From info at arin.net Fri Mar 2 12:02:00 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:02:00 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-6: IPv4 PI minimum size change Message-ID: <45E85888.5060807@arin.net> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of 'IPv4 PI Minimum Size Change' and accepted it as a formal policy proposal for discussion by the community. The proposal is designated Policy Proposal 2007-6: IPv4 PI Minimum Size Change. The proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_6.html All persons in the community are encouraged to discuss Policy Proposal 2007-6 prior to it being presented at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, 23-24 April 2007. Both the discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List and at the Public Policy Meeting will be used to determine the community consensus regarding this policy proposal. The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2007-6: IPv4 PI minimum size change Author: David Williamson Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 2/14/2007 Proposal type: modify Policy term: permanent Policy statement: In section 4.3.2.2 of the NRPM, change all occurrences of "/22" to "/24". (That is, replace the existing 4.3.2.2 with this text: For end-users who demonstrate an intent to announce the requested space in a multihomed fashion, the minimum block of IP address space assigned is a /24. If assignments smaller than a /24 are needed, multihomed end-users should contact their upstream providers. When prefixes are assigned which are longer than /20, they will be from a block reserved for that purpose. Remove references to IPv4 in section 4.4, as they are no longer relevant. Section 4.4 could be moved, at the discretion of the NRPM editors, to somewhere in section 6, for clarity. Rationale: The rationale for moving the allocation "edge" for IPv4 PI space to /24 has three fundamental points: routing slot consumption would be unchanged, it reflects widespread routing practices, and it discourages waste. While experiments indicate that a few ISPs still try to filter at the /22 boundary, I have been repeatedly told that most don't filter anything shorter than a /24. While routing policy and allocation policies don't need to necessarily match, it is not unreasonable to have them in alignment. In addition, by keeping the PI allocation size for multi-homed organizations at /22, organizations seeking PI space that don't meet the requirements may be encouraged to exaggerate their address usage. This is something that should clearly not be encouraged. On the topic of routing slots, I would like to note that any org qualifying under the PI policies in 4.3.2.2 would also qualify for PA space, and would likely have an interest in multi-homing regardless of the usage of PA vs. PI space. In either instance, a routing slot is consumed by a /24. This policy change should therefore have minimal, if any, impact on the size of the global routing table. It merely gives organizations more options at a slightly smaller network size. Remember that for consideration under 4.3.2.2, an organiztion *must* be multi-homed. On a side note, it's tempting to remove the restriction entirely. If an organization only qualifies for a /28 (for example), they could receive an allocation of that size. Market forces would decide if that /28 was worth a routing slot. If the /28 contained my personal website, I suspect it would not be routable. If that /28 contained Microsoft Update, I suspect it would. In the interest of operational sanity and simplicity, I am not making a proposal to remove the restriction. (Note that section 4.1.1 explicitly notes that PI addresses are not guaranteed to be globally routable.) There is fundamental conflict between the urge for aggregation and the desire for conservation. The latter would prefer that organizations not have any excess space, while the former would prefer that fewer networks exist in the DFZ, regardless of wastage. Since the DFZ already permits deaggregation to /24, the conservation urge should be allowed to push to that edge. As noted in 4.1.5, "determination of IP address allocation size is the responsibility of ARIN." This proposal simply allows the community to request appropriately sized blocks, and ARIN to allocate prefixes of a size that is commensurate with established need. Timetable for implementation: immediate From info at arin.net Fri Mar 2 12:13:31 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:13:31 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments Message-ID: <45E85B3B.2020509@arin.net> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of 'Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments' and accepted it as a formal policy proposal for discussion by the community. The proposal is designated Policy Proposal 2007-7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments The proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_7.html All persons in the community are encouraged to discuss Policy Proposal 2007-7 prior to it being presented at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, 23-24 April 2007. Both the discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List and at the Public Policy Meeting will be used to determine the community consensus regarding this policy proposal. The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2007-7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments Author: Alex Rubenstein Proposal Version: 1 Submission Date: 15 February 2007 Proposal type: New Policy term: Permanent Policy statement: 4.3.6, Additional Assignments "In order to justify an additional assignment, end-users must have efficiently utilized at least 80% of all previous assignments, and must provide ARIN with utilization details. The prefix size for an additional assignment is determined by applying policies 4.3.2, and 4.3.3." Rationale: There are no published criteria for additional assignment requests from end-user networks. NRPM 4.3 seems to only cover initial assignments. NRPM 4.3.3 states, in part, "Requesters must show exactly how previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection." Unfortunately, the above text does not specify any metrics for ARIN staff to apply when determining if an additional assignment is justified. Though most end-users only get one assignment, some end-users request a 2nd or 3rd or Nth assignment. Currently, the ARIN staff applies what they perceive to be "efficient utilization" criteria; for instance, the end-user must have utilized at least 80% of last assignment and must provide ARIN with utilization details. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From info at arin.net Fri Mar 2 12:15:00 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:15:00 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications Message-ID: <45E85B94.3050007@arin.net> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of 'Transfer Policy Clarifications' and accepted it as a formal policy proposal for discussion by the community. The proposal is designated Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications. The proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_8.html All persons in the community are encouraged to discuss Policy Proposal 2007-8 prior to it being presented at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, 23-24 April 2007. Both the discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List and at the Public Policy Meeting will be used to determine the community consensus regarding this policy proposal. The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications Author: Paul Andersen Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: February 22, 2007 Proposal type: Modify Policy term: Permanent Policy statement: That Section 8 of the NRPM is replaced as follows: 8.1. Transfers Number resources are non-transferable and are not assignable to any other organization unless ARIN has expressly and in writing approved a request for transfer. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions on whether to approve the transfer of number resources. It should be understood that number resources are not "sold" under ARIN administration. Rather, number resources are assigned to an organization for its exclusive use for the purpose stated in the request, provided the terms of the Registration Services Agreement continue to be met and the stated purpose for the number resources remains the same. Number resources are administered and assigned according to ARIN's published policies. Number resources are issued, based on justified need, to organizations, not to individuals representing those organizations. Thus, if a company goes out of business, regardless of the reason, the point of contact (POC) listed for the number resource does not have the authority to sell, transfer, assign, or give the number resource to any other person or organization. The POC must notify ARIN if a business fails so the assigned number resources can be returned to the available pool of number resources if a transfer is not requested and justified. 8.2 Transfer Requirements ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources only upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has acquired the assets which had, as of the date of the acquisition or proposed reorganization, justified the current entity's use of the number resource. Examples of assets that justify use of the number resource include, but are not limited to: * Existing customer base * Qualified hardware inventory * Specific software requirements 8.3. Documentation Requirements In evaluating a request for transfer, ARIN may require the requesting organization to provide any of the following documents, as applicable, plus any other documents deemed appropriate: * An authenticated copy of the instrument(s) effecting the transfer of assets, e.g., bill of sale, certificate of merger, contract, deed, or court decree * A detailed inventory of all assets utilized by the requesting party in maintaining and using the number resource * A list of the requesting party's customers using the number resources If further justification is required, the requesting party may be asked to provide any of the following, or other supporting documentation, as applicable: * A general listing of the assets or components acquired * A specific description of acquisitions, including: * Type and quantity of equipment * Customer base * A description of how address space is being utilized * Network engineering plans, including: * Host counts * Subnet masking * Network diagrams * Reassignments to customers Rationale: Staff analysis and community comments have a problem with the inconsistent use of the terms "ASN" and "IP Address" in this section which leads to confusion on which resources can be transferred. The entire section now utilizes the term "number resources" to clarify what would appear to be the original intent. A section regarding the handling of customer networks outside ARIN's geographic region has been removed to reflect the actual current procedure utilized that was developed in conjunction with the ERX transfer project. The last section of old text has been removed as it does not appear to be so much policy as guidance. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From info at arin.net Fri Mar 2 12:29:07 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:29:07 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy Message-ID: <45E85EE3.5030100@arin.net> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of 'Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy' and accepted it as a formal policy proposal for discussion by the community. The proposal is designated Policy Proposal 2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy. The proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_9.html All persons in the community are encouraged to discuss Policy Proposal 2007-9 prior to it being presented at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, 23-24 April 2007. Both the discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List and at the Public Policy Meeting will be used to determine the community consensus regarding this policy proposal. The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy Author: Robert Seastrom Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 22-Feb-2007 Proposal type: modify Policy term: permanent Policy statement: Modify NRPM 4.2.1.6 to read: If an ISP has an immediate need for address space, and can provide justification to show that the address space will be utilized within 30 days of the request, ARIN may issue a block of address space, not larger than a /16 nor smaller than ARIN's customary minimum allocation, to that organization. These cases are exceptional. Current text of 4.2.1.6: If an ISP has an immediate need for address space, i.e., the need exists the day of the request, ARIN may issue a /20 if the organization, such as a new company, shows justification. However, these cases are exceptional. Rationale: ARIN staff and ARIN members have identified a few long-standing problems with the Immediate Need policy. This policy proposal attempts to address the following concerns: * The Immediate Need policy only allows ISPs to qualify for a /20 worth of space, when a larger size block may be necessary