, you will find that it is really not so hard to > get addresses. > > At the same time the policy is not perfect and there are > certainly some issues for a number of different business > models that in my opinion should be able to get addresses but > that cannot right now. Let's try to collect these cases and > see if we can revise the policy with such cases in mind at > some later time in the future. > > John M. Brown wrote in an earlier mail: > > > > Calling my local Verio, UUNET, Sprint providers resulted > > in a great big HUH, when I asked them for IPv6 space, and > > a further HUH, when I asked them to provide a native IPv6 > > connection... > > You evidently called the wrong number or didn't ask enough > questions since at least one of the above mentioned ISPs is > able to help you out. Quite frankly, I don't expect every > sales guy in small town New Mexico to know about ipv6 (yet), > but I do know that there are people in the above mentioned > companies that I was able to contact who know more about ipv6 > and who can help you with your needs. > > David K. > --- > From john at chagres.net Tue Jan 7 15:39:32 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:39:32 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: <4B8EA05057E49E4F940B74AC3AEC23F40BB71E@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> Message-ID: <000401c2b68c$e6f41df0$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> Well, my company for one would like IPv6 space. We don't qualify as we are not a LIR in the strict sense. I think my company knows how to setup a v6 stack and route it, DNS it, and such. There are 60 some ISP's in the state of NM. I know of 6 that can't get v6 space under the current policies. Thats what 10 percent of a small rural state. And they have the clue to figure it out and make it work. They do have the right host OS's, and could get the right Cisco IOS loads. By having the space they would then beable to LEARN and develop CLEW in the use of v6. This of course would/could lead to more local knowledge and understanding, which could/would lead to more people using it.... > -----Original Message----- > From: Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta) [mailto:Scott.Whipple at cox.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:05 PM > To: john at chagres.net; ddiller at cogentco.com > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > A couple questions and comments. > > How many people out there do you think want IPv6 space but do > not qualify? > > If they don't qualify what makes anyone think they have the > expertise or resources to constructively use an IPv6 block? > > I'm not saying that there aren't people out there but I don't > remember at the last meeting or any lists that this has been > a huge discussion topic. (like the minimum allocation size) > I just don't think there is community felt urgency to deploy > v6 space at this time. Maybe, in the future there will be, > at that point policies and guidelines can be reviewed and > possibly changed. Community isn't going to feel urgency to deploy, if the barriers are to high to start with. We are all busy enough to not need more hoops to jump thru to deploy newer stuff. > I think instead of ARIN encouraging the community to use IPv6 > space they should be using their resources to educate the > community on how to better use their IPv4 space, seeing that > this is the most widely used protocol today. I do think ARIN > should educate us about IPv6 but not necessarily ask people > to deploy it. IPv6 may be the wave of the future but I don't > believe it's ARINs job to take us there. It should be the Not there job to "take us there", I agree. It is there job to LET us take ourselves there and we can't right now. Its a non-starter. > internet community that takes us there. I also don't think > ARIN should hinder the deployment of IPv6 space through high > fees and at this point they don't need the money so I support > the waiver. Money isn't the issue, its the items in sec 5.1.1 > If it is thought that the current policies for > an IPv6 allocation hinder then there should be a proposal to > change the policies. However, this is a globally excepted > policy and if we change it in the ARIN region we then move > away from what the other registries are doing. I'm not Other regions are light years ahead of deploying v6, the policy makes sense for those regions. ARIN region is far behind in deploying v6 compared to say APNIC or even RIPE. > saying that is a good thing or a bad thing just something to > think about. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net] > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:53 PM > To: ddiller at cogentco.com > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > waiving the fee is a good thing. > > having barriers that prevent people from even being able > to apply is a bad thing. > > thus, having it be free (for some period of time) doesn't > mean much to those that can't get the space because of > other barriers. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Dave Diller > > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:30 AM > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > > > > > you are asking ARIN to become more involved with their membership > > > community. Not something I see them doing any time soon. > > > > > > > Seeing as how this is PPML, perhaps you should formulate a > > "You All Suck A > > Whole Lot" Policy Proposal and have it put to a vote? Then > > at least we'd be > > on-topic for once... ;-) > > > > Personally, I fail to see how waiving the fees is a BAD thing > > if you are trying > > to promote v6 adoption, which was all the scope of the notice > > covered. If one > > year is too short a time-frame for an extension that's one > > thing that can be > > discussed and "Policy-fied". Similarly, if there is a sense > > that the policies > > for Allocs are completely useless, will never work, and > > should be done over, > > well fine - good luck, get some discussion going, but where > > were the complaints > > when they were being formulated initially before they were > > adopted by ALL the > > RIRs? Seems to be a bit late now... > > > > -dd > > > From john at chagres.net Tue Jan 7 15:39:32 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:39:32 -0700 Subject: [ppml] SWAMP SPACE 192/8 thru 205/8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2b68c$e586f960$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> swamp because they where handed out in a loose manner and thus the ability to aggregate was lost, because its an unknown world who really owns what space today. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Joe Baptista > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:21 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] SWAMP SPACE 192/8 thru 205/8 > > > > I understand swamp space is 192/8 thru 205/8. Am I correct. > Also can anyone provide me with a history of how these > allocation got that name ??? swamp space ??? > > Thanks in advance and feel free to reply in private. > > Cheers > Joe Baptista > > -- > Planet Communications & Computing Facility > a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited > > From john at chagres.net Tue Jan 7 15:39:32 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:39:32 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy Message-ID: <000001c2b68c$e46312d0$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> In the interest of fostering a more active deployment and development of IPv6 space within the ARIN region, I'm interested in hearing what people would want to see changed in the policy. The ARIN region is behind other regions in deployment of v6, thus it seems to make sense that we need to mod the policy for our region. Maybe continue an "early adopters" waiver for another 24 months or something like that. Below is my understanding of 5.1.1 of the policy and I'm attempting to illustrate where it breaks with folks. It appears that Sec 5.1.1 states you must a) be an LIR b) not be an end-site c) plan to provide v6 connections via /48's d) plan to deploy 200 /48 sites/customers In the ARIN region, an LIR would be the entity that receives space from ARIN and reassigns this to end-sites or other transit type sites. ---------- Requirement A. So the first barrier is that you must be a ARIN customer and that requires you to have received a v4 block from ARIN directly. Thus you can not be a ISP that receives its space from its upstream. All non-ARIN customers are hereby excluded, you fail requirement A. --------- Requirement B. You can not be an end-site. Per section 2.9 of the policy definition of an End-Site, all web hosting companies are hereby excluded. You might be able to argue that your web clients are the "end user", but from a routing point of view you don't provide transit to other sites. 2.9 seems to support this notion. In addition, research and development groups within end sites are excluded from receiving IPv6 space and thus can't develop cool new applications or services that make use of and would support the deployment of v6 space. Service companies are excluded in that they can't get space, learn how to use it, so that they can then help other clients (LIR's etc) spin up the protocol. ------------ Requirement C. Requires that you provide v6 connectivity to others.. Well i guess if you have the space, then you could provide space. ------------ Requirement D. You have to be able to provide 200 sites with v6 services within 2 years. Chicken and Egg. Can't start without having the space, can't get the space because you don't know if you can support 8.33 new v6 connections per month. From richardj at arin.net Tue Jan 7 16:33:20 2003 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 16:33:20 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy In-Reply-To: <000001c2b68c$e46312d0$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> Message-ID: <010901c2b694$66499ab0$e7fc95c0@arin.net> Hello John, Thank you for your participation on the list. I've provided some clarification to some of the points you have raised, below. > a) be an LIR In the ARIN region the term ISP is used in exchange for LIR (Local Internet Registry). > So the first barrier is that you must be a ARIN customer This is not the case. In the ARIN region you do not first have to be a customer of the RIR to request Internet addressing resources. > and that requires you to have received a v4 block from ARIN > directly. > Thus you can not be a ISP that receives its space from its > upstream. > > All non-ARIN customers are hereby excluded, you fail requirement This is not stated in the policy, and is not true. It is not a prerequisite to have obtained IPv4 address space from ARIN before requesting IPv6 address space. Organizations may request IPv6 address space from ARIN regardless of their IPv4 registration history. > In addition, research and development groups within end sites > are excluded from receiving IPv6 space and thus can't develop > cool new applications or services that make use of and would > support the deployment of v6 space. These organizations may be able to obtain address space from the 6bone. ARIN also has a proposed policy under discussion, "Experimental Internet Resource Allocations," that may be applicable in some of these cases. > d) plan to deploy 200 /48 sites/customers > You have to be able to provide 200 sites with v6 services within > 2 years. Chicken and Egg. Can't start without having the space, > can't get the space because you don't know if you can support 8.33 > new v6 connections per month. In the policy document, item (d) is stated as such: d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within two years. ARIN does not scrutinize plans from requesting organizations for meeting this requirement. All we require is they state they have a plan for making these assignments. Although I do not foresee that ARIN will go after organizations two years down the line and revoke their allocation if they were unable to make assignments to 200 customers, I can understand how this statement in the policy may cause some concern for requesting organizations. If there is concern that this or other statements in the policy are causing hesitation on the part of organizations who want to request IPv6 address space, perhaps it is time to consider changes in accordance with the procedures set forth in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process. Best Regards, Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of John M. Brown > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:40 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy > > > In the interest of fostering a more active deployment and > development of IPv6 space within the ARIN region, I'm interested > in hearing what people would want to see changed in the policy. > > The ARIN region is behind other regions in deployment of v6, thus > it seems to make sense that we need to mod the policy for our > region. Maybe continue an "early adopters" waiver for another 24 > months or something like that. > > > Below is my understanding of 5.1.1 of the policy and I'm attempting > to illustrate where it breaks with folks. > > > It appears that Sec 5.1.1 states you must > > a) be an LIR > b) not be an end-site > c) plan to provide v6 connections via /48's > d) plan to deploy 200 /48 sites/customers > > In the ARIN region, an LIR would be the entity that receives > space from ARIN and reassigns this to end-sites or other > transit type sites. > > ---------- > Requirement A. > So the first barrier is that you must be a ARIN customer > and that requires you to have received a v4 block from ARIN > directly. > > Thus you can not be a ISP that receives its space from its > upstream. > > All non-ARIN customers are hereby excluded, you fail requirement > A. > > --------- > Requirement B. > > You can not be an end-site. Per section 2.9 of the policy > definition of an End-Site, all web hosting companies are hereby > excluded. You might be able to argue that your web clients are the > "end user", but from a routing point of view you don't provide > transit to other sites. 2.9 seems to support this notion. > > In addition, research and development groups within end sites > are excluded from receiving IPv6 space and thus can't develop > cool new applications or services that make use of and would > support the deployment of v6 space. > > Service companies are excluded in that they can't get space, > learn how to use it, so that they can then help other clients > (LIR's etc) spin up the protocol. > > > ------------ > Requirement C. > > Requires that you provide v6 connectivity to others.. Well i guess > if you have the space, then you could provide space. > > > ------------ > > Requirement D. > > You have to be able to provide 200 sites with v6 services within > 2 years. Chicken and Egg. Can't start without having the space, > can't get the space because you don't know if you can support 8.33 > new v6 connections per month. > From cjk at fluke.com Tue Jan 7 16:46:28 2003 From: cjk at fluke.com (Klement, Charles) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:46:28 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy Message-ID: Hello, Are there currently any plans underway to accommodate the needs of Multihomed enterprises? If my understanding is correct (please correct me) The hierarchical nature of IPv6 would not allow me to have multiple transit providers. This makes IPv6 a nonstarter for me. Is there some loophole where I can qualify as a LIR and "sell" service to my remote sites? -charles -----Original Message----- From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:33 PM To: john at chagres.net Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy Hello John, Thank you for your participation on the list. I've provided some clarification to some of the points you have raised, below. > a) be an LIR In the ARIN region the term ISP is used in exchange for LIR (Local Internet Registry). > So the first barrier is that you must be a ARIN customer This is not the case. In the ARIN region you do not first have to be a customer of the RIR to request Internet addressing resources. > and that requires you to have received a v4 block from ARIN > directly. > Thus you can not be a ISP that receives its space from its > upstream. > > All non-ARIN customers are hereby excluded, you fail requirement This is not stated in the policy, and is not true. It is not a prerequisite to have obtained IPv4 address space from ARIN before requesting IPv6 address space. Organizations may request IPv6 address space from ARIN regardless of their IPv4 registration history. > In addition, research and development groups within end sites > are excluded from receiving IPv6 space and thus can't develop > cool new applications or services that make use of and would > support the deployment of v6 space. These organizations may be able to obtain address space from the 6bone. ARIN also has a proposed policy under discussion, "Experimental Internet Resource Allocations," that may be applicable in some of these cases. > d) plan to deploy 200 /48 sites/customers > You have to be able to provide 200 sites with v6 services within > 2 years. Chicken and Egg. Can't start without having the space, > can't get the space because you don't know if you can support 8.33 > new v6 connections per month. In the policy document, item (d) is stated as such: d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within two years. ARIN does not scrutinize plans from requesting organizations for meeting this requirement. All we require is they state they have a plan for making these assignments. Although I do not foresee that ARIN will go after organizations two years down the line and revoke their allocation if they were unable to make assignments to 200 customers, I can understand how this statement in the policy may cause some concern for requesting organizations. If there is concern that this or other statements in the policy are causing hesitation on the part of organizations who want to request IPv6 address space, perhaps it is time to consider changes in accordance with the procedures set forth in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process. Best Regards, Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of John M. Brown > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:40 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy > > > In the interest of fostering a more active deployment and > development of IPv6 space within the ARIN region, I'm interested > in hearing what people would want to see changed in the policy. > > The ARIN region is behind other regions in deployment of v6, thus > it seems to make sense that we need to mod the policy for our > region. Maybe continue an "early adopters" waiver for another 24 > months or something like that. > > > Below is my understanding of 5.1.1 of the policy and I'm attempting > to illustrate where it breaks with folks. > > > It appears that Sec 5.1.1 states you must > > a) be an LIR > b) not be an end-site > c) plan to provide v6 connections via /48's > d) plan to deploy 200 /48 sites/customers > > In the ARIN region, an LIR would be the entity that receives > space from ARIN and reassigns this to end-sites or other > transit type sites. > > ---------- > Requirement A. > So the first barrier is that you must be a ARIN customer > and that requires you to have received a v4 block from ARIN > directly. > > Thus you can not be a ISP that receives its space from its > upstream. > > All non-ARIN customers are hereby excluded, you fail requirement > A. > > --------- > Requirement B. > > You can not be an end-site. Per section 2.9 of the policy > definition of an End-Site, all web hosting companies are hereby > excluded. You might be able to argue that your web clients are the > "end user", but from a routing point of view you don't provide > transit to other sites. 2.9 seems to support this notion. > > In addition, research and development groups within end sites > are excluded from receiving IPv6 space and thus can't develop > cool new applications or services that make use of and would > support the deployment of v6 space. > > Service companies are excluded in that they can't get space, > learn how to use it, so that they can then help other clients > (LIR's etc) spin up the protocol. > > > ------------ > Requirement C. > > Requires that you provide v6 connectivity to others.. Well i guess > if you have the space, then you could provide space. > > > ------------ > > Requirement D. > > You have to be able to provide 200 sites with v6 services within > 2 years. Chicken and Egg. Can't start without having the space, > can't get the space because you don't know if you can support 8.33 > new v6 connections per month. > From richardj at arin.net Tue Jan 7 17:00:48 2003 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:00:48 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <012601c2b698$3c957ff0$e7fc95c0@arin.net> Hello Charles, At the time the IPv6 policies were written, final determinations had not been made on how multi-homing using IPv6 would work. I believe there is currently work being done by an IETF working group to resolve this issue. Best Regards, Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Klement, Charles > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:46 PM > To: 'richardj at arin.net' > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy > > > > Hello, > > Are there currently any plans underway to accommodate the needs of > Multihomed enterprises? If my understanding is correct > (please correct me) > The hierarchical nature of IPv6 would not allow me to have > multiple transit > providers. This makes IPv6 a nonstarter for me. > > Is there some loophole where I can qualify as a LIR and > "sell" service to my > remote sites? > > -charles > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net] > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:33 PM > To: john at chagres.net > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy > > > Hello John, > > Thank you for your participation on the list. I've provided some > clarification to some of the points you have raised, below. > > > a) be an LIR > > In the ARIN region the term ISP is used in exchange for LIR (Local > Internet Registry). > > > So the first barrier is that you must be a ARIN customer > > This is not the case. In the ARIN region you do not first > have to be a > customer of the RIR to request Internet addressing resources. > > > and that requires you to have received a v4 block from ARIN > > directly. > > Thus you can not be a ISP that receives its space from its > > upstream. > > > > All non-ARIN customers are hereby excluded, you fail requirement > > This is not stated in the policy, and is not true. It is not a > prerequisite to have obtained IPv4 address space from ARIN before > requesting IPv6 address space. Organizations may request IPv6 address > space from ARIN regardless of their IPv4 registration history. > > > In addition, research and development groups within end sites > > are excluded from receiving IPv6 space and thus can't develop > > cool new applications or services that make use of and would > > support the deployment of v6 space. > > These organizations may be able to obtain address space from > the 6bone. > ARIN also has a proposed policy under discussion, > "Experimental Internet > Resource Allocations," that may be applicable in some of these cases. > > > d) plan to deploy 200 /48 sites/customers > > You have to be able to provide 200 sites with v6 services within > > 2 years. Chicken and Egg. Can't start without having the space, > > can't get the space because you don't know if you can support 8.33 > > new v6 connections per month. > > In the policy document, item (d) is stated as such: > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to > other organizations within two years. > > ARIN does not scrutinize plans from requesting organizations > for meeting > this requirement. All we require is they state they have a plan for > making these assignments. > > Although I do not foresee that ARIN will go after organizations two > years down the line and revoke their allocation if they were unable to > make assignments to 200 customers, I can understand how this statement > in the policy may cause some concern for requesting organizations. > > If there is concern that this or other statements in the policy are > causing hesitation on the part of organizations who want to > request IPv6 > address space, perhaps it is time to consider changes in > accordance with > the procedures set forth in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy > Evaluation > Process. > > Best Regards, > > Richard Jimmerson > Director of Operations > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of John M. Brown > > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:40 PM > > To: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy > > > > > > In the interest of fostering a more active deployment and > > development of IPv6 space within the ARIN region, I'm interested > > in hearing what people would want to see changed in the policy. > > > > The ARIN region is behind other regions in deployment of v6, thus > > it seems to make sense that we need to mod the policy for our > > region. Maybe continue an "early adopters" waiver for another 24 > > months or something like that. > > > > > > Below is my understanding of 5.1.1 of the policy and I'm attempting > > to illustrate where it breaks with folks. > > > > > > It appears that Sec 5.1.1 states you must > > > > a) be an LIR > > b) not be an end-site > > c) plan to provide v6 connections via /48's > > d) plan to deploy 200 /48 sites/customers > > > > In the ARIN region, an LIR would be the entity that receives > > space from ARIN and reassigns this to end-sites or other > > transit type sites. > > > > ---------- > > Requirement A. > > So the first barrier is that you must be a ARIN customer > > and that requires you to have received a v4 block from ARIN > > directly. > > > > Thus you can not be a ISP that receives its space from its > > upstream. > > > > All non-ARIN customers are hereby excluded, you fail requirement > > A. > > > > --------- > > Requirement B. > > > > You can not be an end-site. Per section 2.9 of the policy > > definition of an End-Site, all web hosting companies are hereby > > excluded. You might be able to argue that your web clients are the > > "end user", but from a routing point of view you don't provide > > transit to other sites. 