to provide proper coverage for the proposed project. An example justifying larger space is an MSOs for which a /20 is insufficient to put an address block larger than a /29 or /30 on each CMTS in a metropolitan area). * Conversely, this policy was written before the current multi-homed policy (which allows allocations of /21s and /22s). The Immediate Need policy should allow assignment of smaller blocks of space if those are justified. * The example used in the Immediate Need policy gives the impression that an immediate need must exist the day of the request. This seems both unfair and unreasonable and should probably be changed to reflect a realistic timeframe. Concerns expressed about the Immediate Need Policy but NOT addressed by this policy proposal (but addressed in a subsequent policy proposal): * The policy as written allows ARIN to issue a /20 to an ISP only. However, section 4.3.4. "Additional Considerations" of the End User Policy in the NRPM states that "End-users may qualify for address space under other policies such as Immediate need [4.2.1.6] or Micro-allocation [4.4].". In order to be consistent, the Immediate Need policy language should be changed to reflect the fact that both ISPs and end-users can qualify under this policy. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From info at arin.net Fri Mar 2 12:31:50 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:31:50 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-10: End Site Immediate Need Policy Message-ID: <45E85F86.8050804@arin.net> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of 'End Site Immediate Need Policy' and accepted it as a formal policy proposal for discussion by the community. The proposal is designated Policy Proposal 2007-10: End Site Immediate Need Policy. The proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_10.html All persons in the community are encouraged to discuss Policy Proposal 2007-10 prior to it being presented at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, 23-24 April 2007. Both the discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List and at the Public Policy Meeting will be used to determine the community consensus regarding this policy proposal. The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2007-10: End Site Immediate Need Policy Author: Robert Seastrom Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 22-Feb-2007 Proposal type: new Policy term: permanent Policy statement: Create new section in NRPM 4.3.6. to mirror the intent of 4.2.1.6, but modified for end sites. If pending proposal "Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy" is ratified, this new section will read: 4.3.6 Immediate Need: If an end-user has an immediate need for address space, and can provide justification to show that the address space will be utilized within 30 days of the request, ARIN may issue a block of address space, not larger than a /16 nor smaller than ARIN's customary minimum allocation, to that organization. These cases are exceptional. In the absence of ratification of ""Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy", this proposal is to add section 4.3.6 with a modification of the current text of 4.2.1.6 to make it apply to end-users: 4.3.6 Immediate Need: If an end-user has an immediate need for address space, i.e., the need exists the day of the request, ARIN may issue a /20 if the organization, such as a new company, shows justification. However, these cases are exceptional. Rationale: ARIN staff has expressed the concern that the current policy is self-contradictory, in one place stating that the Immediate Need Policy applies to ISPs, and in another place stating that end users can qualify under it. The communication received was: * The policy as written allows ARIN to issue a /20 to an ISP only. However, section 4.3.4. "Additional Considerations" of the End User Policy in the NRPM states that "End-users may qualify for address space under other policies such as Immediate need [4.2.1.6] or Micro-allocation [4.4].". In order to be consistent, the Immediate Need policy language should be changed to reflect the fact that both ISPs and end-users can qualify under this policy. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From info at arin.net Fri Mar 2 12:46:51 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:46:51 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-11: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy Message-ID: <45E8630B.2050700@arin.net> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of 'Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy' and accepted it as a formal policy proposal for discussion by the community. The proposal is designated Policy Proposal 2007-11: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy. The proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_11.html All persons in the community are encouraged to discuss Policy Proposal 2007-11 prior to it being presented at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, 23-24 April 2007. Both the discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List and at the Public Policy Meeting will be used to determine the community consensus regarding this policy proposal. The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2007-11: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy Author: Robert Seastrom Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 22-Feb-2007 Proposal type: modify Policy term: permanent Policy statement: In NRPM 4.2.4.3 (Initial Allocations to ISPs Policy), strike the following sentence: "When completing Section 7 of the ARIN ISP Network Request Template, please keep this in mind" Rationale: Instructions on filling out templates properly belong in the instructions attached to the template, not as part of a policy statement. This reminder makes reference to an obsolete template and section. ARIN released new templates in August 2006 and changed template names, field numbers, and sections which made both of these references obsolete. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From info at arin.net Fri Mar 2 12:46:58 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:46:58 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal Message-ID: <45E86312.3090606@arin.net> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of the proposed policy 'eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments' and did not accept it as a formal policy proposal. Citing RFC 2050, the AC concluded that ARIN was not empowered to administer multicast address space. During the initial review period the AC may decide to: 1) Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is presented, 2) Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine it with another proposal, or 3) Not accept the policy proposal. In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed policy, then the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process which can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; the petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the petition is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a petition is successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for discussion and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting. The proposed policy text can be found at: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/005970.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From info at arin.net Fri Mar 2 12:47:05 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:47:05 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal Message-ID: <45E86319.5040609@arin.net> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of the proposed policy 'IPv4 Countdown' and did not accept it as a formal policy proposal. The AC rejected this proposal having taken into consideration the anti-trust issues raised by the ARIN General Counsel and because the AC deemed the proposal to be contrary to ARIN's mission. During the initial review period the AC may decide to: 1) Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is presented, 2) Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine it with another proposal, or 3) Not accept the policy proposal. In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed policy, then the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process which can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; the petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the petition is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a petition is successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for discussion and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting. The proposed policy text can be found at: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From tme at multicasttech.com Fri Mar 2 13:19:22 2007 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:19:22 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: <45E86312.3090606@arin.net> References: <45E86312.3090606@arin.net> Message-ID: Hello; On Mar 2, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Member Services wrote: > On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of > the proposed policy 'eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments' and did not > accept it as a formal policy proposal. > > Citing RFC 2050, the AC concluded that ARIN was not empowered to > administer multicast address space. I must admit that I do not understand this reasoning, and intend to petition / appeal this. RFC 2050 / BCP 12 merely says WRT multicast that This document does not describe private Internet address space and multicast address space. RFC 3180 / BCP 53 is both later (and thus presumably superseding) and is specifically about multicast address space assignments. I do not see how an RFC that says it does not cover a subject has priority over a later RFC that does. Suggestions / comments / clarifications are as always welcomed. Regards Marshall > > During the initial review period the AC may decide to: > 1) Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is > presented, > 2) Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine it with another > proposal, or > 3) Not accept the policy proposal. > > In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed policy, > then > the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the > proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition > Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process which > can be found at: > http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html > > The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN > Internet > Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; > the > petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting > is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the > petition > is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a petition is > successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for > discussion > and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting. > > The proposed policy text can be found at: > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/005970.html > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From andrew.dul at quark.net Fri Mar 2 13:29:40 2007 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andrew=20Dul?=) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:29:40 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal Message-ID: <20070302182940.6351.qmail@hoster908.com> > -------Original Message------- > From: Marshall Eubanks > Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal > Sent: 02 Mar '07 10:19 > > Hello; > > On Mar 2, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Member Services wrote: > > > On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of > > the proposed policy 'eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments' and did not > > accept it as a formal policy proposal. > > > > Citing RFC 2050, the AC concluded that ARIN was not empowered to > > administer multicast address space. > > I must admit that I do not understand this reasoning, and intend to > petition / appeal this. > > RFC 2050 / BCP 12 merely says WRT multicast that > > This document does not describe private Internet address space and > multicast address space. I would also tend to agree. To me, RFC 3180 specifically asks the RIRs to administer this space. However, I also realize administration of multicast space is something new for the RIRs and we need to consider this before jumping in. This policy proposal, as written, is probably not complete enough as written and needs further work (specific allocation criteria, etc). The other issue that don't know if it has been considered with is the issue of ensuring uniqueness between RIRs . Do we expect IANA to chop up the eGLOP space and give a chunk to each RIR? Andrew From marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com Fri Mar 2 13:44:20 2007 From: marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:44:20 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments- not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal Message-ID: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A01A3DDC8@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Andrew- at the risk of saying ditto I do to the following statement