2.9 seems to support this notion. > > > > In addition, research and development groups within end sites > > are excluded from receiving IPv6 space and thus can't develop > > cool new applications or services that make use of and would > > support the deployment of v6 space. > > > > Service companies are excluded in that they can't get space, > > learn how to use it, so that they can then help other clients > > (LIR's etc) spin up the protocol. > > > > > > ------------ > > Requirement C. > > > > Requires that you provide v6 connectivity to others.. Well i guess > > if you have the space, then you could provide space. > > > > > > ------------ > > > > Requirement D. > > > > You have to be able to provide 200 sites with v6 services within > > 2 years. Chicken and Egg. Can't start without having the space, > > can't get the space because you don't know if you can support 8.33 > > new v6 connections per month. > > > From woody at pch.net Tue Jan 7 22:58:51 2003 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:58:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees In-Reply-To: <4B8EA05057E49E4F940B74AC3AEC23F40BB71E@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta) wrote: > what makes anyone think they have the expertise or resources to > constructively use an IPv6 block? That's the chicken-and-egg problem. We need a few people out there screwing around in order to collectively develop the necessary expertise. If nobody's doing the work, we never get past square one. -Bill From phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net Wed Jan 8 04:42:12 2003 From: phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net (Phil Howard) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 03:42:12 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy In-Reply-To: <010901c2b694$66499ab0$e7fc95c0@arin.net>; from richardj@arin.net on Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 04:33:20PM -0500 References: <000001c2b68c$e46312d0$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> <010901c2b694$66499ab0$e7fc95c0@arin.net> Message-ID: <20030108034212.A4360@hamal.ipal.net> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 04:33:20PM -0500, Richard Jimmerson wrote: | > a) be an LIR | | In the ARIN region the term ISP is used in exchange for LIR (Local | Internet Registry). But not everyone is an ISP under those terms. I'm certainly interested in deploying IPv6. But my upstream is currently not so interested. They will be eventually, and I do in fact have substantial influence, but that would be based greatly on my own tests of how well things work out (tunneled for starters, obviously). | > So the first barrier is that you must be a ARIN customer | | This is not the case. In the ARIN region you do not first have to be a | customer of the RIR to request Internet addressing resources. What's not clear is whether the address space I might be able to get will be the permanent space. | > In addition, research and development groups within end sites | > are excluded from receiving IPv6 space and thus can't develop | > cool new applications or services that make use of and would | > support the deployment of v6 space. | | These organizations may be able to obtain address space from the 6bone. | ARIN also has a proposed policy under discussion, "Experimental Internet | Resource Allocations," that may be applicable in some of these cases. I'm really not interested in that level of "experimentation". I'd rather be doing in in "learning mode" instead of "research mode". I want to make the commitment to move forward, and do what I can to make it happen. But that won't happen for me with 6bone. | > d) plan to deploy 200 /48 sites/customers | > You have to be able to provide 200 sites with v6 services within | > 2 years. Chicken and Egg. Can't start without having the space, | > can't get the space because you don't know if you can support 8.33 | > new v6 connections per month. | | In the policy document, item (d) is stated as such: | | d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to | other organizations within two years. | | ARIN does not scrutinize plans from requesting organizations for meeting | this requirement. All we require is they state they have a plan for | making these assignments. The funny thing is, I've done some much work to squeeze as much as I can out of IPv4 space, that I don't see make 200 /48 assignments ... ever. And I certainly won't state otherwise. The kind of services I focus on now don't justify it. But I still need portable space. The problem is there is still discontinuity in what much of IPv6 is supposed to be about (at least as I saw it) and what ARIN policy is. | If there is concern that this or other statements in the policy are | causing hesitation on the part of organizations who want to request IPv6 | address space, perhaps it is time to consider changes in accordance with | the procedures set forth in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation | Process. I don't even need a /48 for all that I expect to be doing. That's just huge. What I do need down the road is portability and multi-homing. I thought IPv6 would be enabling that. If that's not so, then I have zero incentive to deploy IPv6. -- Phil Howard phil at ipal.net From shane at time-travellers.org Wed Jan 8 06:38:08 2003 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 12:38:08 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030108113808.GC18944@venus.lab.time-travellers.org> On 2003-01-07 13:46:28 -0800, Klement, Charles wrote: > > Are there currently any plans underway to accommodate the needs of > Multihomed enterprises? If my understanding is correct (please > correct me) The hierarchical nature of IPv6 would not allow me to have > multiple transit providers. This makes IPv6 a nonstarter for me. There are currently two forums where IPv6 multihoming solutions are being discussed. One is the IETF Site Multihoming in IPv6 working group: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/multi6-charter.html The IETF working group has been around for a few years, but frankly hasn't gone forward much. Which is the reason that a few couple of interested parties created is the IPv6 Multi-homers list: http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/ Based on my understanding of the problem, our current notion of multihoming is too limited - there will probably be a "one-size-fits-all" solution to redundant connectivity in IPv6. Solutions that have good properties for small sites don't support necessary features for large sites. This isn't bad - it just means we may have to stop thinking about "how do I multihome in IPv6" and say "how do I provide reliablity in IPv6". Of course, there aren't good answers to that question yet. :( As far as I know, you have exactly the same multihoming solution available now as you do with IPv4 - advertise a more specific route. Since AFAIK IPv6 folks don't filter heavily on prefix length, this should give you multihoming today as good as with IPv4. Yes, it's a suckful situation, but no worse than current practice. > Is there some loophole where I can qualify as a LIR and "sell" service > to my remote sites? I'm not sure what exactly is meant by this.... ??? -- Shane Speaking only on behalf of myself From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Wed Jan 8 11:17:55 2003 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:17:55 +0000 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy Message-ID: > But not everyone is an ISP under those terms. I'm certainly > interested in deploying IPv6. But my upstream is currently not > so interested. They will be eventually, and I do in fact have > substantial influence, but that would be based greatly on my own > tests of how well things work out (tunneled for starters, obviously). So start out by using site-local IPv6 addresses and get some routable addresses from a tunnel broker site like the one at Hurricane Electric http://www.he.net/news/article2.html Then when you get a local connection from your ISP you can simply renumber. And don't try to complain about the pain of renumbering because I won't accept that argument. In fact I *WANT* you to suffer that pain if there is any. That's how you will learn how easy (or hard) it is to renumber using IPv6. >What's not clear is whether the address space I might be able to get >will be the permanent space. You don't need permanent space. IPv6 is not IPv4 with more bits. >I'm really not interested in that level of "experimentation". I'd >rather be doing in in "learning mode" instead of "research mode". >I want to make the commitment to move forward, and do what I can to >make it happen. But that won't happen for me with 6bone. Any IPv6 connection to the IPv6 Internet will let you operate in learning mode. Whether it is a 6bone connection or a native local connection is irrelevant. >The funny thing is, I've done some much work to squeeze as much as I can >out of IPv4 space, that I don't see make 200 /48 assignments ... ever. >And I certainly won't state otherwise. 200 households is not very much for an ISP to hook up. One single household connection takes up a /48. Remember that IPv6 is not just IPv4 with more bits. Any site that will have two or more IPv6 devices is a network and therefore that site will use a /48. Forget the IPv4 practice of counting the number of devices on a subnet and rounding up to the nearest power of 2. That is obsolete with v6. > The kind of services I focus on now don't justify it. But I still need > portable space. The problem is there is still discontinuity in what > much of IPv6 is supposed to be about (at least as I saw it) and what > ARIN policy is. Why do you need "portable" space. In fact, please define what "portable" space is because I don't understand. Assuming that you are using DNS, if you switch IPv6 providers just add your new providers addresses to your network and to your DNS. When you switch off the old provider then just remove their addresses an run only with the new ones. Don't try to tell me that this won't work because you don't know that because you haven't tried to do it yet. The only way that we know this doesn't work with v4 is because people *DID* try it and they learned through experience. If you want to learn v6 properly then you have to set up the experiences and then live through them. After a year you will be a grizzled veteran and will truly understand what v6 can and cannot do. >I don't even need a /48 for all that I expect to be doing. That's just huge. Bah! A /48 is puny. I would use one of those for my aunt Mabel's house and another one for my granny's. Who cares if I'm wasting 99.78% of the addresses in each /48? It's simply not relevant because there are lots more /48's where those ones came from. > What I do need down the road is portability and multi-homing. I thought > IPv6 would be enabling that. If that's not so, then I have zero incentive > to deploy IPv6. There are some subtle nuances to the term "multihoming" that many people are not aware of. IPv6 has always supported multihoming in the sense that a device interface can have many addresses at the same time to communicate on the physical link, within the site, within the organizational boundary and with the world through one or more upstream network providers. But this is not done with BGP multihoming. To understand it better you really should try it out and experience it for yourself. There just aren't enough IPv6 experts in existence to produce the kind of documentation and training tips that we are used to in the v4 world. At this point in time you need to grit your teeth, accept that you are a pioneer, and forge ahead no matter what the obstacles are. Since there are no complete maps of the territory, you need to keep your eyes open, explore the v6 possibilities and maybe you will become a future fount of wisdom on IPv6. -- Michael Dillon From cjk at fluke.com Wed Jan 8 12:05:19 2003 From: cjk at fluke.com (Klement, Charles) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:05:19 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Shane Kerr [mailto:shane at time-travellers.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:38 AM To: Klement, Charles Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy . . . >As far as I know, you have exactly the same multihoming solution >available now as you do with IPv4 - advertise a more specific route. >Since AFAIK IPv6 folks don't filter heavily on prefix length, this >should give you multihoming today as good as with IPv4. My understanding, is that this is not possible under v6. One of the goals of v6 is to maintain a tight hierarchy in the routing tables. This means that you can't send specifics to one provider or another. You can only use the address space that you are assigned from your provider with that provider. If they would open this up and allow a "swamp" then this would allow me to purchase transit from multiple peers. With PI address space, I don't have to worry (as much) about when the next ISP will go out of business. Perhaps my worries are bound up in my experience with v4. I definitely will go dig out the v6 RFCs > >Yes, it's a suckful situation, but no worse than current practice. > >> Is there some loophole where I can qualify as a LIR and "sell" service >> to my remote sites? > >I'm not sure what exactly is meant by this.... ??? I'm referring to the fact that although I represent thousands of users across many locations, I do not qualify as an ISP (LIR) because I don't actually sell service to anyone. -charles From david.conrad at nominum.com Wed Jan 8 12:33:15 2003 From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:33:15 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <44879775-232F-11D7-A5A8-000393DB42B2@nominum.com> Hi, Speaking only for myself... On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 09:05 AM, Klement, Charles wrote: > My understanding, is that this is not possible under v6. Sure it is. IPv6 is just IPv4 with more bits (:-)). > One of the goals > of v6 is to maintain a tight hierarchy in the routing tables. Or rather, to limit routing table thrash due to unaggregatable prefixes. > This means > that you can't send specifics to one provider or another. You can > only use > the address space that you are assigned from your provider with that > provider. Unless IPv6 deployment comes along with a police force, there is nothing stopping consenting ISPs from doing whatever they want with regards to announcing specific to each other (or to anyone else for that matter). You don't need to renumber, always-on mobility is trivial, multihoming just requires your multiple ISPs accept your prefix and you are completely independent of your ISP. Of course, this doesn't scale particularly well... > If they would open this up and allow a "swamp" then this would allow > me to > purchase transit from multiple peers. It is fun watching history repeat itself. > I'm referring to the fact that although I represent thousands of users > across many locations, I do not qualify as an ISP (LIR) because I don't > actually sell service to anyone. I don't think there is a requirement that money change hands. Rgds, -drc From mury at goldengate.net Wed Jan 8 14:35:56 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:35:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: After seeing completely conflicting information shoot back and forth I decided to do some digging on my own. If anyone else is interested some good sites to read up on things try: http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-main.html http://www.ipv6.org/ http://www.ipv6forum.com/navbar/documents/6WIND-IPv6-answers-v2.0.pdf http://www.6bone.net/misc/case-for-ipv6.html Mury From narten at us.ibm.com Wed Jan 8 14:30:54 2003 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 14:30:54 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy In-Reply-To: Message from john@chagres.net of "Tue, 07 Jan 2003 13:39:32 MST." <000001c2b68c$e46312d0$7f7ba8c0@laptoy> Message-ID: <200301081930.h08JUsi05387@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu> "John M. Brown" writes: > The ARIN region is behind other regions in deployment of v6, thus > it seems to make sense that we need to mod the policy for our > region. Maybe continue an "early adopters" waiver for another 24 > months or something like that. You seem to be assuming that because ARIN is "behind" the other regions in terms of IPv6 deployment, something must be broken in the current ARIN policies. I would like to question that assertion, in the spirit of "let's not try fixing things until we're sure they are really broken". I would turn the question around and ask whether folk seriously believe the current policies are in fact preventing folk who are serious about deploying IPv6 from getting the address space needed to do so. And if so, what aspect of the policy is at issue. Thomas From narten at us.ibm.com Wed Jan 8 14:34:41 2003 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 14:34:41 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy In-Reply-To: Message from cjk@fluke.com of "Tue, 07 Jan 2003 13:46:28 PST." Message-ID: <200301081934.h08JYfs05407@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu> "Klement, Charles" writes: > If my understanding is correct (please correct me) The hierarchical > nature of IPv6 would not allow me to have multiple transit > providers. Not true. There seems to be an old myth floating around that somehow IPv6 routing is somehow different than what happens in IPv4. From a routing perspective, IPv6 uses CIDR and everything is pretty much the same as in IPv4. This myth has its roots in some early IPv6 documents, that gave the impression that IPv6 could somehow mandate a particular hierarchy. That view has long since been debunked. Thomas From jmcburnett at msmgmt.com Wed Jan 8 14:48:36 2003 From: jmcburnett at msmgmt.com (McBurnett, Jim) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:48:36 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees Message-ID: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E50770602F2B53@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com> I would deploy v6 right now if I got my block for free, and could get my providers to jump on. But I know they won't. I have already asked. The network engineers at corporate for both of my providers "are testing" it. Maybe there should be a policy where as if you have a V4 class C, then a V6 equivalent would be free if you moved. The problems I see are: Currently I am getting service from 2 ISPs (multi-homed), and for me to use V6, both of them will have to be properly setup. One them is multi-homed to ATT and Level 3, the other just changed their primary upstream and moved to ATT also. Yes, I know my multi-homeing now is not really multi-homing any more. But until Level 3 and ATT provides V6 to my upstream, I have no prayer to get it without great pains. I can't imagine tunneling to 6BONE and then setting up all those remote VPN's I have to work with it. The real problem here is not that people / smaller companies don't want to go to V6, it's that some big providers feel they won't have a product (IP addresses) that are scarce enough to make people buy them anymore at the rates they are paying now. I got a deal, I pay nearly the same for a class c with my upstream as a friend pays for 5 static with bell south DSL. He pays $60 a month for 5. Could you imagine what would happen if BellSouth and all those DSL providers had customers with DSL would do if their customers were getting free IP addresses? And let me say quickly, I am not protecting their Business plan, nor an I giving them an excuse, I believe this is what someone in a management position is seeing. (READ NON-NETWORK PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT) I guess the real deal should be: For a true V6 network implementation down to the customer level, the backbone and network provider will recieve (insert some big sized block) for free for X years, such that the provider must allow end users to have the appropriate # of static IP's for free also for the length of the contract. But even that has problems... anyway soapbox yielded.. Jim -----Original Message----- From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:53 PM To: ddiller at cogentco.com Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees waiving the fee is a good thing. having barriers that prevent people from even being able to apply is a bad thing. thus, having it be free (for some period of time) doesn't mean much to those that can't get the space because of other barriers. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Dave Diller > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:30 AM > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees > > > > you are asking ARIN to become more involved with their membership > > community. Not something I see them doing any time soon. > > > > Seeing as how this is PPML, perhaps you should formulate a > "You All Suck A > Whole Lot" Policy Proposal and have it put to a vote? Then > at least we'd be > on-topic for once... ;-) > > Personally, I fail to see how waiving the fees is a BAD thing > if you are trying > to promote v6 adoption, which was all the scope of the notice > covered. If one > year is too short a time-frame for an extension that's one > thing that can be > discussed and "Policy-fied". Similarly, if there is a sense > that the policies > for Allocs are completely useless, will never work, and > should be done over, > well fine - good luck, get some discussion going, but where > were the complaints > when they were being formulated initially before they were > adopted by ALL the > RIRs? Seems to be a bit late now... > > -dd > From narten at us.ibm.com Wed Jan 8 14:50:30 2003 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 14:50:30 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy In-Reply-To: Message from phil-arin-ppml@ipal.net of "Wed, 08 Jan 2003 03:42:12 CST." <20030108034212.A4360@hamal.ipal.net> Message-ID: <200301081950.h08JoUJ05657@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu> Phil Howard writes: > | > So the first barrier is that you must be a ARIN customer > | > | This is not the case. In the ARIN region you do not first have to be a > | customer of the RIR to request Internet addressing resources. > What's not clear is whether the address space I might be able to get > will be the permanent space. What space is permanent? No IPv6 space is "permanent" in the sense that you will be guaranteed to always have it and that it will always be routable. If you are an endsite, your ISP might fold and the addresses might stop working. You might change ISPs and renumber (over a period of months), etc. Even if you are an ISP, at some point other ISPs might decide that the routing tables have become too large and unmanagable and that your prefix is too small to be worth carrying. One hopes these things don't happen, but some of them no doubt will at some time. > I'm really not interested in that level of "experimentation". I'd > rather be doing in in "learning mode" instead of "research mode". > I want to make the commitment to move forward, and do what I can to > make it happen. But that won't happen for me with 6bone. Actually, if you read the 6bone is all about, "learning" is one of the things it is supposed to foster. www.6bone.net. > The kind of services I focus on now don't justify it. But I still need > portable space. The problem is there is still discontinuity in what > much of IPv6 is supposed to be about (at least as I saw it) and what > ARIN policy is. You say something key above. You want portable space. There is no such thing in IPv6 (and arguably, not even in IPv4). What you can get is space that is routable, today. Whether it will continue to be routable forever, depends on a lot of things, like growth of the routing tables. We simply do not have a technology that allows everyone to get a "portable" address that will work forever. What the current allocation policies are set up to do today is: - allow real ISPs to get address space, but in such a way that as they grow (i.e, allocate more addresses to end sites and downstreams), the size of the allocation they have from the RIR also grows, i.e., from a /29 to /27 to /26, etc. This is to minimize fragmentation of the address space as IPv6 usage grows, and maximize the potential for continued aggregation. - not make it possible for a non-ISP and typical end sites to get addresses directly from RIRs; they should get addresses from their ISPs. This is to scale the system over time, as we know that having end sites go directly to RIRs for address is unscalable and will result in a routing mess. Thomas From phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net Wed Jan 8 16:38:25 2003 From: phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net (Phil Howard) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:38:25 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy In-Reply-To: <200301081950.h08JoUJ05657@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>; from narten@us.ibm.com on Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 02:50:30PM -0500 References: <20030108034212.A4360@hamal.ipal.net> <200301081950.h08JoUJ05657@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu> Message-ID: <20030108153825.A11616@hamal.ipal.net> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 02:50:30PM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote: | Phil Howard writes: | | > | > So the first barrier is that you must be a ARIN customer | > | | > | This is not the case. In the ARIN region you do not first have to be a | > | customer of the RIR to request Internet addressing resources. | | > What's not clear is whether the address space I might be able to get | > will be the permanent space. | | What space is permanent? No IPv6 space is "permanent" in the sense | that you will be guaranteed to always have it and that it will always | be routable. If you are an endsite, your ISP might fold and the | addresses might stop working. That can happen. That's why I want permanent addresses, to avoid that. | You might change ISPs and renumber (over | a period of months), etc. Even if you are an ISP, at some point other | ISPs might decide that the routing tables have become too large and | unmanagable and that your prefix is too small to be worth | carrying. One hopes these things don't happen, but some of them no | doubt will at some time. I thought that IPv6 was supposed to be large enough that everyone could have the same size prefix, and it still be large enough that one single entity would have all they would ever need. I *can* do everything I need to do on a handful of addresses, probably even just 2. The problem is, they aren't portable and they aren't permanent. What's in IPv6 for me? If it doesn't solve those things, then it doesn't solve anything for me. And this is what a lot of people I know see IPv6 as being. Sure, it got rolling from a shortage of IPv4 address space. But that problem was "solved" (the technology exists, if deployed, to make IPv4 last probably another 20 years). The problem paradigm shifted. Quantity of address space isn't nearly the problem it once appeared to be. Quality of address space is where I see the issue being now. Permanency (as long as I keep using it or keep up payments on it, much like a domain name) and portability (I can switch ISP and I don't have to go back to my registrar and tell them what the new IPs are for my name servers). | > I'm really not interested in that level of "experimentation". I'd | > rather be doing in in "learning mode" instead of "research mode". | > I want to make the commitment to move forward, and do what I can to | > make it happen. But that won't happen for me with 6bone. | | Actually, if you read the 6bone is all about, "learning" is one of the | things it is supposed to foster. www.6bone.net. I'll go back and read it again. I did so a few years ago and it was a big turnoff to me. | > The kind of services I focus on now don't justify it. But I still need | > portable space. The problem is there is still discontinuity in what | > much of IPv6 is supposed to be about (at least as I saw it) and what | > ARIN policy is. | | You say something key above. You want portable space. There is no such | thing in IPv6 (and arguably, not even in IPv4). What you can get is | space that is routable, today. Whether it will continue to be routable | forever, depends on a lot of things, like growth of the routing | tables. We simply do not have a technology that allows everyone to | get a "portable" address that will work forever. IMHO, maybe IPv6 needs to go back to the drawing board. Right now it comes across as "tomorrow's solution for yesterday's problems". | What the current allocation policies are set up to do today is: | | - allow real ISPs to get address space, but in such a way that as | they grow (i.e, allocate more addresses to end sites and | downstreams), the size of the allocation they have from the RIR | also grows, i.e., from a /29 to /27 to /26, etc. This is to | minimize fragmentation of the address space as IPv6 usage grows, | and maximize the potential for continued aggregation. Certainly IPv4 suffers because you can't make a single allocation without running into one of: 1. The allocated space is exhausted. 