you made: "administration of multicast space is something new for the RIRs and we need to consider this before jumping in. This policy proposal, as written, is probably not complete enough as written and needs further work (specific allocation criteria, etc). The other issue that don't know if it has been considered with is the issue of ensuring uniqueness between RIRs . Do we expect IANA to chop up the eGLOP space and give a chunk to each RIR?" But I dont interpret this document to specifically ask RIR's to do this as you do. At best it eludes to it, and the above clip of your prior statement points out all the open ended issues. Cheers! Marla Azinger Frontier Communications -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Andrew Dul Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 10:30 AM To: Marshall Eubanks; PPML PPML Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments- not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal > -------Original Message------- > From: Marshall Eubanks > Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal > Sent: 02 Mar '07 10:19 > > Hello; > > On Mar 2, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Member Services wrote: > > > On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of > > the proposed policy 'eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments' and did not > > accept it as a formal policy proposal. > > > > Citing RFC 2050, the AC concluded that ARIN was not empowered to > > administer multicast address space. > > I must admit that I do not understand this reasoning, and intend to > petition / appeal this. > > RFC 2050 / BCP 12 merely says WRT multicast that > > This document does not describe private Internet address space and > multicast address space. I would also tend to agree. To me, RFC 3180 specifically asks the RIRs to administer this space. However, I also realize administration of multicast space is something new for the RIRs and we need to consider this before jumping in. This policy proposal, as written, is probably not complete enough as written and needs further work (specific allocation criteria, etc). The other issue that don't know if it has been considered with is the issue of ensuring uniqueness between RIRs . Do we expect IANA to chop up the eGLOP space and give a chunk to each RIR? Andrew _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From tme at multicasttech.com Fri Mar 2 13:57:30 2007 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:57:30 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: <45E86312.3090606@arin.net> Message-ID: Hello All; I should add that the same proposal has been submitted to RIPE and APNIC, and I presented on it to APNIC yesterday. It will be taken up at the next APNIC meeting, in New Delhi at the end of the Summer. Here is the APNIC presentation http://www.multicasttech.com/papers/APNIC-tme-2007.pdf.gz (gzipped PDF) http://www.multicasttech.com/papers/APNIC-tme-2007.ppt.gz (gzipped Microsoft Power Point) Regards Marshall On Mar 2, 2007, at 1:19 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > Hello; > > On Mar 2, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Member Services wrote: > >> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its >> review of >> the proposed policy 'eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments' and did not >> accept it as a formal policy proposal. >> >> Citing RFC 2050, the AC concluded that ARIN was not empowered to >> administer multicast address space. > > I must admit that I do not understand this reasoning, and intend to > petition / appeal this. > > RFC 2050 / BCP 12 merely says WRT multicast that > > This document does not describe private Internet address space and > multicast address space. > > RFC 3180 / BCP 53 is both later (and thus presumably superseding) and > is specifically > about multicast address space assignments. > > I do not see how an RFC that says it does not cover a subject has > priority over a later RFC that does. > > Suggestions / comments / clarifications are as always welcomed. > > Regards > Marshall > > > > >> >> During the initial review period the AC may decide to: >> 1) Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is >> presented, >> 2) Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine it with >> another >> proposal, or >> 3) Not accept the policy proposal. >> >> In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed policy, >> then >> the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the >> proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition >> Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process >> which >> can be found at: >> http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html >> >> The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN >> Internet >> Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; >> the >> petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting >> is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the >> petition >> is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a >> petition is >> successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for >> discussion >> and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting. >> >> The proposed policy text can be found at: >> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/005970.html >> >> Regards, >> >> Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML mailing list >> PPML at arin.net >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From tme at multicasttech.com Fri Mar 2 14:06:43 2007 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:06:43 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: <20070302182940.6351.qmail@hoster908.com> References: <20070302182940.6351.qmail@hoster908.com> Message-ID: <91499C5F-18F0-4567-AF26-2E6102779325@multicasttech.com> Dear Andrew; On Mar 2, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Andrew Dul wrote: >> -------Original Message------- >> From: Marshall Eubanks >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address >> Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal >> Sent: 02 Mar '07 10:19 >> >> Hello; >> >> On Mar 2, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Member Services wrote: >> >>> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its >>> review of >>> the proposed policy 'eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments' and did >>> not >>> accept it as a formal policy proposal. >>> >>> Citing RFC 2050, the AC concluded that ARIN was not empowered to >>> administer multicast address space. >> >> I must admit that I do not understand this reasoning, and intend to >> petition / appeal this. >> >> RFC 