2. The allocations exhaust the address space. That problem might have even existed with 64 bit addresses. But with 128 bit addresses, I don't see it being a problem this century, if ever. | - not make it possible for a non-ISP and typical end sites to get | addresses directly from RIRs; they should get addresses from their | ISPs. This is to scale the system over time, as we know that having | end sites go directly to RIRs for address is unscalable and will | result in a routing mess. I can understand these measures with IPv4. It appears the real problems were not addressed. Address space quantity was the "fear factor" a few years ago. Those fears remain, but they have calmed down (we're not in panic mode). The real problem is routing. Who is supposed to be working on that? And when will they start? What I think needs to be done is to solve the routing problem, and then go fit that in with IPv6. And since it *might* need some changes to IPv6, it could be costly if we don't expedite solving the routing problem before the full deployment of IPv6. I would have brought this up in the 1990's because I certainly had ideas to solve it, but not being in the circle of researchers working on it, and having read that routing was being addresses, I didn't worry and just assumed IPv6 would solve these problems. I should have worried. -- Phil Howard phil at ipal.net From mury at goldengate.net Wed Jan 8 17:41:10 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:41:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: Renumbering with IPv6 WAS: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, In-Reply-To: <20030108153825.A11616@hamal.ipal.net> Message-ID: I shouldn't be the one answering this because I have no experience with IPv6, but it seems that half of this discussion could be eliminated by someone taking the time to explain how DNS and IP numbering takes place with IPv6. I will give it my best shot since no-one else has stepped up to the plate. Renumbering with IPv6 should be relatively painless. Within your block of IPs you will number your systems (actually interfaces) with IP suffixes. Whether you do that with static IPs or with something similiar to DHCP it doesn't matter. The prefix to the IPv6 address would be learned from your router or a provider's router. Thus to renumber you would only need to get the new IPv6 prefix from your new ISP. Yes, you would need to change a static route or two here and there and put the new suffix into the router to be learned by the hosts but it doesn't sound like much work. Very simplified example: Let's say an IP is 4 digits. You configure your router with the prefix of your ISP "56" and the suffix you want to give it "10". So the routers IP is 5610. Then you would configure your hosts (interfaces) with suffixes. Let's say you give 15 to a host. You also tell that host to look to IP 10 to get the prefix. The host then learns that it's full IP is 5615. So you change ISPs. In the router you put in it's new IP 7810 where 78 is the new ISPs prefix. You also tell the router to tell hosts that the IP prefix is 78. You add a static route back to the ISP from the router. Everything else on the internal network can be left untouched. The previous host in question automatically changes it's IP from 5615 to 7815. This will bring up a question of DNS. With IPv6 DNS will work much the same way. Not only with a simple config change will it correctly renumber all your IPs, but it will also let you translate both IPv4 and IPv6 IPs for the same host. As a mentioned I have no experience with IPv6, but this discussion seems to be getting no where and I figured I should give it my best shot. Feel free to correct any false information. Mury On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Phil Howard wrote: > | What space is permanent? No IPv6 space is "permanent" in the sense > | that you will be guaranteed to always have it and that it will always > | be routable. If you are an endsite, your ISP might fold and the > | addresses might stop working. > > That can happen. That's why I want permanent addresses, to avoid that. > From ddiller at cogentco.com Wed Jan 8 18:20:22 2003 From: ddiller at cogentco.com (Dave Diller) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 18:20:22 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv6, thread diverging from 'policy' to 'background info'... References: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E50770602F2B53@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com> Message-ID: <3E1CB236.558F9AC7@cogentco.com> > The problems I see are: > Currently I am getting service from 2 ISPs (multi-homed), and > for me to use V6, both of them will have to be > properly setup. This seems to be the chicken-and-egg thing again... Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not clear on why everyone thinks "I can't *possibly* do it till my provider does it". With that kind of viewpoint, nothing'll ever get done as everyone is waiting for everyone "one step up" to do it, and the larger providers are naturally going to be moving much more slowly on deployment than some of the smaller ones.... larger, more complex network means more layers of formality to major network changes, as well as more things to test, yadda yadda yadda. My current status is that I received my /32 last month, and I have a copy of O'Reilly's "IPV6 Essentials" on my desk that I've opened a couple of times - so I'll freely admit that I'm on the steep end of the learning curve here, looking to test and deploy this year. So I'll ask for input/correction of the below from those "grizzled veterenas" of v6, as I ain't one yet: As I understand it [see OReilly quotes below], an ISP can receive a /32 from ARIN, and then said ISP can use 6to4 to get native v6 working in their own network, and encapsulate traffic onto the existing v4 network to get to other v6 sites - which means their upstream IS NOT REQUIRED to run IPv6. Does this not work in practice? I'm certain it would be CLEANER if your upstream could give you a native V6 pipe, but this would at least get YOU empowered and running on YOUR network in the interim. What am I missing? What is the source of the seemingly common perception of "I must wait for my upstream to do it first!"? Pulling out said O'Reilly (are there better resources besides the RFC's themselves? I waded through several of those around Thanksgiving and I'm sure another go-round would help) ----- Page 229, Tunnelling Techniques: Tunnelling mechanisms can be used to deploy an IPv6 fowarding infrastructure while the overall IPv4 infrastructure is still the basis. Tunnelling can be used to carry IPv6 packets by encapsulating it in IPv4 packets and tunnelling it over the IPv4 infrastructure. For instance, if your provider still has an IPv4-only infrastructure, tunnelling allows youto have a corporate IPv6 network and tunnel through your ISP's IPv4 network to reach other IPv6 hosts or networks. It then refers the reader to RFCs 2473 (Encapsulation with IPv6), 2893 (Automatic and Configured Tunnelling), and 3056 (6to4). ----- Now, ignoring issues of getting the right versions of code and/or hardware to HANDLE this, it seems this is the Best Current Practice to achieve v6 when your upstream isn't able/willing to hand it to you natively. Is this a correct statement? > Maybe there should be a policy where as if you have a V4 class C, > then a V6 equivalent would be free if you moved. If you have an ISP doing IPv6, and you want to, they'll give you a /48, even if you only have one box that wants to speak v6. No policy required. That's the way it's designed. > > The real problem here is not that people / smaller companies don't want to go to V6, it's that some big providers feel they > won't have a product (IP addresses) that are scarce enough to make people buy them anymore at the rates they are paying now. I have no relevant comment or experience with that opinion as to the "show stoppers" of V6. I don't charge for IPs. At all. But you sure better be able to justify 'em, and you're cut off when you can qualify for an ARIN block. "Free milk" doesn't mean you get the whole darn cow forever. -dd From phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net Thu Jan 9 02:37:30 2003 From: phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net (Phil Howard) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 01:37:30 -0600 Subject: Renumbering with IPv6 WAS: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, In-Reply-To: ; from mury@goldengate.net on Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 04:41:10PM -0600 References: <20030108153825.A11616@hamal.ipal.net> Message-ID: <20030109013729.A21550@hamal.ipal.net> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 04:41:10PM -0600, Mury wrote: | This will bring up a question of DNS. With IPv6 DNS will work much the | same way. Not only with a simple config change will it correctly renumber | all your IPs, but it will also let you translate both IPv4 and IPv6 IPs | for the same host. But the point is, you still have to syncronize the event of switching routers and switching the DNS data, if you don't have the opportunity to overlap. And if an ISP goes bankrupt without notice (yes, it happens) and you suddenly have to switch to another, how do you restore your DNS IPs when you can't get any verification because your GTLD A records still point to the old ones? -- Phil Howard phil at ipal.net From phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net Thu Jan 9 02:54:19 2003 From: phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net (Phil Howard) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 01:54:19 -0600 Subject: [ppml] IPv6, thread diverging from 'policy' to 'background info'... In-Reply-To: <3E1CB236.558F9AC7@cogentco.com>; from ddiller@cogentco.com on Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 06:20:22PM -0500 References: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E50770602F2B53@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com> <3E1CB236.558F9AC7@cogentco.com> Message-ID: <20030109015419.B21550@hamal.ipal.net> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 06:20:22PM -0500, Dave Diller wrote: | > The problems I see are: | > Currently I am getting service from 2 ISPs (multi-homed), and | > for me to use V6, both of them will have to be | > properly setup. | | | This seems to be the chicken-and-egg thing again... Maybe I'm missing | something, but I'm not clear on why everyone thinks "I can't *possibly* do it | till my provider does it". With that kind of viewpoint, nothing'll ever get | done as everyone is waiting for everyone "one step up" to do it, and the larger | providers are naturally going to be moving much more slowly on deployment than | some of the smaller ones.... larger, more complex network means more layers of | formality to major network changes, as well as more things to test, yadda yadda | yadda. I would dare say it we depended on those very companies to build an internet, we would not be anywhere near where we are today (and IPv4 would still appear to have decades of capacity remaining). | As I understand it [see OReilly quotes below], an ISP can receive a /32 from | ARIN, and then said ISP can use 6to4 to get native v6 working in their own | network, and encapsulate traffic onto the existing v4 network to get to other | v6 sites - which means their upstream IS NOT REQUIRED to run IPv6. Does this | not work in practice? | | I'm certain it would be CLEANER if your upstream could give you a native V6 | pipe, but this would at least get YOU empowered and running on YOUR network in | the interim. What am I missing? What is the source of the seemingly common | perception of "I must wait for my upstream to do it first!"? What appears to me to be the case is that the policies are written not so much in terms of the transition, but in terms of the final deployment. It's more like this is how it will be when things are rolling. It's already enough that IPv6 doesn't really buy me anything. But maybe I can't even get it in the first place, so it might be moot, anyway. | Page 229, Tunnelling Techniques: | | Tunnelling mechanisms can be used to deploy an IPv6 fowarding infrastructure | while the overall IPv4 infrastructure is still the basis. Tunnelling can be | used to carry IPv6 packets by encapsulating it in IPv4 packets and tunnelling | it over the IPv4 infrastructure. For instance, if your provider still has an | IPv4-only infrastructure, tunnelling allows youto have a corporate IPv6 network | and tunnel through your ISP's IPv4 network to reach other IPv6 hosts or | networks. | | It then refers the reader to RFCs 2473 (Encapsulation with IPv6), 2893 | (Automatic and Configured Tunnelling), and 3056 (6to4). Hmmm, no proxy tunneling. I don't see why you can't do 6to4 proxying (besides not finding any RFC for it). It would certainly avoid issues like MTU. -- Phil Howard phil at ipal.net From mury at goldengate.net Thu Jan 9 03:12:57 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 02:12:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: Renumbering with IPv6 WAS: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, In-Reply-To: <20030109013729.A21550@hamal.ipal.net> Message-ID: > But the point is, you still have to syncronize the event of switching > routers and switching the DNS data, if you don't have the opportunity > to overlap. I don't think I understand what you are saying. We switch routers and DNS data every day. It's rarely a problem if you know ahead of time. > And if an ISP goes bankrupt without notice (yes, it happens) and you > suddenly have to switch to another, how do you restore your DNS IPs > when you can't get any verification because your GTLD A records still > point to the old ones? Of course ISPs go bankrupt. They usually keep operating however. Even so, if they were to shut their doors completely it would be awesome to be able to simply change a couple lines in a router and in a DNS server than the total nightmare you can have with having to renumber with IPv4. Mury From broseman at ix.netcom.com Thu Jan 9 13:03:38 2003 From: broseman at ix.netcom.com (Barbara Roseman) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 08:03:38 -1000 Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: References: <20030109013729.A21550@hamal.ipal.net> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20030109075444.0b209a28@popd.ix.netcom.com> We seem to be drifting off topic into a discussion of IPv6's actual merits. Please take that discussion off-list, or to an appropriate v6 discussion forum. As for the topic that started this off, is there any evidence that the current policy is discouraging the adoption of IPv6? I'd ask John to state whether anyone he's working with has actually had an application for IPv6 addresses rejected, and I'd like to ask ARIN's registration services if they find themselves rejecting applications for not meeting the proper criteria as ISPs as opposed to end-users. If we need to do some education about how one qualifies for v6 space, that is one problem. If we need to change language or substance of the v6 policy, that is a different problem. I'd like to get a clearer picture of which problem we're actually facing. -Barb At 02:12 AM 1/9/2003 -0600, Mury wrote: > > But the point is, you still have to syncronize the event of switching > > routers and switching the DNS data, if you don't have the opportunity > > to overlap. > >I don't think I understand what you are saying. We switch routers and DNS >data every day. It's rarely a problem if you know ahead of time. > > > And if an ISP goes bankrupt without notice (yes, it happens) and you > > suddenly have to switch to another, how do you restore your DNS IPs > > when you can't get any verification because your GTLD A records still > > point to the old ones? > >Of course ISPs go bankrupt. They usually keep operating however. Even >so, if they were to shut their doors completely it would be awesome to be >able to simply change a couple lines in a router and in a DNS server than >the total nightmare you can have with having to renumber with IPv4. > >Mury From john at chagres.net Thu Jan 9 13:25:18 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:25:18 -0700 Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20030109075444.0b209a28@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <001201c2b80c$762f12b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> People I've worked with have read the policies and determined that they do not meet the requirements and since v6 is still (in there mind) "early adopter" status, they don't feel the need or desire to fight the system. Some have indicated that we could solve the 200 in 2 year issue by saying we will alloc to dialup users. Technically that seem viable, but I doubt its "spirit" of intent. If I'm wrong, then I'll be setting up my VISP dial service shortly and asking for V6 space only. :) There are several factors around this issue. Perceived and actual issues in qualifying for space. How to use it / education and such. Actual need for it, why should "we" add another layer of issues. Backbone providers not ready to deploy. As an end user, I've been unable to get space from my transit providers, or even their transit providers. In general there is a chicken-egg issue. People that want to do stuff with it can't. So there isn't any cool stuff to use it for.... Yes I'm generalizing. john > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Barbara Roseman > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 11:04 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions > > > We seem to be drifting off topic into a discussion of IPv6's > actual merits. > Please take that discussion off-list, or to an appropriate v6 > discussion forum. > > As for the topic that started this off, is there any evidence > that the > current policy is discouraging the adoption of IPv6? > > I'd ask John to state whether anyone he's working with has > actually had an > application for IPv6 addresses rejected, and I'd like to ask ARIN's > registration services if they find themselves rejecting > applications for > not meeting the proper criteria as ISPs as opposed to end-users. > > If we need to do some education about how one qualifies for > v6 space, that > is one problem. If we need to change language or substance of the v6 > policy, that is a different problem. I'd like to get a > clearer picture of > which problem we're actually facing. > > -Barb > At 02:12 AM 1/9/2003 -0600, Mury wrote: > > > > But the point is, you still have to syncronize the event of > > > switching routers and switching the DNS data, if you > don't have the > > > opportunity to overlap. > > > >I don't think I understand what you are saying. We switch > routers and > >DNS data every day. It's rarely a problem if you know ahead of time. > > > > > And if an ISP goes bankrupt without notice (yes, it > happens) and you > > > suddenly have to switch to another, how do you restore > your DNS IPs > > > when you can't get any verification because your GTLD A records > > > still point to the old ones? > > > >Of course ISPs go bankrupt. They usually keep operating > however. Even > >so, if they were to shut their doors completely it would be > awesome to > >be able to simply change a couple lines in a router and in a > DNS server > >than the total nightmare you can have with having to renumber with > >IPv4. > > > >Mury > From mury at goldengate.net Thu Jan 9 14:50:06 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:50:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20030109075444.0b209a28@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Barbara, With all due respect, how can you talk about policy without clarifying the "merits?" If people don't even understand how IPv6 works, which is no fault of their own, how can they suggest policy revisions. Would you agree that parents talking about how late a child can stay out is a matter of policy? Do you make that choice purely on how old the child is, or on factors like if they have a license to drive, which friends they are going to be with, what's the activity, what's the weather going to be like later? People can't make good judgements about IPv6 allocations until they know how things such as renumbering actually happen with IPv6. And there is a significant amount of confusion regarding that. People don't want to invest gobs of time and money into rolling out IPv6 because of the ambiguity in pricing and the lack of permanency of the allocation. I certainly could suggest some policy changes, but perhaps the person who brought it up before is more on target. ARIN probably should set aside some money to educate the community on the ins and outs of IPv6. Yesterday I talked to a guy who runs the largest computer training school in Minnesota. Microsoft, Novell, Cisco, LANS, WANS, software, hardware, you name it. I asked him what he knew about IPv6. He knew it was necessary because we are dealing with a saturation problem with IPv4, he knew it was 128bits, and that's about it. If he doesn't understand it how many people out there do? It also means that people attending classes there are not asking questions about it or requesting any training. To me it seems you can go 2 routes to stimulate IPv6 growth. 1) Try to educate a broader base of network admins about it's merits and get more people thinking about it. 2) Or, clarify some issues with a core group of people (LIRs) and get it in their hands with as few obstacles as possible as long as the allocation won't jeprodize things down the road. In addition, make it easy to get a mirco-allocation /48 for those people who don't qualify for a /32. Give the IP space to them with the stipulation that they have to renumber into their LIRs block within 5 years. In both cases I think education is very important. There's too much mis-information floating around out there. Mury On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Barbara Roseman wrote: > We seem to be drifting off topic into a discussion of IPv6's actual merits. > Please take that discussion off-list, or to an appropriate v6 discussion forum. > > As for the topic that started this off, is there any evidence that the > current policy is discouraging the adoption of IPv6? > > I'd ask John to state whether anyone he's working with has actually had an > application for IPv6 addresses rejected, and I'd like to ask ARIN's > registration services if they find themselves rejecting applications for > not meeting the proper criteria as ISPs as opposed to end-users. > > If we need to do some education about how one qualifies for v6 space, that > is one problem. If we need to change language or substance of the v6 > policy, that is a different problem. I'd like to get a clearer picture of > which problem we're actually facing. > > -Barb > At 02:12 AM 1/9/2003 -0600, Mury wrote: > > > > But the point is, you still have to syncronize the event of switching > > > routers and switching the DNS data, if you don't have the opportunity > > > to overlap. > > > >I don't think I understand what you are saying. We switch routers and DNS > >data every day. It's rarely a problem if you know ahead of time. > > > > > And if an ISP goes bankrupt without notice (yes, it happens) and you > > > suddenly have to switch to another, how do you restore your DNS IPs > > > when you can't get any verification because your GTLD A records still > > > point to the old ones? > > > >Of course ISPs go bankrupt. They usually keep operating however. Even > >so, if they were to shut their doors completely it would be awesome to be > >able to simply change a couple lines in a router and in a DNS server than > >the total nightmare you can have with having to renumber with IPv4. > > > >Mury > From broseman at ix.netcom.com Thu Jan 9 15:00:34 2003 From: broseman at ix.netcom.com (Barbara Roseman) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:00:34 -1000 Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.2.1.2.20030109075444.0b209a28@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20030109094828.0b3afa98@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 01:50 PM 1/9/2003 -0600, Mury wrote: >Barbara, > >With all due respect, how can you talk about policy without clarifying the >"merits?" Mury, I wholeheartedly agree that education is a necessary task in the discussion of IPv6 policy. I simply don't think the ppml is the proper forum for that education to take place. I do think ppml is the proper forum for discussing whether the policy as it exists fulfills the needs of early and long-term adopters. That is obviously related to the education question since people need to know what questions to ask, both about the policy and their own network needs. If we, as the ARIN members, decide that v6 education should become a high priority for ARIN, then we can take the necessary steps to communicate that to ARIN staff, and to set up resources for performing the task, or point people to fora where the education resources are already available. You, yourself, found many such sites and helpfully posted the urls to this list. -Barb From david at iprg.nokia.com Thu Jan 9 15:12:14 2003 From: david at iprg.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:12:14 -0800 Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: <001201c2b80c$762f12b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy>; from john@chagres.net on Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 11:25:18AM -0700 References: <5.0.2.1.2.20030109075444.0b209a28@popd.ix.netcom.com> <001201c2b80c$762f12b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: <20030109121214.A4599@iprg.nokia.com> John, On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 11:25:18AM -0700, John M. Brown wrote: > > Some have indicated that we could solve the 200 in 2 year > issue by saying we will alloc to dialup users. Technically > that seem viable, but I doubt its "spirit" of intent. If > I'm wrong, then I'll be setting up my VISP dial service > shortly and asking for V6 space only. :) The spirit of the policy is that you should be able to get a significant allocation of ipv6 addresses if you are serious about deploying ipv6 for you and a significant number of customers (whether you start with tunnels etc. is irrelevant). People who just want to try out ipv6 don't really need an ipv6 allocation from ARIN - they can either go the 6bone route or get an allocation of ipv6 addresses from an upstream or befriended party (I can help you out if you want :-)). And if you ask me what is the biggest problem in the policy right now ?!? That are probably small entities that have a need to multihome. The question is whether is is a problem with the policy or with the the fact that scalable multihoming is an unresolved issue (just like with ipv4 - there is really nothing new here). The second issue that I see is midsize businesses (I purposely don't define what midsize actually is) who really would like to have numberportability and who actually deserve it (in my opinion :-)). Renumbering is a little easier with ipv6, but still a pain and the cost of renumbering can be quite significant if you are bigger than a small household or small business. David K. --- From mury at goldengate.net Thu Jan 9 15:28:22 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:28:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20030109094828.0b3afa98@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: > Mury, > > I wholeheartedly agree that education is a necessary task in the discussion > of IPv6 policy. I simply don't think the ppml is the proper forum for that > education to take place. Barbara, I also agree that this is not the proper place for an "education" to take place. However, if there are some common misconceptions, I do think it is important to dispell them along with the facts. A few people just fired back comments basically telling people to shutup until they tried it themselves. That's not going to further the cause... assuming you believe in the cause. I would also like to ask where you think an appropriate forum would be. Like I said I agree that this isn't the place, but with the lack of a better place questions are going to arise here. Maybe there is a place that ARIN members can be redirected to for more technical type discussions, and I just don't know about it. > I do think ppml is the proper forum for discussing whether the policy as it > exists fulfills the needs of early and long-term adopters. That is > obviously related to the education question since people need to know what > questions to ask, both about the policy and their own network needs. > > If we, as the ARIN members, decide that v6 education should become a high > priority for ARIN, then we can take the necessary steps to communicate that > to ARIN staff, and to set up resources for performing the task, or point > people to fora where the education resources are already available. You, > yourself, found many such sites and helpfully posted the urls to this list. Yes, I already posted the URLs ;) Mury From mury at goldengate.net Thu Jan 9 15:35:31 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:35:31 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? Message-ID: There was some speculation that backbones were or were not routing IPv6. I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both have told me they have no plans to support the routing of IPv6. Does anyone know of a backbone that will route IPv6? I know this does not directly pertain to policy, but if it's true that no backbones will route IPv6 than perhaps a policy needs to be created to encourage them to do so. Mury ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 20:24:00 GMT From: Genuity Customer Care Subject: Ticket #1, pclose, Mury Johnson has a question re... Categorization ------------------ Status: pclose Type: support Item: mcs Scope: 1site Service Elements ---------------------- Life Cycle ---------------- Problem Started: 01-09-2003 19:56:43 GMT Source: email Ticket Opened: 01-09-2003 19:56:43 GMT by rcalanna Owner: sa Ticket Updated: 01-09-2003 20:23:56 GMT by barmar Support Area: sa Problem Ended: 01-09-2003 20:22:00 GMT Fixer: sa Pending Close: 01-09-2003 20:22:35 GMT by barmar Close Code: support Description: Mury Johnson has a question regardinging IPv6. If I have an IPv6 allocation, can I route that block through you? Resolution: We do not currently support IPv6, and have not announced any timeframe to provide this capability. ======================================================================= This ticket is "pending closure" which means that we are keeping the ticket open until 5 business days after the "Pending Close" date above. If you feel this work has not been completed to your satisfaction, please contact us and we will re-open the ticket. If we do not hear from you in that time, the ticket will be closed automatically. Has your phone number, cell phone, pager number, fax number or email address changed? Help Genuity help you! Please contact us at 1-781-865-8730 or 1-800-Genuity or care at genuity.net to ensure that all of your technical contact information is up to date. Genuity Confidential and Proprietary From ahp at hilander.com Thu Jan 9 15:31:49 2003 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 13:31:49 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2147483647.1042119109@macleod.hilander.com> --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 14:35 -0600 Mury wrote: > > There was some speculation that backbones were or were not routing IPv6. > I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both have told me they have no > plans to support the routing of IPv6. > > Does anyone know of a backbone that will route IPv6? > > I know this does not directly pertain to policy, but if it's true that no > backbones will route IPv6 than perhaps a policy needs to be created to > encourage them to do so. I think you're missing the big picture here Mury. Simply acquiring IPv6 space is not preventing its deployment. There are many, many more issues out there surrounding its deployment. We could pay backbones $10k each and give each of them a /33 of IPv6 address space and they still wouldn't deploy it. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com Thu Jan 9 15:36:23 2003 From: Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com (Taylor, Stacy) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:36:23 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? Message-ID: <5BDB545714D0764F8452CC5A25DDEEFA04DADBB7@denexg21.icgcomm.com> ICG is working on it, but we also have no time frame. -----Original Message----- From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:36 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? There was some speculation that backbones were or were not routing IPv6. I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both have told me they have no plans to support the routing of IPv6. Does anyone know of a backbone that will route IPv6? I know this does not directly pertain to policy, but if it's true that no backbones will route IPv6 than perhaps a policy needs to be created to encourage them to do so. Mury ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 20:24:00 GMT From: Genuity Customer Care Subject: Ticket #1, pclose, Mury Johnson has a question re... Categorization ------------------ Status: pclose Type: support Item: mcs Scope: 1site Service Elements ---------------------- Life Cycle ---------------- Problem Started: 01-09-2003 19:56:43 GMT Source: email Ticket Opened: 01-09-2003 19:56:43 GMT by rcalanna Owner: sa Ticket Updated: 01-09-2003 20:23:56 GMT by barmar Support Area: sa Problem Ended: 01-09-2003 20:22:00 GMT Fixer: sa Pending Close: 01-09-2003 20:22:35 GMT by barmar Close Code: support Description: Mury Johnson has a question regardinging IPv6. If I have an IPv6 allocation, can I route that block through you? Resolution: We do not currently support IPv6, and have not announced any timeframe to provide this capability. ======================================================================= This ticket is "pending closure" which means that we are keeping the ticket open until 5 business days after the "Pending Close" date above. If you feel this work has not been completed to your satisfaction, please contact us and we will re-open the ticket. If we do not hear from you in that time, the ticket will be closed automatically. Has your phone number, cell phone, pager number, fax number or email address changed? Help Genuity help you! Please contact us at 1-781-865-8730 or 1-800-Genuity or care at genuity.net to ensure that all of your technical contact information is up to date. Genuity Confidential and Proprietary From john at chagres.net Thu Jan 9 15:43:34 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:43:34 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1042119109@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: <002501c2b81f$c74610f0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> I think you are missing the point Alec. Backbones won't deploy because: * There isn't a demand for it * Cost to upgrade IOS images * Cost to train people on how to use it * Cost to upgrade NOC and other OSS tools The cost items are related to people not demanding the service. As demand grows the relevance of cost to deploy goes down as a function of potential revenue from a new product/service offering. What we have today is a policy that is preventing the end users from starting to use the technologies. Lets take an example from the software distribution market. The players: Quarterdeck, makers of a memory management tool and Xwindows code TechData, Ingram, SoftSel, all distributors CompUSA, ComputerLand, Freds Bait and Software, retailers Alex, John, Ray and Barb, end users looking for some software that will manage memory for them. Now folks like TD, Ingram and others typically don't start selling someones product unless they can see, pull or the software company can show push. Typically you want more PULL thru the channel than you want PUSH. That translates into people (end sites) USING AND WANTING the product that the order it. With respect to v6, there is no customer demand for it, retailers (ISP's) aren't stocking it, and backbones (distributors) aren't stocking it or making it avail for sale. Early adopters (end clients) can't find it and have to make without. The policy today places barriers to sites that wish to really do work with v6. In the end you have a stalled out product that needs some PUSH (more relaxed policy letting more folks get space), so that PULL will happen and the distributors (backbones) will start to offer it. cheers > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:32 PM > To: Mury; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 14:35 -0600 Mury > wrote: > > > > > There was some speculation that backbones were or were not routing > > IPv6. I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both have > told me they > > have no plans to support the routing of IPv6. > > > > Does anyone know of a backbone that will route IPv6? > > > > I know this does not directly pertain to policy, but if > it's true that > > no backbones will route IPv6 than perhaps a policy needs to > be created > > to encourage them to do so. > > I think you're missing the big picture here Mury. > > Simply acquiring IPv6 space is not preventing its deployment. > There are > many, many more issues out there surrounding its deployment. > We could pay > backbones $10k each and give each of them a /33 of IPv6 > address space and > they still wouldn't deploy it. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From john at chagres.net Thu Jan 9 15:44:42 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:44:42 -0700 Subject: UUNET ?? RE: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? In-Reply-To: <5BDB545714D0764F8452CC5A25DDEEFA04DADBB7@denexg21.icgcomm.com> Message-ID: <002601c2b81f$ef939a00$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Does UUNET offer this service, Maybe Lee (BOT Member) can answer this. From talking to sales and general IP alloc person a month or so ago, the answer was, not a released product..... > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Taylor, Stacy > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:36 PM > To: 'Mury'; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > ICG is working on it, but we also have no time frame. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:36 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > > There was some speculation that backbones were or were not > routing IPv6. I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both > have told me they have no plans to support the routing of IPv6. > > Does anyone know of a backbone that will route IPv6? > > I know this does not directly pertain to policy, but if it's > true that no backbones will route IPv6 than perhaps a policy > needs to be created to encourage them to do so. > > Mury > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 20:24:00 GMT > From: Genuity Customer Care > Subject: Ticket #1, pclose, Mury Johnson has a question re... > > > Categorization > ------------------ > Status: pclose Type: support Item: mcs > Scope: 1site > > Service Elements > ---------------------- > > > Life Cycle > ---------------- > Problem Started: 01-09-2003 19:56:43 GMT Source: > email > Ticket Opened: 01-09-2003 19:56:43 GMT by rcalanna > Owner: sa > Ticket Updated: 01-09-2003 20:23:56 GMT by barmar > Support Area: sa > Problem Ended: 01-09-2003 20:22:00 GMT > Fixer: sa > Pending Close: 01-09-2003 20:22:35 GMT by barmar Close Code: > support > > Description: > > Mury Johnson has a question regardinging IPv6. > > If I have an IPv6 allocation, can I route that block through you? > > Resolution: > > We do not currently support IPv6, and have not announced > any timeframe to > provide this capability. > > ============================================================== > ========= > This ticket is "pending closure" which means that we are > keeping the ticket open until 5 business days after the > "Pending Close" date above. If you feel this work has not > been completed to your satisfaction, please contact us and we > will re-open the ticket. If we do not hear from you in that > time, the ticket will be closed automatically. > > Has your phone number, cell phone, pager number, fax number > or email address changed? Help Genuity help you! Please > contact us at 1-781-865-8730 or 1-800-Genuity or > care at genuity.net to ensure that all of your technical contact > information is up to date. Genuity Confidential and Proprietary > From Scott.Whipple at cox.com Thu Jan 9 16:04:54 2003 From: Scott.Whipple at cox.com (Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:04:54 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? Message-ID: <4B8EA05057E49E4F940B74AC3AEC23F40BB723@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> I would agree the examples you give below of why backbones haven't deployed v6 yet are accurate but I think you could also use those same reasons why a small ISP or end-user wouldn't deploy it as well. I would disagree that the guidelines for receiving a block of v6 is why we aren't seeing nation wide deployment. As a X-large ISP I would be glad to deploy v6 if I thought it would be profitable for the company. IPv6 at this point is not a necessity that's why there isn't deployment with backbone providers small ISPs or end-users. -----Original Message----- From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:44 PM To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; 'Mury'; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? I think you are missing the point Alec. Backbones won't deploy because: * There isn't a demand for it * Cost to upgrade IOS images * Cost to train people on how to use it * Cost to upgrade NOC and other OSS tools The cost items are related to people not demanding the service. As demand grows the relevance of cost to deploy goes down as a function of potential revenue from a new product/service offering. What we have today is a policy that is preventing the end users from starting to use the technologies. Lets take an example from the software distribution market. The players: Quarterdeck, makers of a memory management tool and Xwindows code TechData, Ingram, SoftSel, all distributors CompUSA, ComputerLand, Freds Bait and Software, retailers Alex, John, Ray and Barb, end users looking for some software that will manage memory for them. Now folks like TD, Ingram and others typically don't start selling someones product unless they can see, pull or the software company can show push. Typically you want more PULL thru the channel than you want PUSH. That translates into people (end sites) USING AND WANTING the product that the order it. With respect to v6, there is no customer demand for it, retailers (ISP's) aren't stocking it, and backbones (distributors) aren't stocking it or making it avail for sale. Early adopters (end clients) can't find it and have to make without. The policy today places barriers to sites that wish to really do work with v6. In the end you have a stalled out product that needs some PUSH (more relaxed policy letting more folks get space), so that PULL will happen and the distributors (backbones) will start to offer it. cheers > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:32 PM > To: Mury; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 14:35 -0600 Mury > wrote: > > > > > There was some speculation that backbones were or were not routing > > IPv6. I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both have > told me they > > have no plans to support the routing of IPv6. > > > > Does anyone know of a backbone that will route IPv6? > > > > I know this does not directly pertain to policy, but if > it's true that > > no backbones will route IPv6 than perhaps a policy needs to > be created > > to encourage them to do so. > > I think you're missing the big picture here Mury. > > Simply acquiring IPv6 space is not preventing its deployment. > There are > many, many more issues out there surrounding its deployment. > We could pay > backbones $10k each and give each of them a /33 of IPv6 > address space and > they still wouldn't deploy it. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From john at chagres.net Thu Jan 9 16:12:01 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:12:01 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? In-Reply-To: <4B8EA05057E49E4F940B74AC3AEC23F40BB723@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> Message-ID: <002901c2b823$c0a2b510$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> right, its called Chicken and Egg. When HTML was created and a textual browser existed nobody really cared. Sure us geeks liked it, it was cool, and then someone created a Xwindows version, and then someone added the ability to have images, and then someone added clickable images, and tables, and mouseovers, and and and and. Today we have a robust set of various browsers. What I'm basicly trying to say is that the rules today prohibit someone from taking the browser to a graphical system. Sure there is little test networks here and there, there are 6to4 tunnels, but people are viewing those a hacks and not something they can or will sink time/money into. Thus no development. I currently have 2 6to4 tunnels. Latency to my v6 next hop is over 1200ms, and thats on a good day. Not very usable in my mind....... One tunnel flaps on a regular basis because of upstream transit issues. > -----Original Message----- > From: Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta) [mailto:Scott.Whipple at cox.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:05 PM > To: john at chagres.net; Alec H. Peterson; Mury; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > I would agree the examples you give below of why backbones > haven't deployed v6 yet are accurate but I think you could > also use those same reasons why a small ISP or end-user > wouldn't deploy it as well. I would disagree that the > guidelines for receiving a block of v6 is why we aren't > seeing nation wide > deployment. As a X-large ISP I would be glad to deploy v6 if > I thought it > would be profitable for the company. IPv6 at this point is > not a necessity > that's why there isn't deployment with backbone providers > small ISPs or end-users. > > -----Original Message----- > From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:44 PM > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; 'Mury'; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > I think you are missing the point Alec. > > Backbones won't deploy because: > > * There isn't a demand for it > * Cost to upgrade IOS images > * Cost to train people on how to use it > * Cost to upgrade NOC and other OSS tools > > > The cost items are related to people not demanding the > service. As demand grows the relevance of cost to deploy > goes down as a function of potential revenue from a new > product/service offering. > > What we have today is a policy that is preventing the > end users from starting to use the technologies. > > Lets take an example from the software distribution market. > > The players: > > Quarterdeck, makers of a memory management tool and Xwindows code > > TechData, Ingram, SoftSel, all distributors > > CompUSA, ComputerLand, Freds Bait and Software, retailers > > Alex, John, Ray and Barb, end users looking for some software > that will manage memory for them. > > > Now folks like TD, Ingram and others typically don't start > selling someones product unless they can see, pull or the > software company can show push. > > Typically you want more PULL thru the channel than you want PUSH. > > That translates into people (end sites) USING AND WANTING > the product that the order it. > > > With respect to v6, there is no customer demand for it, > retailers (ISP's) aren't stocking it, and backbones > (distributors) aren't stocking it or making it avail for sale. > > Early adopters (end clients) can't find it and have to make without. > > The policy today places barriers to sites that wish to really > do work with v6. > > In the end you have a stalled out product that needs some > PUSH (more relaxed policy letting more folks get space), > so that PULL will happen and the distributors (backbones) > will start to offer it. > > cheers > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson > > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:32 PM > > To: Mury; ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > > > > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 14:35 -0600 Mury > > wrote: > > > > > > > > There was some speculation that backbones were or were not routing > > > IPv6. I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both have > > told me they > > > have no plans to support the routing of IPv6. > > > > > > Does anyone know of a backbone that will route IPv6? > > > > > > I know this does not directly pertain to policy, but if > > it's true that > > > no backbones will route IPv6 than perhaps a policy needs to > > be created > > > to encourage them to do so. > > > > I think you're missing the big picture here Mury. > > > > Simply acquiring IPv6 space is not preventing its deployment. > > There are > > many, many more issues out there surrounding its deployment. > > We could pay > > backbones $10k each and give each of them a /33 of IPv6 > > address space and > > they still wouldn't deploy it. > > > > Alec > > > > -- > > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > > Chief Technology Officer > > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > > > From mury at goldengate.net Thu Jan 9 16:29:26 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:29:26 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ppml] Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1042119109@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: I didn't say that acquiring IPv6 is the obstacle in deployment. I was hoping that a major carrier has some sort of ability to route IPv6 as IPv6, and not encapsulated within IPv4. Out of curiousity however, how do you or other experts see the transition to IPv6 happening? Is there some other strategy other than hoping a handful of early adopters will develop an application that requires IPv6 to work and that everyone will want to get their hands on it? What's going to be the trigger? The backbones leading the way out of duty? A software app? A software or OS company (Microsoft)? Local and regional ISPs? Telcos? Cell phone companies? In home appliances like thermostats running IPv6? What's the target date for deployment and how is deployment being defined? If in 15-20 years the hope is that utilized IPv6 space is growing and IPv4 space is shrinking than maybe things are on track. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or critical. I simply don't know, and as you pointed out, I often miss the bigger picture. Regards, Mury On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 14:35 -0600 Mury wrote: > > > > > There was some speculation that backbones were or were not routing IPv6. > > I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both have told me they have no > > plans to support the routing of IPv6. > > > > Does anyone know of a backbone that will route IPv6? > > > > I know this does not directly pertain to policy, but if it's true that no > > backbones will route IPv6 than perhaps a policy needs to be created to > > encourage them to do so. > > I think you're missing the big picture here Mury. > > Simply acquiring IPv6 space is not preventing its deployment. There are > many, many more issues out there surrounding its deployment. We could pay > backbones $10k each and give each of them a /33 of IPv6 address space and > they still wouldn't deploy it. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From ahp at hilander.com Thu Jan 9 16:28:02 2003 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 14:28:02 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2147483647.1042122482@macleod.hilander.com> --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 15:29 -0600 Mury wrote: > > Out of curiousity however, how do you or other experts see the transition > to IPv6 happening? Is there some other strategy other than hoping a > handful of early adopters will develop an application that requires IPv6 > to work and that everyone will want to get their hands on it? There are still too many unasnswered questions, and you raised a lot of them. We still haven't figured out how to solve the IPv4 multihoming problems in IPv6. But the biggest issue is money. Especially in the days of the internet/telco bust no backbones are going to throw a ton of money at an issue that they won't see a benefit from in the short term. There is no consumer demand (or even corporate demand). But we are getting _WAY_ off topic here, again. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From john at chagres.net Thu Jan 9 16:33:43 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:33:43 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1042122482@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: <002b01c2b826$c8cd9720$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> I disagree that there is no demand. I represent a group of small providers that WOULD LIKE to start using v6 but feel the current policy prevents them from making the request unless the BS the request. Plus, several corporate clients that would like to get started. Its not off topic to figure out what is needed to be done from a "Crisp and Clear IP Allocation" policy within ARIN to help jump start the process. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:28 PM > To: Mury > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and > definitions WAS: backbones > > > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 15:29 -0600 Mury > wrote: > > > > > Out of curiousity however, how do you or other experts see the > > transition to IPv6 happening? Is there some other strategy > other than > > hoping a handful of early adopters will develop an application that > > requires IPv6 to work and that everyone will want to get > their hands > > on it? > > There are still too many unasnswered questions, and you > raised a lot of > them. We still haven't figured out how to solve the IPv4 multihoming > problems in IPv6. But the biggest issue is money. > Especially in the days > of the internet/telco bust no backbones are going to throw a > ton of money > at an issue that they won't see a benefit from in the short > term. There is > no consumer demand (or even corporate demand). > > But we are getting _WAY_ off topic here, again. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From ahp at hilander.com Thu Jan 9 16:40:05 2003 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 14:40:05 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones In-Reply-To: <002b01c2b826$c8cd9720$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> References: <002b01c2b826$c8cd9720$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: <2147483647.1042123204@macleod.hilander.com> --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 14:33 -0700 "John M. Brown" wrote: > > Its not off topic to figure out what is needed to be done > from a "Crisp and Clear IP Allocation" policy within ARIN > to help jump start the process. My mail server must be acting up, I appear to have missed your new policy proposal. OK, that was sarcastic. But the point is, if you want to have a policy discussion, history has shown it is far easier to have a base to talk from. So if you have a crisp and clear IP allocation policy proposal I suggest you send it around for discussion. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From mury at goldengate.net Thu Jan 9 16:52:06 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:52:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1042122482@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: What is the topic? It's starting to sound like scrapping IPv6 is or at least delaying the encouragement of allocating it. Someone needs to have some sort of plan. Obviously the plan might change, but why are we even talking about changing the allocation requirement policy if no-one has any answers to what I think are some pretty important questions. And how the heck did someone come up with the current policy without trying to answer some of those questions? How can you possibly have a policy without knowing what you are trying to accomplish? If the goal is to simply have people start using IPv6 and hope someone finds a way, why are there any restrictions at all? In other words, the policy should be revised to "Anyone requesting IPv6 space shall receive it after filling out the basic company info template." If you hope that IPv6 is going get its momentum from somewhere else, someone needs to explain that and then derive a policy that encourages those events. If IPv6 is no where near being usable by a regular ol' LIR (ISP), than the policy should be changed to reflect that. Why give free space out to a certain group of people that won't be able to effectively use it for years if not decades. What the heck is the goal? Mury On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 15:29 -0600 Mury wrote: > > > > > Out of curiousity however, how do you or other experts see the transition > > to IPv6 happening? Is there some other strategy other than hoping a > > handful of early adopters will develop an application that requires IPv6 > > to work and that everyone will want to get their hands on it? > > There are still too many unasnswered questions, and you raised a lot of > them. We still haven't figured out how to solve the IPv4 multihoming > problems in IPv6. But the biggest issue is money. Especially in the days > of the internet/telco bust no backbones are going to throw a ton of money > at an issue that they won't see a benefit from in the short term. There is > no consumer demand (or even corporate demand). > > But we are getting _WAY_ off topic here, again. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From ahp at hilander.com Thu Jan 9 16:48:32 2003 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 14:48:32 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2147483647.1042123712@macleod.hilander.com> --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 15:52 -0600 Mury wrote: > > What is the topic? IPv6 allocation policy. Not 'why isn't IPv6 deployed yet'. Not 'what backbones support IPv6'. Not 'How do I deploy IPv6'. There are other forums for that. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Thu Jan 9 16:53:54 2003 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:53:54 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: ba ckbones Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1906E9BCBB@usresms03.teleglobe.com> John, Do you think it would be possible to work with your group to come up with an allocation/assignment policy that would benefit the Internet community as a whole and your group specifically? It is always easier to start a discussion based on a proposal, plus if it is an official proposal then it MUST go through the process and be considered. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 4:34 PM To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; 'Mury' Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones I disagree that there is no demand. I represent a group of small providers that WOULD LIKE to start using v6 but feel the current policy prevents them from making the request unless the BS the request. Plus, several corporate clients that would like to get started. Its not off topic to figure out what is needed to be done from a "Crisp and Clear IP Allocation" policy within ARIN to help jump start the process. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:28 PM > To: Mury > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and > definitions WAS: backbones > > > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 15:29 -0600 Mury > wrote: > > > > > Out of curiousity however, how do you or other experts see the > > transition to IPv6 happening? Is there some other strategy > other than > > hoping a handful of early adopters will develop an application that > > requires IPv6 to work and that everyone will want to get > their hands > > on it? > > There are still too many unasnswered questions, and you > raised a lot of > them. We still haven't figured out how to solve the IPv4 multihoming > problems in IPv6. But the biggest issue is money. > Especially in the days > of the internet/telco bust no backbones are going to throw a > ton of money > at an issue that they won't see a benefit from in the short > term. There is > no consumer demand (or even corporate demand). > > But we are getting _WAY_ off topic here, again. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From david at iprg.nokia.com Thu Jan 9 17:01:16 2003 From: david at iprg.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:01:16 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? In-Reply-To: ; from mury@goldengate.net on Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:35:31PM -0600 References: Message-ID: <20030109140116.B4696@iprg.nokia.com> Mury, On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:35:31PM -0600, Mury wrote: > > There was some speculation that backbones were or were not routing IPv6. > I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both have told me they have no > plans to support the routing of IPv6. You probably checked with the wrong people. I have a native ipv6 peering with Qwest at the PAIX. They might not have it deployed across their backbone, but it is certainly possible to get ipv6 service from them today. David K. --- From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Thu Jan 9 16:59:13 2003 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:59:13 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: ba ckbones Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1906E9BCBC@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Mury, there have been several topics (I believe you have changed the subject at least twice :-)) but regarding John Brown's issues it seems to be the current policy is not flexible enough to allow the group that he is a member of to be as involved in v6 as they would like. Do you think it would be possible to draft a policy proposal that would help accelerate the deployment of v6? Remember this is the public policy mailing list and not the IPv6 wg discussion list. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 4:52 PM To: Alec H. Peterson Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones What is the topic? It's starting to sound like scrapping IPv6 is or at least delaying the encouragement of allocating it. Someone needs to have some sort of plan. Obviously the plan might change, but why are we even talking about changing the allocation requirement policy if no-one has any answers to what I think are some pretty important questions. And how the heck did someone come up with the current policy without trying to answer some of those questions? How can you possibly have a policy without knowing what you are trying to accomplish? If the goal is to simply have people start using IPv6 and hope someone finds a way, why are there any restrictions at all? In other words, the policy should be revised to "Anyone requesting IPv6 space shall receive it after filling out the basic company info template." If you hope that IPv6 is going get its momentum from somewhere else, someone needs to explain that and then derive a policy that encourages those events. If IPv6 is no where near being usable by a regular ol' LIR (ISP), than the policy should be changed to reflect that. Why give free space out to a certain group of people that won't be able to effectively use it for years if not decades. What the heck is the goal? Mury On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 15:29 -0600 Mury wrote: > > > > > Out of curiousity however, how do you or other experts see the transition > > to IPv6 happening? Is there some other strategy other than hoping a > > handful of early adopters will develop an application that requires IPv6 > > to work and that everyone will want to get their hands on it? > > There are still too many unasnswered questions, and you raised a lot of > them. We still haven't figured out how to solve the IPv4 multihoming > problems in IPv6. But the biggest issue is money. Especially in the days > of the internet/telco bust no backbones are going to throw a ton of money > at an issue that they won't see a benefit from in the short term. There is > no consumer demand (or even corporate demand). > > But we are getting _WAY_ off topic here, again. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From john at chagres.net Thu Jan 9 17:02:43 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:02:43 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1042123712@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: <002c01c2b82a$d5d21f50$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Alec, those topics are part of policy development. If there is no support for the policy, or the policy tells potential users to go elsewhere (say to an ISP) that doesn't have or cant or won't deploy v6, then the policy is broken. The current policy has a routing loop in it. End-Sites must goto their ISP/LIR. My ISP/LIR doesnt have, doesn't plan to have, and can't get v6 space. My ISP's ISP/LIR has no plans to deploy v6 anytime soon. Best guess is 1 to 2 years from now. End-Site told to goto 6Bone, 6Bone says goto LIR/ISP Personally I think that YOU as an AC person should be taking the role of: Hmm, MY members are finding this to be an issue and maybe I should pay attention and try to figure out what the problem sets are. Instead your tone, at least in this message is: Don't ask questions that aren't strictly focused to an allocation policy, or have other forums to handle them. Members have a RIGHT to discuss issues that afffect policy, and you have an OBLIGATION to listen to them. > > What is the topic? > > IPv6 allocation policy. > > Not 'why isn't IPv6 deployed yet'. Yes it is. Policy today is for a deployed world like the v4 world is today. Its not deployed yet because of barriers to get the resources needed to deploy. > Not 'what backbones support IPv6'. Yes it is. If there are no backbones that support v6, then how can someone downstream make use in a non-tunneled way. Policy today directs smaller users to their LIR/ISP, which today are not deploying the resource. Others have the resources but have not made it available to downstreams. > Not 'How do I deploy IPv6'. Yes it is. Its part of the ARIN Charter. Right from the ARIN home page: "Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and EDUCATIONAL outreach" | That last part seems to fit.------------- Education is part of stewardship, its part of what the classical "Doing the Right Thing" means. Its suppose to be an infection that grows and builds amoungst the users of the net. One person helping another learn and grow. Seems some have forgotten that aspect of yesteryear. :( > There are other forums for that. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From john at chagres.net Thu Jan 9 17:03:02 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:03:02 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones In-Reply-To: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1906E9BCBB@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Message-ID: <002d01c2b82a$e12c76c0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> YES. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Sweeting, John > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:54 PM > To: 'john at chagres.net'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; 'Mury' > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and > definitions WAS: backbones > > > John, > > Do you think it would be possible to work with your group to > come up with an allocation/assignment policy that would > benefit the Internet community as a whole and your group > specifically? It is always easier to start a discussion based > on a proposal, plus if it is an official proposal then it > MUST go through the process and be considered. Thanks. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 4:34 PM > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; 'Mury' > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and > definitions WAS: backbones > > > I disagree that there is no demand. > > I represent a group of small providers that WOULD LIKE > to start using v6 but feel the current policy prevents > them from making the request unless the BS the request. > > Plus, several corporate clients that would like to get > started. > > Its not off topic to figure out what is needed to be done > from a "Crisp and Clear IP Allocation" policy within ARIN > to help jump start the process. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson > > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:28 PM > > To: Mury > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and > > definitions WAS: backbones > > > > > > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 15:29 -0600 Mury > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Out of curiousity however, how do you or other experts see the > > > transition to IPv6 happening? Is there some other strategy > > other than > > > hoping a handful of early adopters will develop an > application that > > > requires IPv6 to work and that everyone will want to get > > their hands > > > on it? > > > > There are still too many unasnswered questions, and you > > raised a lot of > > them. We still haven't figured out how to solve the IPv4 > multihoming > > problems in IPv6. But the biggest issue is money. > > Especially in the days > > of the internet/telco bust no backbones are going to throw a > > ton of money > > at an issue that they won't see a benefit from in the short > > term. There is > > no consumer demand (or even corporate demand). > > > > But we are getting _WAY_ off topic here, again. > > > > Alec > > > > -- > > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > > Chief Technology Officer > > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > > > From john at chagres.net Thu Jan 9 17:05:05 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:05:05 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? In-Reply-To: <20030109140116.B4696@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <002e01c2b82b$2a8a0cb0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Ahh, right, back door information. Which is GOOD in many cases, and David has previous association with Qwest (if memory serves me correctly), so knowing the right people with enable on a router helps. The issue I think Mury and I are talking about, at least one of them, is that The normal process of getting connectivity with a backbone does not see IPv6 as a product. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of David Kessens > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:01 PM > To: Mury > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > > Mury, > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:35:31PM -0600, Mury wrote: > > > > There was some speculation that backbones were or were not routing > > IPv6. I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both have > told me they > > have no plans to support the routing of IPv6. > > You probably checked with the wrong people. I have a native > ipv6 peering with Qwest at the PAIX. They might not have it > deployed across their backbone, but it is certainly possible > to get ipv6 service from them today. > > David K. > --- > From broseman at ix.netcom.com Thu Jan 9 17:03:39 2003 From: broseman at ix.netcom.com (Barbara Roseman) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:03:39 -1000 Subject: [ppml] back to the policy issue again In-Reply-To: References: <2147483647.1042122482@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20030109115212.0b5bea40@popd.ix.netcom.com> Mury, The current policy was developed over many meetings and in coordination with the IPv6 working groups in APNIC and RIPE. The policy as it stands has not impeded adoption of v6 in those regions, and I doubt that it is the main reason companies are being slow to move to IPv6 here in the ARIN region. There is always room for improvement in our current policies. Working through the issues is a good thing, but it works best when there is a specific goal in mind, such as easing adoption of v6 for small to mid-sized companies, or adopting subnet boundaries that conform to a multi-homing standard (not yet in existence). Just saying we need to generally change the policy to encourage adoption of IPv6 doesn't get us very far along, nor will it dramatically change the v6 situation in our region, IMHO. John Brown has pointed at a distinct issue: the current policy makes it difficult for small companies to request v6 addresses without "gaming" the application process. He is understandably reluctant to do that. One specific policy change we might consider is whether the 200 customers in 2 years is an unrealistic expectation for early adopters. This issue was also raised at RIPE several meetings back, and it was decided that even for academic institutions, this might be an acceptable number. Perhaps we need to revisit this qualification in light of operational experience. This is the kind of specific issue we need to explore and discuss to remain on topic. -Barb From ahp at hilander.com Thu Jan 9 17:11:51 2003 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:11:51 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones In-Reply-To: <002c01c2b82a$d5d21f50$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> References: <002c01c2b82a$d5d21f50$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: <2147483647.1042125111@macleod.hilander.com> --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 15:02 -0700 "John M. Brown" wrote: > > Personally I think that YOU as an AC person should be > taking the role of: > > Hmm, MY members are finding this to be an issue and maybe > I should pay attention and try to figure out what the > problem sets are. > > Instead your tone, at least in this message is: > > Don't ask questions that aren't strictly focused to an > allocation policy, or have other forums to handle them. Hrm. Perhaps if I take this massive sledge hammer in my right hand I really can manage to get this square peg in my left hand to fit into this round hole in front of me. Look John. I'm all for making ARIN's policies as sensible and helpful as possible. You seem to have a rather large stake in this discussion as well. So I'll ask again, why don't you get the ball rolling in a _productive_ direction by putting together a policy proposal to address your concerns, instead of just continuing to complain about how broken the existing policy is. If you look at ARIN's policy process, policy proposals are supposed to be introduced by the community and flow through the chain from there. It is the job of the AC to help guide the policies through the process. One way that we accomplish this is to try and keep discussions related to policy actually focused on the issue at hand, such that we don't get sucked down into a rathole. John, I've know you for quite a while now. I really, truly wish that you would start trying to actually suggest helpful solutions to the issues you see, instead of just constantly talking about how broken things are without offering helpful suggestions. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From Sean.Mentzer at tamerica.com Thu Jan 9 17:10:10 2003 From: Sean.Mentzer at tamerica.com (Mentzer, Sean) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 22:10:10 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? Message-ID: It may be different now, but at least initially, the Qwest IPv6 network was seperate from the IPv4 network, so there was no native IPv6 service available to customers. All customer ipv6 traffic was tunneled across ipv4 to the seperate network. Could have changed by now, but I didn't think so. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Kessens [mailto:david at iprg.nokia.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:01 PM > To: Mury > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > > Mury, > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:35:31PM -0600, Mury wrote: > > > > There was some speculation that backbones were or were not > routing IPv6. > > I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both have told me > they have no > > plans to support the routing of IPv6. > > You probably checked with the wrong people. I have a native ipv6 > peering with Qwest at the PAIX. They might not have it deployed across > their backbone, but it is certainly possible to get ipv6 service from > them today. > > David K. > --- > From narten at us.ibm.com Thu Jan 9 17:12:46 2003 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:12:46 -0500 Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: Message from david@iprg.nokia.com of "Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:12:14 PST." <20030109121214.A4599@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <200301092212.h09MClo06677@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> David, > The second issue that I see is midsize businesses (I purposely don't > define what midsize actually is) who really would like to have > numberportability and who actually deserve it (in my opinion :-)). I have a hard time with this statement. Why do "midsize business X" "deserve" portable addresses when "non-midsize business Y" do not? This is a non-technical justification. The current policy isn't just about doing what we would *like* to do. It's also very much about doing something that won't cause major problems down the road when, say, there are a million "midsize businesses" with their own perhaps not-so-portable-anymore space. Thomas From john at chagres.net Thu Jan 9 17:21:08 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:21:08 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1042125111@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: <003701c2b82d$68597f10$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> see reply to John Sweeting's email. seems like I said yes to being part of a group to work on a policy document. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:12 PM > To: john at chagres.net; 'Mury' > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and > definitions WAS: backbones > > > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 15:02 -0700 "John M. Brown" > wrote: > > > > > Personally I think that YOU as an AC person should be > > taking the role of: > > > > Hmm, MY members are finding this to be an issue and maybe > > I should pay attention and try to figure out what the > > problem sets are. > > > > Instead your tone, at least in this message is: > > > > Don't ask questions that aren't strictly focused to an allocation > > policy, or have other forums to handle them. > > Hrm. Perhaps if I take this massive sledge hammer in my right hand I > really can manage to get this square peg in my left hand to > fit into this > round hole in front of me. > > Look John. I'm all for making ARIN's policies as sensible > and helpful as > possible. You seem to have a rather large stake in this > discussion as > well. So I'll ask again, why don't you get the ball rolling in a > _productive_ direction by putting together a policy proposal > to address > your concerns, instead of just continuing to complain about > how broken the > existing policy is. > > If you look at ARIN's policy process, policy proposals are > supposed to be > introduced by the community and flow through the chain from > there. It is > the job of the AC to help guide the policies through the > process. One way > that we accomplish this is to try and keep discussions > related to policy > actually focused on the issue at hand, such that we don't get > sucked down > into a rathole. > > John, I've know you for quite a while now. I really, truly > wish that you > would start trying to actually suggest helpful solutions to > the issues you > see, instead of just constantly talking about how broken > things are without > offering helpful suggestions. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From ahp at hilander.com Thu Jan 9 17:23:02 2003 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:23:02 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones In-Reply-To: <003701c2b82d$68597f10$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> References: <003701c2b82d$68597f10$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: <2147483647.1042125782@macleod.hilander.com> --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 15:21 -0700 "John M. Brown" wrote: > see reply to John Sweeting's email. seems like I said yes > to being part of a group to work on a policy document. That's wonderful! So let's get that going. Who else wants to help address the issues John has raised through a policy proposal? Alec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From HRyu at norlight.com Thu Jan 9 17:32:40 2003 From: HRyu at norlight.com (Hyunseog Ryu) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:32:40 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? Message-ID: I guess main reason for not seeing IPv6 as a product is because of customer (technical) support issue and stability issue mostly. But if you are willing to run IPv6, you can run IPv4/v6 gateway or use IPv4 tunnelling for IPv6 routing. That's why you are getting different result from different group from same company. In my humble opinion, question for product availability of IPv6 is depending on your situation, not Internet backbone support of IPv6. Can you support IPv6 setup, and routing issue with your current staffs including NOC technician? Can you deploy IPv6 without service impact from current your network backbone equipment? More bug from routers? Router ability to support IPv6? Or other thing you may consider... I guess most ISP consider that compared to demand for IPv6, they don't want to risk stability from current platform. Hyun ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hyunseog Ryu / CCDA, MCSE, CCIE candidate(written test passed) Senior Network Engineer/Applications Engineering Norlight Telecommunications, Inc. 275 North Corporate Drive Brookfield, WI 53045-5818 Tel. +1.262.792.7965 Fax. +1.262.792.7733 email: hryu at norlight.com "John M. Brown" , "'Mury'" > Sent by: cc: , (bcc: Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight) owner-ppml at arin.n Fax to: et Subject: RE: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? 01/09/2003 04:05 PM Please respond to john Ahh, right, back door information. Which is GOOD in many cases, and David has previous association with Qwest (if memory serves me correctly), so knowing the right people with enable on a router helps. The issue I think Mury and I are talking about, at least one of them, is that The normal process of getting connectivity with a backbone does not see IPv6 as a product. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of David Kessens > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:01 PM > To: Mury > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > > Mury, > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:35:31PM -0600, Mury wrote: > > > > There was some speculation that backbones were or were not routing > > IPv6. I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both have > told me they > > have no plans to support the routing of IPv6. > > You probably checked with the wrong people. I have a native > ipv6 peering with Qwest at the PAIX. They might not have it > deployed across their backbone, but it is certainly possible > to get ipv6 service from them today. > > David K. > --- > From mury at goldengate.net Thu Jan 9 17:42:14 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:42:14 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ppml] Policy Revision Proposal In-Reply-To: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1906E9BCBB@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Message-ID: I propose the following additions to: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html Regards, Mury GoldenGate Internet Services 5.1.1 [under d) add: Other oganizations are defined as any customer of the LIR. No distinction will be made in terms of number of IP addresses required, even if that number is one. 5.8 Allocation for Early Adopters 5.8.1 Waiver of criteria listed in 5.1.1 (d) To promote the allocation of IPv6 space the requirment to make 200 /48 assignments within two years shall be waived for anyone requesting IPv6 space before Dec 31, 2004 or until this policy is ammended. In the event that this policy is ammended the existing IPv6 space holders shall not be subject to new or waived criteria for a period of 10 years from their initial allocation date. 5.8.2 Waiver of fees a) To promote the allocation of IPv6 space all IPv6 related fees shall be waived until Dec 31, 2006 for anyone requesting and receiving space before Dec 31, 2004. In the even that this policy is ammended the existing IPv6 space holders shall under no circumstances be subject to waived or new fees until Dec 31, 2006. b) For billing purposes fees will be due according to normal ARIN billing policies on Jan 1, 2007. All early adopters will have the same billing date regardless of the date they received their allocation. 5.8.3 Micro Allocations a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48 micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy is changed. If this policy is changed, current space holders shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria. b) All fees shall be waived under the same rules listed in 5.8.2. c) Those receiving micro allocations shall not be allowed to make further allocations or assignments out of their /48. It is intended for their internal use only. d) When possible those receiving micro allocations shall return their allocation and receive a new /48 from their upstream provider (a LIR). This is requested in a good faith manner until Jan 1, 2007 at which time all micro allocations granted under these waived criteria must be returned. From phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net Thu Jan 9 17:36:34 2003 From: phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net (Phil Howard) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:36:34 -0600 Subject: Renumbering with IPv6 WAS: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, In-Reply-To: ; from mury@goldengate.net on Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:12:57AM -0600 References: <20030109013729.A21550@hamal.ipal.net> Message-ID: <20030109163634.A3584@hamal.ipal.net> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:12:57AM -0600, Mury wrote: | | > But the point is, you still have to syncronize the event of switching | > routers and switching the DNS data, if you don't have the opportunity | > to overlap. | | I don't think I understand what you are saying. We switch routers and DNS | data every day. It's rarely a problem if you know ahead of time. Sometimes you don't know ahead of time. And sometimes even if you do, you have to "throw the switch" when the registrar/registry does, and you don't really have control over that, or even information about it. I also see the quality of registrar operations sliding downhill, and being able to NOT make delegated NS changes is a major plus to me. I've had trouble putting my changes through a few times (for example Network Solutions' host object updates I believe test the wrong field for the NS hostname authority). And I've had customers completely unreachable when changes happen. It's something I'd rather not have to ever change. | > And if an ISP goes bankrupt without notice (yes, it happens) and you | > suddenly have to switch to another, how do you restore your DNS IPs | > when you can't get any verification because your GTLD A records still | > point to the old ones? | | Of course ISPs go bankrupt. They usually keep operating however. Even | so, if they were to shut their doors completely it would be awesome to be | able to simply change a couple lines in a router and in a DNS server than | the total nightmare you can have with having to renumber with IPv4. Well, certainly the renumbering can be an issue. But if the numbers come from a defunct ISP, you can NAT the network all at once and not have to worry that the addresses you have internally can't reach anyone because those are the numbers of a defunct ISP. I've had two customers we quickly renumbered that way, by using NAT and just mapping all the old IPs to new IPs, or to a single new IP. They _may_ even still be using those old non-private addresses internally for all I know. My concern is reachability of my primary delegated NS server, which has to be identified by the appropriate address record at the GTLD or other TLD server. IPv6 can be an advantage in that respect if the address is permanent (in the sense that I don't have to change it while still in business). I'm not talking about recoverable assets in a bankruptcy; I'm talking about planning to ensure 5 9's reachability. And one of those things does involve not having to change outside views of the address space. I had believed IPv6 would offer me these things. Eventually I determined that does not appear to be the case. Scaling routing remains a serious issue, and is holding back universal portability. I see potential solutions but I don't knwo of those people who are in the midst of actually making such technological decisions are even working in that direction or not. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------- From mury at goldengate.net Thu Jan 9 17:43:05 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:43:05 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: ba ckbones In-Reply-To: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1906E9BCBC@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Message-ID: Done. On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Sweeting, John wrote: > Mury, there have been several topics (I believe you have changed the subject > at least twice :-)) but regarding John Brown's issues it seems to be the > current policy is not flexible enough to allow the group that he is a member > of to be as involved in v6 as they would like. Do you think it would be > possible to draft a policy proposal that would help accelerate the > deployment of v6? Remember this is the public policy mailing list and not > the IPv6 wg discussion list. Thanks. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 4:52 PM > To: Alec H. Peterson > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: > backbones > > > > What is the topic? > > It's starting to sound like scrapping IPv6 is or at least delaying the > encouragement of allocating it. > > Someone needs to have some sort of plan. Obviously the plan might change, > but why are we even talking about changing the allocation requirement > policy if no-one has any answers to what I think are some pretty important > questions. > > And how the heck did someone come up with the current policy without > trying to answer some of those questions? How can you possibly have a > policy without knowing what you are trying to accomplish? > > If the goal is to simply have people start using IPv6 and hope someone > finds a way, why are there any restrictions at all? In other words, the > policy should be revised to "Anyone requesting IPv6 space shall receive it > after filling out the basic company info template." > > If you hope that IPv6 is going get its momentum from somewhere else, > someone needs to explain that and then derive a policy that encourages > those events. > > If IPv6 is no where near being usable by a regular ol' LIR (ISP), than the > policy should be changed to reflect that. Why give free space out to a > certain group of people that won't be able to effectively use it for > years if not decades. > > What the heck is the goal? > > Mury > > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > > > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 15:29 -0600 Mury > wrote: > > > > > > > > Out of curiousity however, how do you or other experts see the > transition > > > to IPv6 happening? Is there some other strategy other than hoping a > > > handful of early adopters will develop an application that requires IPv6 > > > to work and that everyone will want to get their hands on it? > > > > There are still too many unasnswered questions, and you raised a lot of > > them. We still haven't figured out how to solve the IPv4 multihoming > > problems in IPv6. But the biggest issue is money. Especially in the days > > of the internet/telco bust no backbones are going to throw a ton of money > > at an issue that they won't see a benefit from in the short term. There > is > > no consumer demand (or even corporate demand). > > > > But we are getting _WAY_ off topic here, again. > > > > Alec > > > > -- > > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > > Chief Technology Officer > > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > > > From randy at psg.com Thu Jan 9 17:37:32 2003 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 14:37:32 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? References: <2147483647.1042119109@macleod.hilander.com> <002501c2b81f$c74610f0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: backbones are deploying. it's just that one of the two major router vendors' does not really support it well beyond the powerpoint platform. ranndy From phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net Thu Jan 9 17:51:28 2003 From: phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net (Phil Howard) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:51:28 -0600 Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20030109075444.0b209a28@popd.ix.netcom.com>; from broseman@ix.netcom.com on Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:03:38AM -1000 References: <20030109013729.A21550@hamal.ipal.net> <5.0.2.1.2.20030109075444.0b209a28@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <20030109165128.B3584@hamal.ipal.net> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:03:38AM -1000, Barbara Roseman wrote: | As for the topic that started this off, is there any evidence that the | current policy is discouraging the adoption of IPv6? I'd say that the current policy is discouraging the adoption of IPv6, but I don't knwo in what form to offer evidence of that. What I can say is that the policy is leaning too heavily on getting top side adoption first, and I believe that this won't work very well. Larger businesses, which fundamentally include backbone services, are driven more by customer demand than by innovation. They are loath to spend any money unless there is a visible ROI. And they can't see beyond about 3 years for anything. The current state of the economy is drawing out the ROI for everything. By encouraging IPv6 adoption at the bottom end, this would drive demand, and thus the justfication for investment by the top end. From their point of view, few businesses care about IPv6, yet. If there is no demand, then why put the investment in. I'm sure they have some technical people that have put a couple routers together and make an IPv6 segment and even hooked it in to 6bone. But I don't think that's what you want. You want real IPv6 routability to happen. And I'm saying it won't any time soon until there is demand. So what I see at issue is how to drive IPv6 demand from the bottom up. The merits of IPv6 do have a play in this because IPv6 has to be justified to the bottom end so they create that demand. So what are they going to get out of it? More addresses? Always static addresses? Easier renumbering? Permanent addresses? | I'd ask John to state whether anyone he's working with has actually had an | application for IPv6 addresses rejected, and I'd like to ask ARIN's | registration services if they find themselves rejecting applications for | not meeting the proper criteria as ISPs as opposed to end-users. | | If we need to do some education about how one qualifies for v6 space, that | is one problem. If we need to change language or substance of the v6 | policy, that is a different problem. I'd like to get a clearer picture of | which problem we're actually facing. I was thinking I should ask how many ISPs are asking for space. But I don't think, from their point of view, that they have to hold back from that just because there's no infrastructure changes planned. The senior network engineer can do that with no budget. Then they sit on the addresses until there is enough demand to start planning the rollout. So I suspect there could be a lot of ISPs asking for space, but that won't be any indication of the state of readiness of IPv6 deployment. I think the end users do have to get in on it. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------- From john at chagres.net Thu Jan 9 17:56:20 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:56:20 -0700 Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: <20030109165128.B3584@hamal.ipal.net> Message-ID: <003f01c2b832$539b56c0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Not really, according to ARIN"s web site only 7 SEVEN IPv6 prefixes have been issued in all of 2002. Wow, a BIG 7, sounds like deployment to me :) :) > So I suspect there could be a lot of ISPs asking for space, > but that won't be any indication of the state of readiness of > IPv6 deployment. > > I think the end users do have to get in on it. > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | > | phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Thu Jan 9 17:56:39 2003 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 17:56:39 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Revision Proposal Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1906E9BCC1@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Richard, What is the official email address that this Policy Revision needs to be sent to? I checked the webpages but could not find a specific address, only that it had to be sent to the ARIN staff. Can this be officially recognized as being send to ARIN staff through this email. Thanks. John Sweeting ARIN AC Member -----Original Message----- From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 5:42 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] Policy Revision Proposal I propose the following additions to: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html Regards, Mury GoldenGate Internet Services 5.1.1 [under d) add: Other oganizations are defined as any customer of the LIR. No distinction will be made in terms of number of IP addresses required, even if that number is one. 5.8 Allocation for Early Adopters 5.8.1 Waiver of criteria listed in 5.1.1 (d) To promote the allocation of IPv6 space the requirment to make 200 /48 assignments within two years shall be waived for anyone requesting IPv6 space before Dec 31, 2004 or until this policy is ammended. In the event that this policy is ammended the existing IPv6 space holders shall not be subject to new or waived criteria for a period of 10 years from their initial allocation date. 5.8.2 Waiver of fees a) To promote the allocation of IPv6 space all IPv6 related fees shall be waived until Dec 31, 2006 for anyone requesting and receiving space before Dec 31, 2004. In the even that this policy is ammended the existing IPv6 space holders shall under no circumstances be subject to waived or new fees until Dec 31, 2006. b) For billing purposes fees will be due according to normal ARIN billing policies on Jan 1, 2007. All early adopters will have the same billing date regardless of the date they received their allocation. 5.8.3 Micro Allocations a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48 micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy is changed. If this policy is changed, current space holders shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria. b) All fees shall be waived under the same rules listed in 5.8.2. c) Those receiving micro allocations shall not be allowed to make further allocations or assignments out of their /48. It is intended for their internal use only. d) When possible those receiving micro allocations shall return their allocation and receive a new /48 from their upstream provider (a LIR). This is requested in a good faith manner until Jan 1, 2007 at which time all micro allocations granted under these waived criteria must be returned. From david at iprg.nokia.com Thu Jan 9 18:13:08 2003 From: david at iprg.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:13:08 -0800 Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: <200301092212.h09MClo06677@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>; from narten@us.ibm.com on Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:12:46PM -0500 References: <20030109121214.A4599@iprg.nokia.com> <200301092212.h09MClo06677@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20030109151308.A4774@iprg.nokia.com> Thomas, On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:12:46PM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote: > > > The second issue that I see is midsize businesses (I purposely don't > > define what midsize actually is) who really would like to have > > numberportability and who actually deserve it (in my opinion :-)). > > I have a hard time with this statement. Why do "midsize business X" > "deserve" portable addresses when "non-midsize business Y" do not? > This is a non-technical justification. This is a policy group and our goal for a policy should be to get ip as widely deployed as possible with minimal cost and without breaking the very technology that one wants to deploy. Renumbering two hosts, updating a few DNS records etc. is fairly easy to do and thus not very expensive - things really start to become complicated (=expensive) when networks grow in size and especially if network planning was done poorly. Organizations are going to compare the cost of renumbering versus the cost of qualifying for portable ip address from ARIN and the routability of the addresses received from ARIN (whether it is v6 or v4). An organization doesn't need to become very big before the cost of renumbering is exceeding their cost for getting addresses from ARIN. It's no surprise that organizations in such a situation view our policies as overly restrictive and ask for change, whether this might cause technical problems or not. > The current policy isn't just about doing what we would *like* to > do. It's also very much about doing something that won't cause major > problems down the road when, say, there are a million "midsize > businesses" with their own perhaps not-so-portable-anymore space. You give two of the important reasons why this is not an easy problem to solve. However, claiming that the problem doesn't exist because you and me don't have a solution for it right now doesn't make the problem go away. David K. --- From phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net Thu Jan 9 18:15:30 2003 From: phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net (Phil Howard) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 17:15:30 -0600 Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: <20030109121214.A4599@iprg.nokia.com>; from david@iprg.nokia.com on Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:12:14PM -0800 References: <5.0.2.1.2.20030109075444.0b209a28@popd.ix.netcom.com> <001201c2b80c$762f12b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> <20030109121214.A4599@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <20030109171530.C3584@hamal.ipal.net> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:12:14PM -0800, David Kessens wrote: | The spirit of the policy is that you should be able to get a | significant allocation of ipv6 addresses if you are serious about | deploying ipv6 for you and a significant number of customers | (whether you start with tunnels etc. is irrelevant). Larger companies (who in fact are more likely to have greater numbers of customers to deploy it to) are probably less inclined to do it because they operate more on a verified demand basis. If their customers want it, they will find a way to deliver. If not, they won't. So are there any customers demanding it? Smaller businesses are more likely to take the risks and start doing the deployment. Some want to be first to market and try to get some market share out of it. Some might just want the eliteness of being and early adoptor. Limitations on how many customers they are going to have in the next year shuts a lot of them out. Some of them don't even have those numbers on IPv4. And the customers are still not demanding it. | People who just want to try out ipv6 don't really need an ipv6 | allocation from ARIN - they can either go the 6bone route or get an | allocation of ipv6 addresses from an upstream or befriended party (I | can help you out if you want :-)). I can't speak for others, but I do know I have no interest in trying it beyond what I've done already. I'm not connected to 6bone and have no intention to ever do so. I know how to make my Linux/BSD machines do it. I'm sure with the right loads, I can make the routers do it. What my issue is right now is what's going to be the trigger to make me go do more with it. I can say that a permanent allocation is one such way. But the kind of services I do don't even classify as an ISP in the sense ARIN sees it because I'm not doing any reallocation of IP space to do what I do (in my business plans for 2003, my new customers will be getting their IP space from their access provider which is not me, and in most cases its DHCP assigned IPv4). I'm not making any demands of my upstream to deploy IPv6 because I have no need for it. They aren't even thinking about it. They also happen to be looking to me for technical advice (I expect to actually configure the deployment for them when ... or if ... they ever get to it). And I know it won't happen until either there's a cutoff date for IPv4 looming or customers are demanding IPv6. | And if you ask me what is the biggest problem in the policy right now | ?!? That are probably small entities that have a need to multihome. | The question is whether is is a problem with the policy or with the | the fact that scalable multihoming is an unresolved issue (just like | with ipv4 - there is really nothing new here). I would fully agree. I don't need more address space. I need stable address space, multi-homing, and to qualify to get those without having to take more address space to do it. | The second issue that I see is midsize businesses (I purposely don't | define what midsize actually is) who really would like to have | numberportability and who actually deserve it (in my opinion :-)). | Renumbering is a little easier with ipv6, but still a pain and the | cost of renumbering can be quite significant if you are bigger than a | small household or small business. There will remain many issues in renumbering, including the authoritative DNS server issues. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------- From david at iprg.nokia.com Thu Jan 9 18:32:53 2003 From: david at iprg.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:32:53 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? In-Reply-To: <002e01c2b82b$2a8a0cb0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy>; from john@chagres.net on Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 03:05:05PM -0700 References: <20030109140116.B4696@iprg.nokia.com> <002e01c2b82b$2a8a0cb0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: <20030109153253.B4774@iprg.nokia.com> John, On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 03:05:05PM -0700, John M. Brown wrote: > > Ahh, right, back door information. One could also say that it is important to do a bit of research. For example, one can easily find on the PAIX webpages (check the '+' signs at http://www.paix.net/paloalto_1.htm) who does ipv6 and who doesn't. You can check the ARIN webpages for who actually got ipv6 allocations. Also, you can download the 6bone database and do some grep's for your favorite ISPs and you will find that most of them are already active with ipv6 in one way or the other. You really don't need to be an insider to find this information - it's all publicly available. > Which is GOOD in many > cases, and David has previous association with Qwest (if > memory serves me correctly), This is correct. > so knowing the right people > with enable on a router helps. It certainly does :-). > The issue I think Mury and I are talking about, at least > one of them, is that The normal process of getting connectivity > with a backbone does not see IPv6 as a product. But this maillist is the wrong one to complain about that - it's a free market - one votes in this country with his/her pocketbook. Find a different ISP. I found quite a few who do offer ipv6 service and they are making money today because they offer ipv6 service. Note that I do agree that the policy can be improved and that it contains certain barriers that don't necessarily help the deployment of ipv6. On the other hand, it's really not so hard to get addresses and connectivity from a provider near you. David K. --- From john at chagres.net Thu Jan 9 18:51:45 2003 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:51:45 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? In-Reply-To: <20030109153253.B4774@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <004901c2b83a$11537010$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> No provider that services NM has IPv6 available. I'd have to backhaul to AZ, TX, or CA.. > On the other hand, it's really not so hard to get addresses > and connectivity from a provider near you. > > David K. > --- > From phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net Thu Jan 9 19:05:50 2003 From: phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net (Phil Howard) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 18:05:50 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones In-Reply-To: ; from mury@goldengate.net on Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 03:52:06PM -0600 References: <2147483647.1042122482@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: <20030109180550.D3584@hamal.ipal.net> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 03:52:06PM -0600, Mury wrote: | | What is the topic? | | It's starting to sound like scrapping IPv6 is or at least delaying the | encouragement of allocating it. | | Someone needs to have some sort of plan. Obviously the plan might change, | but why are we even talking about changing the allocation requirement | policy if no-one has any answers to what I think are some pretty important | questions. | | And how the heck did someone come up with the current policy without | trying to answer some of those questions? How can you possibly have a | policy without knowing what you are trying to accomplish? | | If the goal is to simply have people start using IPv6 and hope someone | finds a way, why are there any restrictions at all? In other words, the | policy should be revised to "Anyone requesting IPv6 space shall receive it | after filling out the basic company info template." | | If you hope that IPv6 is going get its momentum from somewhere else, | someone needs to explain that and then derive a policy that encourages | those events. | | If IPv6 is no where near being usable by a regular ol' LIR (ISP), than the | policy should be changed to reflect that. Why give free space out to a | certain group of people that won't be able to effectively use it for | years if not decades. This could be used to argue against the deployment of IPv4. Why would anyone want to get on the internet if there's no one else (yet) to talk to. Well, clearly there were. But it wasn't big enough to get the big providers do what they are doing now. Of course very few will have an interest in IPv6 right now. But there will be enough to get started, and then once they are going, a few more will be interested. But what I can say with firm conviction is that far more end users will have an interest than all ISPs together, and far more small ISPs than large ISPs, for reasons of market demand (specifically the lack of it). | What the heck is the goal? I think it's to get IPv6 deployed. But I don't think that's the question. I think the question is how to achieve that goal. And I suspect the policy of trying to force the deployment from the top down just won't accomplish it. That's not to say that deploying from the bottom up won't be easy, but that is how business works. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------- From phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net Thu Jan 9 19:20:57 2003 From: phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net (Phil Howard) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 18:20:57 -0600 Subject: [ppml] back to the policy issue again In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20030109115212.0b5bea40@popd.ix.netcom.com>; from broseman@ix.netcom.com on Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:03:39PM -1000 References: <2147483647.1042122482@macleod.hilander.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20030109115212.0b5bea40@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <20030109182057.E3584@hamal.ipal.net> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:03:39PM -1000, Barbara Roseman wrote: | The current policy was developed over many meetings and in coordination | with the IPv6 working groups in APNIC and RIPE. The policy as it stands has | not impeded adoption of v6 in those regions, and I doubt that it is the | main reason companies are being slow to move to IPv6 here in the ARIN region. There are reasons IPv6 will generate interest in those regions. One of them is that the ARIN region already has a more substantial portion of the IPv4 allocation and is thus facing less pressure to find solutions. Another is that internet growth has slowed in the USA but is increasing in other regions of the world right now, and thus they are seeing new deployments with address shortages and newer router and server software that is already ready to go for IPv6. | There is always room for improvement in our current policies. Working | through the issues is a good thing, but it works best when there is a | specific goal in mind, such as easing adoption of v6 for small to mid-sized | companies, or adopting subnet boundaries that conform to a multi-homing | standard (not yet in existence). Just saying we need to generally change | the policy to encourage adoption of IPv6 doesn't get us very far along, nor | will it dramatically change the v6 situation in our region, IMHO. I think there needs to be a distinction between goals and methods. The methods should then address business realities. | John Brown has pointed at a distinct issue: the current policy makes it | difficult for small companies to request v6 addresses without "gaming" the | application process. He is understandably reluctant to do that. Size shouldn't matter. That's something that IPv6 was expected to offer. | One specific policy change we might consider is whether the 200 customers | in 2 years is an unrealistic expectation for early adopters. This issue was | also raised at RIPE several meetings back, and it was decided that even for | academic institutions, this might be an acceptable number. Perhaps we need | to revisit this qualification in light of operational experience. That expectation is biased. Some of those who want to be the earliest adoptors may not even have 200 IPv4 customers today. Those who do have the greatest customer base probably won't even be interested in putting any money into it (and without money, it won't happen) until the demand level is there. And the demand level they need will have to be one which will return profits from their investment in a reasonably short time frame, such as 3 years. The required numbers might be in the 1000's. So those who could qualify have their own business limitations, and those who do not have the business limitations won't qualify. Maybe you'll get lucky and find a few people in between. | This is the kind of specific issue we need to explore and discuss to remain | on topic. If the question is what should the policy be, then I have to ask if the policy is going to address a business world. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------- From phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net Thu Jan 9 19:40:37 2003 From: phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net (Phil Howard) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 18:40:37 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Policy Revision Proposal In-Reply-To: ; from mury@goldengate.net on Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 04:42:14PM -0600 References: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1906E9BCBB@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Message-ID: <20030109184037.F3584@hamal.ipal.net> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 04:42:14PM -0600, Mury wrote: | c) Those receiving micro allocations shall not be allowed to | make further allocations or assignments out of their /48. It | is intended for their internal use only. | | d) When possible those receiving micro allocations shall | return their allocation and receive a new /48 from their | upstream provider (a LIR). This is requested in a good faith | manner until Jan 1, 2007 at which time all micro allocations | granted under these waived criteria must be returned. These two things, either alone, will keep me from being an early adopter. Maybe that will be one less early adopter than you had hoped for. Or maybe a lot of others won't become early adopters as a result, either. I already just made up some IPv6 addresses and started using them for internal use. I don't need an allocation from ARIN to do that. To me, early adoption is for the purpose of easing into real IPv6 deployment. I certainly don't want a renumbering looking ahead. If that's the case, then I'll wait for my upstream. And when they ask me if I'd like to do IPv6 right now ... well ... they won't ask so I don't even need to tell you the answer. If anything, the early adopters should be required to actually be online and active with their address space as soon as the paths are open to do so. And as a reward for meeting that requirement, they get to keep the address space for as long as they remain actively connected. That is opposite of (c) and (d) above. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------- From mury at goldengate.net Thu Jan 9 21:12:02 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 20:12:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ppml] Policy Revision Proposal In-Reply-To: <20030109184037.F3584@hamal.ipal.net> Message-ID: I understand your point with d), but I think it's important to honor the goal of keeping routing tables clean, and therefore respectfully disagree. I don't understand your objections to c). Why do you need to hand out IP space to others from a /48? If you are handing out IP space the mirco allocation provisions wouldn't even apply to you. You would be getting a /32. Mury On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Phil Howard wrote: > On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 04:42:14PM -0600, Mury wrote: > > | c) Those receiving micro allocations shall not be allowed to > | make further allocations or assignments out of their /48. It > | is intended for their internal use only. > | > | d) When possible those receiving micro allocations shall > | return their allocation and receive a new /48 from their > | upstream provider (a LIR). This is requested in a good faith > | manner until Jan 1, 2007 at which time all micro allocations > | granted under these waived criteria must be returned. > > These two things, either alone, will keep me from being an early > adopter. Maybe that will be one less early adopter than you had > hoped for. Or maybe a lot of others won't become early adopters > as a result, either. > > I already just made up some IPv6 addresses and started using them > for internal use. I don't need an allocation from ARIN to do that. > To me, early adoption is for the purpose of easing into real IPv6 > deployment. I certainly don't want a renumbering looking ahead. > If that's the case, then I'll wait for my upstream. And when they > ask me if I'd like to do IPv6 right now ... well ... they won't ask > so I don't even need to tell you the answer. > > If anything, the early adopters should be required to actually be > online and active with their address space as soon as the paths are > open to do so. And as a reward for meeting that requirement, they > get to keep the address space for as long as they remain actively > connected. That is opposite of (c) and (d) above. > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | > | phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > From phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net Fri Jan 10 01:14:53 2003 From: phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net (Phil Howard) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:14:53 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Policy Revision Proposal In-Reply-To: ; from mury@goldengate.net on Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:12:02PM -0600 References: <20030109184037.F3584@hamal.ipal.net> Message-ID: <20030110001453.A8555@hamal.ipal.net> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:12:02PM -0600, Mury wrote: | I understand your point with d), but I think it's important to honor the | goal of keeping routing tables clean, and therefore respectfully disagree. Then apparently the issue is a technical one involving the (lack of new) routing technology that can handle this. This list is about policy, so that's not a topic here. I fear policy is going to have to work hard to compensate for routing that doesn't scale to meet the address space. It's going to be hard to suggest any other policy to deal with a bad design (e.g. the lack of scalable routing in IPv6). | I don't understand your objections to c). Why do you need to hand out IP | space to others from a /48? If you are handing out IP space the mirco | allocation provisions wouldn't even apply to you. You would be getting a | /32. That's just it. I don't need to hand out _any_ IP space. But I can't sign certain agreements some customers insist on without a permanent IP space. It puts me in a bad position relative to "the big boys". Someone who can justify /32 because they are handing out hundreds of /48's gets to run a "side business" that needs a small but permanent address slice. I have considered doing some hosting of things like dialup servers for no purpose others than presenting justification for IPv4/19 so I can get a permanent portable allocation. Otherwise I have no need for more than IPv4/24 for the forseeable future. If my business had started long ago (but what I'm going to be doing really had no market back then) I'd probably have one /24 in the 192 swamp. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------- From mury at goldengate.net Fri Jan 10 02:38:44 2003 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 01:38:44 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ppml] Policy Revision Proposal In-Reply-To: <20030110001453.A8555@hamal.ipal.net> Message-ID: Phil, I certainly understand the pain of renumbering. I've had to do it half a dozen times... at least. It's certainly not as easy as some people claim. Renumbering our own network is a significant task, and coordinating with customers takes even more time and effort. It's too late for me to do the math, but if everyone had an unaggregated /48 the routing tables would beyond what technology, irregardless of money, could accomodate. In regards to having customers demanding certain terms in a contract, my proposed revisions would guarantee you the same IPs until 2007. I do not know your business, so I could be wrong, but I know pulling teeth is easier than getting customers to sign a contract beyond 3 years. My proposal gives you almost 4 years. Most likely beyond a contract length. As far as setting up dialup pools to be able to justify a /19... 1) Would ARIN give you IP space based on that? I don't remember that being a criteria. 2) If they would, I believe ARIN would give you a /20 not a /19. Not that it matters much. 3) Setting up a dialup pool takes time as well, and money to maintain. Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper just to renumber if the need were to arise? I'm curious though... I went to your website. You mention that you provide ISDN, DSL, etc. Are you reselling someone else's services? If not, wouldn't you qualify for a /32 of IPv6 space under my revisions? Regards, Mury > On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:12:02PM -0600, Mury wrote: > > | I understand your point with d), but I think it's important to honor the > | goal of keeping routing tables clean, and therefore respectfully disagree. > > Then apparently the issue is a technical one involving the (lack of new) > routing technology that can handle this. This list is about policy, so > that's not a topic here. I fear policy is going to have to work hard to > compensate for routing that doesn't scale to meet the address space. > > It's going to be hard to suggest any other policy to deal with a bad design > (e.g. the lack of scalable routing in IPv6). > > > | I don't understand your objections to c). Why do you need to hand out IP > | space to others from a /48? If you are handing out IP space the mirco > | allocation provisions wouldn't even apply to you. You would be getting a > | /32. > > That's just it. I don't need to hand out _any_ IP space. But I can't sign > certain agreements some customers insist on without a permanent IP space. > It puts me in a bad position relative to "the big boys". Someone who can > justify /32 because they are handing out hundreds of /48's gets to run a > "side business" that needs a small but permanent address slice. > > I have considered doing some hosting of things like dialup servers for no > purpose others than presenting justification for IPv4/19 so I can get a > permanent portable allocation. Otherwise I have no need for more than > IPv4/24 for the forseeable future. > > If my business had started long ago (but what I'm going to be doing really > had no market back then) I'd probably have one /24 in the 192 swamp. > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | > | phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > From plzak at arin.net Fri Jan 10 07:28:29 2003 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 07:28:29 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Revision Proposal In-Reply-To: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1906E9BCC1@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Message-ID: <001301c2b8a3$c856b1a0$718888c0@arin.net> John, Yes. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Sweeting, John > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 5:57 PM > To: 'richardj at arin.net' > Cc: 'Mury'; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Revision Proposal > > > Richard, > > What is the official email address that this Policy Revision > needs to be > sent to? I checked the webpages but could not find a specific > address, only > that it had to be sent to the ARIN staff. Can this be > officially recognized > as being send to ARIN staff through this email. Thanks. > > John Sweeting > ARIN AC Member > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 5:42 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] Policy Revision Proposal > > > > I propose the following additions to: > > http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html > > Regards, > > Mury > GoldenGate Internet Services > > > 5.1.1 > [under d) add: > > Other oganizations are defined as any customer of the LIR. > No distinction will be made in terms of number of IP addresses > required, even if that number is one. > > 5.8 Allocation for Early Adopters > > 5.8.1 Waiver of criteria listed in 5.1.1 (d) > > To promote the allocation of IPv6 space the requirment > to make 200 > /48 assignments within two years shall be waived for anyone > requesting IPv6 space before Dec 31, 2004 or until this policy > is ammended. In the event that this policy is ammended the > existing IPv6 space holders shall not be subject to new or > waived criteria for a period of 10 years from their initial > allocation date. > > 5.8.2 Waiver of fees > > a) To promote the allocation of IPv6 space all IPv6 related fees > shall be waived until Dec 31, 2006 for anyone requesting and > receiving space before Dec 31, 2004. In the even that this > policy is ammended the existing IPv6 space holders shall > under no circumstances be subject to waived or new fees until > Dec 31, 2006. > > b) For billing purposes fees will be due according to normal > ARIN billing policies on Jan 1, 2007. All early adopters > will have the same billing date regardless of the date > they received their allocation. > > 5.8.3 Micro Allocations > > a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the > criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48 > micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy > is changed. If this policy is changed, current space holders > shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria. > > b) All fees shall be waived under the same rules listed in > 5.8.2. > > c) Those receiving micro allocations shall not be allowed to > make further allocations or assignments out of their /48. It > is intended for their internal use only. > > d) When possible those receiving micro allocations shall > return their allocation and receive a new /48 from their > upstream provider (a LIR). This is requested in a good faith > manner until Jan 1, 2007 at which time all micro allocations > granted under these waived criteria must be returned. > From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 10 11:30:19 2003 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:30:19 -0500 Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: Message from david@iprg.nokia.com of "Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:13:08 PST." <20030109151308.A4774@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <200301101630.h0AGUJm09628@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> David Kessens writes: > This is a policy group and our goal for a policy should be to get ip > as widely deployed as possible with minimal cost and without breaking > the very technology that one wants to deploy. Excuse me? Policy discussions are supposed to ignore any other constraints (like the technical feasibility of something)? I too would love to give everyone permanent, portable addresses. But I also know we currently do not have technology that can do this. So I don't support something that I'd like, precisely because I have real worries that it will cause big problems down the road. > You give two of the important reasons why this is not an easy problem > to solve. However, claiming that the problem doesn't exist because you > and me don't have a solution for it right now doesn't make the problem > go away. AFAIK, I have never claimed there isn't a problem here. The issue is what is a reasonable solution. Just saying that we should do something anyway, and hope that something happens that solves the technical concerns that are sure to come later, doesn't strike me as good policy. Thomas From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 10 11:30:29 2003 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:30:29 -0500 Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: Message from phil-arin-ppml@ipal.net of "Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:51:28 CST." <20030109165128.B3584@hamal.ipal.net> Message-ID: <200301101630.h0AGUU709654@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> > By encouraging IPv6 adoption at the bottom end, this would drive demand, > and thus the justfication for investment by the top end. I am sympathetic to the view that we want edges to be able to deploy IPv6 and not have to wait for their ISP to provide it (chicken-and-egg). Note that there are also other approaches for using IPv6 then getting an allocation from an RIR. There is also 6to4 technology, which turns an end-site's public IPv4 address into a usable IPv6 prefix for entire site. This allows an endsite to use IPv6 without cooperation from their ISPs. See RFC 3056. Thomas From david at iprg.nokia.com Fri Jan 10 14:48:13 2003 From: david at iprg.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:48:13 -0800 Subject: [ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions In-Reply-To: <200301101630.h0AGUJm09628@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>; from narten@us.ibm.com on Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:30:19AM -0500 References: <20030109151308.A4774@iprg.nokia.com> <200301101630.h0AGUJm09628@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20030110114813.A5927@iprg.nokia.com> Thomas, On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:30:19AM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote: > David Kessens writes: > > > This is a policy group and our goal for a policy should be to get ip > > as widely deployed as possible with minimal cost and without breaking > > the very technology that one wants to deploy. > > Excuse me? Policy discussions are supposed to ignore any other > constraints (like the technical feasibility of something)? I don't think we are that far apart: the last part of my sentence clearly says: 'without breaking the technology that one wants to deploy'. The area were we disagree seems to be that I don't have a problem allocating addresses to organizations that don't allocate addresses to third parties as long as the policy has appropriate breakers in place that make sure that we cannot allocate more unique prefixes than the routing system can take. I prefer to put very simple limits in place like that we allow allocation of X prefixes to such organizations and the policy will be reviewed when we reach that limit. If things grow too fast, we might need to tighten the policy, if things grow slower than expected there is nothing we need to do. And obviously, those limits need to be chosen very carefully to avoid problems in the future. I am afraid that we are currently more restrictive than we really need to be and that we indeed are impeding the adaptation of ipv6. As some other people on the list have said, early adaption often comes from the smaller businesses and individuals and the policy is currently not very accomodative for such parties. David K. --- From phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net Fri Jan 10 16:27:34 2003 From: phil-arin-ppml at ipal.net (Phil Howard) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:27:34 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Policy Revision Proposal In-Reply-To: ; from mury@goldengate.net on Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 01:38:44AM -0600 References: <20030110001453.A8555@hamal.ipal.net> Message-ID: <20030110152733.A31513@hamal.ipal.net> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 01:38:44AM -0600, Mury wrote: | I certainly understand the pain of renumbering. I've had to do it half a | dozen times... at least. It's certainly not as easy as some people claim. | Renumbering our own network is a significant task, and coordinating with | customers takes even more time and effort. The issues in renumbering are not just limited to what it takes to change each machine's numbers, and corresponding DNS entries. Depending on what kinds of business you're doing, other factors enter into it as well. For me, renumbering means redistributing CDROMs all over again, and having to deal with the added support costs and possible downtime complaints that would be related to it. | It's too late for me to do the math, but if everyone had an unaggregated | /48 the routing tables would beyond what technology, irregardless of | money, could accomodate. I know the math. I did it well over a decade ago when I dabbled in some designs for highly scalable routing which would not involve keeping every prefix or even AS in a table in each router. | In regards to having customers demanding certain terms in a contract, my | proposed revisions would guarantee you the same IPs until 2007. I do not | know your business, so I could be wrong, but I know pulling teeth is | easier than getting customers to sign a contract beyond 3 years. My | proposal gives you almost 4 years. Most likely beyond a contract length. I'm setting this business up on IPv4 now. I don't have permanent address space, so I have to plan for potential changes, which will be disruptive in the way things work. I don't anticipate those changes would happen very often, and if things stay on IPv4, probably not even before 2007. What you are offering is simply nothing better than IPv4. By 2007, I don't expect that many of my customers can transition to IPv6 anyway, because it would be a matter of their upstreams. Of course I could do IPv6 inside VPNs with the customers, but I can do that with 10.X.X.X now so again, IPv6 offers me nothing. | As far as setting up dialup pools to be able to justify a /19... | | 1) Would ARIN give you IP space based on that? I don't remember that | being a criteria. Think of it this way. What I do now wouldn't need more than /26 on my end. Remember, I'm not allocating space to my customers at all as they will be operating out of various other provider space. | 2) If they would, I believe ARIN would give you a /20 not a /19. Not that | it matters much. Not likely, since I'd truthfully I only need a tiny portion of it. The dialup would be a side business for nothing more than to ensure address space usage. | 3) Setting up a dialup pool takes time as well, and money to maintain. | Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper just to renumber if the need | were to arise? I think you still misunderstand the picture. You're still thinking of the renumbering as just changing the numbers on my machines and DNS entries and going again. But my services will involve my DNS servers being referenced by systems automatically installed by CDROMs. I'd have to have my customers receive a new CDROM with the new numbers and re-install again. | I'm curious though... I went to your website. You mention that you | provide ISDN, DSL, etc. Are you reselling someone else's services? If | not, wouldn't you qualify for a /32 of IPv6 space under my revisions? That's not the new business. That's just a consultancy I've been running for the past few years, and the access services mentioned there are resells from two partners I work with, one of which even has a /19, going on /18, already. The new business will start within their address space, but I can't multi-home beyond what they multi-home, and my business might grow beyond them. While I have registered domains for the new business, and have even set up two test customers already (which I do not provide or resell access service to), I'm not sure what the ultimate name will be. I'm still in discussions with my new business partner to finish off the business plan, which will have mention of address portability issues as constraints we have to be concerned about. I'm also looking at patching up some software so that I can use domain names instead of IP addresses. Certainly my domain names will be fixed. But will the root server addresses by fixed over say a 5 to 10 year period? It is yet another unfortunate technical aspect of the design of either IPv4 or IPv6 that addresses of root DNS servers were not fixed into the design. Maybe it's not too late to do that with IPv6. That would be an alternative that could work for me. Otherwise my alternative will be based on stability of either my DNS server or the root servers. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------- From mcf at uwm.edu Tue Jan 14 14:36:00 2003 From: mcf at uwm.edu (Mark McFadden) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:36:00 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ASO Address Council Update Message-ID: <001401c2bc04$2ed49510$f420de42@21stcenturytexts.com> For your information: At the Seattle ARIN Open Policy Meeting I was elected to one of the ARIN seats on the ICANN Address Council. A couple of important things have happened since Seattle and I wanted to bring you up-to-date. Last year the Address Council was chaired by Barbara Roseman. Recently Barbara has taken on a position at ICANN and resigned her seat on the ASO AC. While I'll miss Barbara on the AC, I think you'll agree that adding Barbara (along with John Crain who is already there) will add a conspicuous quantity of clue to ICANN. I hope you'll join me in wishing her well in her new and challenging role. In early January the Address Council worked through its standard, internal procedures and elected its chairs and co-chairs. I am happing to be serving as chair of the AC this year. I am joined by Hans Petter Holen and Hartmut Glaser who are serving as co-chairs. You may be following the efforts of ICANN to engage in reform. One aspect of that effort is that the Address Council is required to appoint a representative on the ICANN nomination committee. The role of the nomination committee is to elect some of the future ICANN board members. The Address Council's long-term goals include establishing an open and transparent process for this election, just as with the ICANN Board member elections in the past. However, with the timeframes we are currently working with (the NomCom will begin work around the first of February), the AC will elect a first representative to the NomCom. Since I represent all of the ARIN community on the Address Council, I'd be happy to hear from any member of the ARIN community and ARIN region with a suggestion for nominations to the NomCom position. Please drop me a note by January 20th at aso.ac at mcfaddencentral.com. In the coming weeks the Address Council will hold a workshop and then a regularly scheduled teleconference. I'll return with another update on the Address Council after those meetings. mark From jmcburnett at msmgmt.com Sun Jan 19 22:46:44 2003 From: jmcburnett at msmgmt.com (McBurnett, Jim) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:46:44 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 Message-ID: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E507706041E05B@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com> I think I missed something.. Did this get passed? Or is it still up in the air? Thanks, Jim From brian at meganet.net Sun Jan 19 23:07:35 2003 From: brian at meganet.net (Brian Wallingford) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:07:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 In-Reply-To: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E507706041E05B@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote: : :I think I missed something.. :Did this get passed? Or is it still up in the air? The most recent info available on 2002-7 is at: http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ac/ac2002_1122.html#7 It would appear that it hasn't passed yet. -brian From jmcburnett at msmgmt.com Mon Jan 20 09:42:44 2003 From: jmcburnett at msmgmt.com (McBurnett, Jim) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:42:44 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 Message-ID: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E507706041E068@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com> Thanks Brian! Well noting that there was a letter to the authors. I think we should reevaluate this one. I for one would benefit from this one..... Anyone got comments? Should we just kill it? Or should we move forward to help the small-mid sized companies? Later, Jim -----Original Message----- From: Brian Wallingford [mailto:brian at meganet.net] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:08 PM To: McBurnett, Jim Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote: : :I think I missed something.. :Did this get passed? Or is it still up in the air? The most recent info available on 2002-7 is at: http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ac/ac2002_1122.html#7 It would appear that it hasn't passed yet. -brian From richardj at arin.net Mon Jan 20 11:12:43 2003 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:12:43 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 In-Reply-To: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E507706041E068@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com> Message-ID: <006401c2c09e$c3de80a0$718888c0@arin.net> Hello Jim, > Well noting that there was a letter to the authors. > I think we should reevaluate this one. After noting there was not community consensus to accept policy proposals 2002-3 and 2002-7, as written, the ARIN AC requested the ARIN staff send a letter to the authors of the proposals. The letter pointed out that these two policy proposals were very similar and that there was not consensus to accept either of them, as written. The letter provided feedback to their proposals as it was received on the mailing list and at the public policy meeting so they may refine them for further discussion. The author of policy proposal 2002-7 has not yet submitted a revision, however, the authors of policy proposal 2002-3 have been working on a revision that will be posted back to this list for discussion very soon. Best Regards, Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of McBurnett, Jim > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:43 AM > To: Brian Wallingford > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 > > > Thanks Brian! > > > Well noting that there was a letter to the authors. > I think we should reevaluate this one. > I for one would benefit from this one..... > Anyone got comments? > Should we just kill it? > Or should we move forward to help the small-mid sized companies? > Later, > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Wallingford [mailto:brian at meganet.net] > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:08 PM > To: McBurnett, Jim > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 > > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote: > > : > :I think I missed something.. > :Did this get passed? Or is it still up in the air? > > > The most recent info available on 2002-7 is at: > http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ac/ac2002_1122.html#7 > > It would appear that it hasn't passed yet. > > -brian > From jmcburnett at msmgmt.com Mon Jan 20 11:34:50 2003 From: jmcburnett at msmgmt.com (McBurnett, Jim) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:34:50 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 Message-ID: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E507706041E074@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com> GREAT!! I am very interested in both policies as I am Multi-homed.. Thanks, Jim -----Original Message----- From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 11:13 AM To: McBurnett, Jim; 'Brian Wallingford' Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 Hello Jim, > Well noting that there was a letter to the authors. > I think we should reevaluate this one. After noting there was not community consensus to accept policy proposals 2002-3 and 2002-7, as written, the ARIN AC requested the ARIN staff send a letter to the authors of the proposals. The letter pointed out that these two policy proposals were very similar and that there was not consensus to accept either of them, as written. The letter provided feedback to their proposals as it was received on the mailing list and at the public policy meeting so they may refine them for further discussion. The author of policy proposal 2002-7 has not yet submitted a revision, however, the authors of policy proposal 2002-3 have been working on a revision that will be posted back to this list for discussion very soon. Best Regards, Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of McBurnett, Jim > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:43 AM > To: Brian Wallingford > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 > > > Thanks Brian! > > > Well noting that there was a letter to the authors. > I think we should reevaluate this one. > I for one would benefit from this one..... > Anyone got comments? > Should we just kill it? > Or should we move forward to help the small-mid sized companies? > Later, > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Wallingford [mailto:brian at meganet.net] > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:08 PM > To: McBurnett, Jim > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 > > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote: > > : > :I think I missed something.. > :Did this get passed? Or is it still up in the air? > > > The most recent info available on 2002-7 is at: > http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ac/ac2002_1122.html#7 > > It would appear that it hasn't passed yet. > > -brian > From billd at cait.wustl.edu Tue Jan 21 10:54:36 2003 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:54:36 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 Message-ID: Hello All, Richard is correct. The AC met via teleconference on January 16th to discuss outstand policy proposals and other business. The status of 2002-3 and 2002-7 was ambiguous. Both are quite similar. Authors of both were invited to rewrite their proposals and/or work together to eliminate the ambituity. The authors of 2003-3 have begun to rework their policy proposal and so it is still viable. Because the author of 2002-7 has not responded and because of its similarity with 2002-3, the AC made a recommendation to the Board of Trustess of ARIN to abandon consideration of 2002-7. That recommendation will presumably be considered during the next BoT meeting. I thank you all for your interest in these proposals and of course I understand from your emails that you think something in this area needs to be done. I encourage you to be specific in you interests.......what you think needs to be done within a policy to mitigate some problem that you face. Posting clear and concise statements of problem and solutions as you see them will likely help the authors of 2002-3 accomplish their edit with the greatest possibility of creating an acceptable proposal. Bill Darte ARIN AC > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net] > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:13 AM > To: 'McBurnett, Jim'; 'Brian Wallingford' > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 > > > Hello Jim, > > > Well noting that there was a letter to the authors. > > I think we should reevaluate this one. > > After noting there was not community consensus to accept policy > proposals 2002-3 and 2002-7, as written, the ARIN AC > requested the ARIN > staff send a letter to the authors of the proposals. The > letter pointed > out that these two policy proposals were very similar and > that there was > not consensus to accept either of them, as written. The > letter provided > feedback to their proposals as it was received on the mailing list and > at the public policy meeting so they may refine them for further > discussion. > > The author of policy proposal 2002-7 has not yet submitted a revision, > however, the authors of policy proposal 2002-3 have been working on a > revision that will be posted back to this list for discussion > very soon. > > Best Regards, > > Richard Jimmerson > Director of Operations > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of McBurnett, Jim > > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:43 AM > > To: Brian Wallingford > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 > > > > > > Thanks Brian! > > > > > > Well noting that there was a letter to the authors. > > I think we should reevaluate this one. > > I for one would benefit from this one..... > > Anyone got comments? > > Should we just kill it? > > Or should we move forward to help the small-mid sized companies? > > Later, > > Jim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian Wallingford [mailto:brian at meganet.net] > > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:08 PM > > To: McBurnett, Jim > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 > > > > > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote: > > > > : > > :I think I missed something.. > > :Did this get passed? Or is it still up in the air? > > > > > > The most recent info available on 2002-7 is at: > > http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ac/ac2002_1122.html#7 > > > > It would appear that it hasn't passed yet. > > > > -brian > > > From jmcburnett at msmgmt.com Tue Jan 21 12:37:54 2003 From: jmcburnett at msmgmt.com (McBurnett, Jim) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:37:54 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 Message-ID: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E50770600EB580@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com> Bill, Following your conciseness request: I feel that as a small-mid size business and in light of recent router memory improvements that the cost of a Class C from ARIN should be adjusted to reflect similiar costs as mentioned in 2002-7. Some ISP's charge an exorbent amount for a Class C to multi-home, some are fair, but end result is this is unregulated and varies from carrier to carrier. (I know of one ISP that charges $60 for 5 IP addresses per month, and one that charges $75 for a Class C per month, and a third that charges $300 per month) But with today's growth of the dependency of Internet connectivity, many small businesses cannot afford to be down extended for extended periods of time, and at the same time most cannot afford $2500 for a Class C from ARIN. I know I have heard: "if you want to be redundant it costs". But with IPv6 and some even say IPv8 on the horizon, IP addresses should not become the gold of ages past. At my company we use VPN's extensively for remote office connectivity. The redudancy granted by multi-homing mitigates a number of single point of failure problems. Although that will not mitigate the proverbial backhoe fade, it would help it such cases as a T-1 or larger failure to local premises. Should 2002-3 cover a price break in the cost of a class C, there should be some kind of "restrictor" plate addon to protect ARIN. I do not expect, nor do I consider it fair, that an end-user with DS-3 level connections should rate a "small-mid sized" business rate for IP addresses. But the end user with 2 T-1's from different ISP's should. All of this flows back to renumbering. Many people out there have renumbered. How many of you have renumbered due to a dotbom? And lost those IP addresses? An end user assignment policy that is cost effective, and user driven may make future swamp space less soggy.... Anyway.. just a thought.... Jim -----Original Message----- From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:55 AM To: 'richardj at arin.net'; McBurnett, Jim; 'Brian Wallingford' Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 Hello All, Richard is correct. The AC met via teleconference on January 16th to discuss outstand policy proposals and other business. The status of 2002-3 and 2002-7 was ambiguous. Both are quite similar. Authors of both were invited to rewrite their proposals and/or work together to eliminate the ambituity. The authors of 2003-3 have begun to rework their policy proposal and so it is still viable. Because the author of 2002-7 has not responded and because of its similarity with 2002-3, the AC made a recommendation to the Board of Trustess of ARIN to abandon consideration of 2002-7. That recommendation will presumably be considered during the next BoT meeting. I thank you all for your interest in these proposals and of course I understand from your emails that you think something in this area needs to be done. I encourage you to be specific in you interests.......what you think needs to be done within a policy to mitigate some problem that you face. Posting clear and concise statements of problem and solutions as you see them will likely help the authors of 2002-3 accomplish their edit with the greatest possibility of creating an acceptable proposal. Bill Darte ARIN AC > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net] > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:13 AM > To: 'McBurnett, Jim'; 'Brian Wallingford' > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 > > > Hello Jim, > > > Well noting that there was a letter to the authors. > > I think we should reevaluate this one. > > After noting there was not community consensus to accept policy > proposals 2002-3 and 2002-7, as written, the ARIN AC > requested the ARIN > staff send a letter to the authors of the proposals. The > letter pointed > out that these two policy proposals were very similar and > that there was > not consensus to accept either of them, as written. The > letter provided > feedback to their proposals as it was received on the mailing list and > at the public policy meeting so they may refine them for further > discussion. > > The author of policy proposal 2002-7 has not yet submitted a revision, > however, the authors of policy proposal 2002-3 have been working on a > revision that will be posted back to this list for discussion > very soon. > > Best Regards, > > Richard Jimmerson > Director of Operations > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of McBurnett, Jim > > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:43 AM > > To: Brian Wallingford > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 > > > > > > Thanks Brian! > > > > > > Well noting that there was a letter to the authors. > > I think we should reevaluate this one. > > I for one would benefit from this one..... > > Anyone got comments? > > Should we just kill it? > > Or should we move forward to help the small-mid sized companies? > > Later, > > Jim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian Wallingford [mailto:brian at meganet.net] > > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:08 PM > > To: McBurnett, Jim > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 > > > > > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote: > > > > : > > :I think I missed something.. > > :Did this get passed? Or is it still up in the air? > > > > > > The most recent info available on 2002-7 is at: > > http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ac/ac2002_1122.html#7 > > > > It would appear that it hasn't passed yet. > > > > -brian > > > From lee.howard at wcom.com Tue Jan 21 14:22:55 2003 From: lee.howard at wcom.com (Lee Howard) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:22:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: UUNET ?? RE: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? In-Reply-To: <002601c2b81f$ef939a00$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: UUNET does not provide IPv6 transit. The vBNS network has some IPv6 transport, but not as a standard product. Lee On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, John M. Brown wrote: > Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 13:44:42 -0700 > From: John M. Brown > To: "'Taylor, Stacy'" , > 'Mury' , ppml at arin.net > Subject: UUNET ?? RE: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > Does UUNET offer this service, Maybe Lee (BOT Member) can > answer this. From talking to sales and general IP alloc > person a month or so ago, the answer was, not a released > product..... > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Taylor, Stacy > > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:36 PM > > To: 'Mury'; ppml at arin.net > > Subject: RE: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > > > > ICG is working on it, but we also have no time frame. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net] > > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:36 PM > > To: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6? > > > > > > > > There was some speculation that backbones were or were not > > routing IPv6. I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both > > have told me they have no plans to support the routing of IPv6. > > > > Does anyone know of a backbone that will route IPv6? > > > > I know this does not directly pertain to policy, but if it's > > true that no backbones will route IPv6 than perhaps a policy > > needs to be created to encourage them to do so. > > > > Mury > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 20:24:00 GMT > > From: Genuity Customer Care > > Subject: Ticket #1, pclose, Mury Johnson has a question re... > > > > > > Categorization > > ------------------ > > Status: pclose Type: support Item: mcs > > Scope: 1site > > > > Service Elements > > ---------------------- > > > > > > Life Cycle > > ---------------- > > Problem Started: 01-09-2003 19:56:43 GMT Source: > > email > > Ticket Opened: 01-09-2003 19:56:43 GMT by rcalanna > > Owner: sa > > Ticket Updated: 01-09-2003 20:23:56 GMT by barmar > > Support Area: sa > > Problem Ended: 01-09-2003 20:22:00 GMT > > Fixer: sa > > Pending Close: 01-09-2003 20:22:35 GMT by barmar Close Code: > > support > > > > Description: > > > > Mury Johnson has a question regardinging IPv6. > > > > If I have an IPv6 allocation, can I route that block through you? > > > > Resolution: > > > > We do not currently support IPv6, and have not announced > > any timeframe to > > provide this capability. > > > > ============================================================== > > ========= > > This ticket is "pending closure" which means that we are > > keeping the ticket open until 5 business days after the > > "Pending Close" date above. If you feel this work has not > > been completed to your satisfaction, please contact us and we > > will re-open the ticket. If we do not hear from you in that > > time, the ticket will be closed automatically. > > > > Has your phone number, cell phone, pager number, fax number > > or email address changed? Help Genuity help you! Please > > contact us at 1-781-865-8730 or 1-800-Genuity or > > care at genuity.net to ensure that all of your technical contact > > information is up to date. Genuity Confidential and Proprietary > > > From ron at aol.net Wed Jan 22 00:06:48 2003 From: ron at aol.net (Ron da Silva) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:06:48 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy 2002-7 In-Reply-To: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E50770600EB580@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com> References: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E50770600EB580@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com> Message-ID: <20030122050648.GC12549@aol.net> Jim, On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:37:54PM -0500, McBurnett, Jim wrote: > > ...Should 2002-3 cover a price break in the cost of a class C, there > should be some kind of "restrictor" plate addon to protect ARIN. I do > not expect, nor do I consider it fair, that an end-user with DS-3 level > connections should rate a "small-mid sized" business rate for IP addresses. > But the end user with 2 T-1's from different ISP's should... In trying to clarify the point - are you asking that 2002-3 be given a special pricing consideration so that certain members are charged less for the same services (in this case a /24 assignment)? thanks, -ron From jmcburnett at msmgmt.com Sat Jan 25 14:18:05 2003 From: jmcburnett at msmgmt.com (McBurnett, Jim) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:18:05 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPV6.... Message-ID: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E507706041E0E1@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com> All, We all have been talking about V6 and the timetables of adoption amoung other things.. Curious enough, I found this on a British website.. Should this be tried in the US? if so, who should sponsor? ARIN? IETF? Take a look at the article, even though it is by a tabloid IT newsletter, it has some value. Comments anyone? Should this be a topic at the next ARIN meeting? Or should we wait until UK, and Euro make the move and we get dragged kicking and screaming into it? Anyway, just a thought or three... J http://212.100.234.54/content/5/29017.html From Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com Mon Jan 27 10:57:10 2003 From: Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com (Taylor, Stacy) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:57:10 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPV6.... Message-ID: <5BDB545714D0764F8452CC5A25DDEEFA04DADC60@denexg21.icgcomm.com> Hi Jim, The very gist of this article was discussed at length at NANOG in Eugene, and we all agreed it is quite the chicken and egg situation. I have every confidence that the U.S. will not be left behind. Stacy -----Original Message----- From: McBurnett, Jim [mailto:jmcburnett at msmgmt.com] Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:18 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] IPV6.... All, We all have been talking about V6 and the timetables of adoption amoung other things.. Curious enough, I found this on a British website.. Should this be tried in the US? if so, who should sponsor? ARIN? IETF? Take a look at the article, even though it is by a tabloid IT newsletter, it has some value. Comments anyone? Should this be a topic at the next ARIN meeting? Or should we wait until UK, and Euro make the move and we get dragged kicking and screaming into it? Anyway, just a thought or three... J http://212.100.234.54/content/5/29017.html From Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com Thu Jan 30 14:53:04 2003 From: Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com (Taylor, Stacy) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:53:04 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy 2002-5 Message-ID: <5BDB545714D0764F8452CC5A25DDEEFA04DADC9C@denexg21.icgcomm.com> Hail PPML! In an effort to prepare for Memphis, I am asking for your opinions once more about Policy 2002-5, Amnesty Requests. When we last left this discussion, we were questioning whether or not it was worth our attention. After all, if an organization has space it is not using, it should return the space to the Registry without a specific impellent policy. We discussed the potential for abuse of this policy by using it to launder spam-infected blocks. Is that a bad thing? It is up to ARIN staff whether or not to issue a new block. Could that process short out the spam laundering? Here is the policy as we left it: If an organization, whether a member or non-member, ISP or end-user, relinquishes a larger block of portable address space to ARIN, they shall be allowed to receive a smaller block, /24 or shorter, in exchange. The organization will not be required to justify their use of the new, smaller block. The organization must return the block to be exchanged within 12 months. ARIN staff shall, at their discretion, determine whether the smaller replacement block shall be a subnet of the returned block, or a block allocated from some different range. If any of the relinquished blocks had associated maintenance fees, then the new block will be subject to the appropriate fees for that block size. Likewise those without maintenance fees shall remain so. What do you think? Thanks, Stacy From woody at pch.net Fri Jan 31 04:16:44 2003 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:16:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] Policy 2002-5 In-Reply-To: <5BDB545714D0764F8452CC5A25DDEEFA04DADC9C@denexg21.icgcomm.com> Message-ID: Unsurprisingly, I continue to support it. I'd like to see uniformity of policy between RIRs, so as to decrease the amount of policy-shopping that goes on. -Bill