2050 / BCP 12 merely says WRT multicast that >> >> This document does not describe private Internet address space and >> multicast address space. > > I would also tend to agree. > > To me, RFC 3180 specifically asks the RIRs to administer this space. > > However, I also realize administration of multicast space is > something new for the RIRs and we need to consider this before > jumping in. This policy proposal, as written, is probably not > complete enough as written and needs further work (specific > allocation criteria, etc). I will be working with Filliz Yilmaz of RIPE to help get this into appropriate shape for them. I would be glad to hear suggestions on or off list as to how to do that. > The other issue that don't know if it has been considered with is > the issue of ensuring uniqueness between RIRs . Do we expect IANA > to chop up the eGLOP space and give a chunk to each RIR? > That is a good question - as written, it does. However, it would also be suitable to have only one RIR take this on, or even to set up a new entity just for this purpose. > Andrew > > Regards Marshall > From bicknell at ufp.org Fri Mar 2 17:59:32 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 17:59:32 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: <45E86312.3090606@arin.net> Message-ID: <20070302225932.GC72044@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:19:22PM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > I must admit that I do not understand this reasoning, and intend to > petition / appeal this. > > RFC 2050 / BCP 12 merely says WRT multicast that I agree with you, to quote a little further: This document does not describe private Internet address space and multicast address space. It also does not describe regional and local refinements of the global rules and guidelines. This document can be considered the base set of operational guidelines in use by all registries. Additional guidelines may be imposed by a particular registry as appropriate. It would seem to me that 3180 could be interpreted as "Additional guidelines" and thus I don't see a 2050 problem. I think the bigger problem here is, what is ARIN to do? Reading 3180 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3180.html) there's no registry function. You take a prefix, you add your AS number. Boom, done. There's nothing for ARIN to allocate, track, report on or otherwise administer. Since the purpose of a policy proposal is to change the NRPM, and this references no sections of the NRPM, what specifcally do you want ARIN to do? Perhaps if you rephrased in the form "Insert into section x.y.z of the NRPM the following text:" it would be more clear. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From andrew.dul at quark.net Sat Mar 3 14:18:12 2007 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:18:12 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments -not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: <20070302225932.GC72044@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <45E86312.3090606@arin.net> Message-ID: <4.0.2.20070302174945.00f398a0@mail.quark.net> At 05:59 PM 3/2/2007 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote: > >It would seem to me that 3180 could be interpreted as "Additional >guidelines" and thus I don't see a 2050 problem. > >I think the bigger problem here is, what is ARIN to do? Reading >3180 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3180.html) there's no registry >function. You take a prefix, you add your AS number. Boom, done. >There's nothing for ARIN to allocate, track, report on or otherwise >administer. > >Since the purpose of a policy proposal is to change the NRPM, and >this references no sections of the NRPM, what specifcally do you >want ARIN to do? Perhaps if you rephrased in the form "Insert into >section x.y.z of the NRPM the following text:" it would be more >clear. My understading was this policy was trying to create a registry to administer 233.x.y.z where x & y is composed of the private ASN range of 64512 - 65534. Someone correct me if I'm wrong... From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Mar 5 04:12:13 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:12:13 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments -not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0018EAFD@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > I should add that the same proposal has been submitted to RIPE and > APNIC, and I presented on > it to APNIC yesterday. All the more reason for ARIN to reject it. The RIR system was set up so that each region can set up policies relevant to their region without having to deal with global issues. Global policy comes from the IETF, IANA, ICANN. Why do people persist in trying to create global policies by shotgunning a proposal to every RIR? And why do they wail and moan when we don't march in lockstep with the other RIRs to further the submitters' own private goals. It's a poor strategy. Much better to go to one RIR, get the policy passed, get it implemented, then go to another RIR with a better policy that builds on the lessons of the first. In any case, even if APNIC passes the policy, ICANN and the NRO can still block it from being implemented if it exceeds the charter of the RIRs. ARIN just decided to do things differently by stopping it at the proposal stage by noting that the RIR role is first defined by RFC 2050 which explicitly leaves out multicast. That is an important issue which you should really have addressed FIRST with the IETF and ICANN. --Michael Dillon From tme at multicasttech.com Mon Mar 5 05:18:23 2007 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 05:18:23 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: <20070302225932.GC72044@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <45E86312.3090606@arin.net> <20070302225932.GC72044@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: Dear Leo; On Mar 2, 2007, at 5:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:19:22PM -0500, > Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> I must admit that I do not understand this reasoning, and intend to >> petition / appeal this. >> >> RFC 2050 / BCP 12 merely says WRT multicast that > > I agree with you, to quote a little further: > > This document does not describe private Internet address space and > multicast address space. It also does not describe regional and > local refinements of the global rules and guidelines. > > This document can be considered the base set of operational > guidelines in use by all registries. Additional guidelines may be > imposed by a particular registry as appropriate. > > It would seem to me that 3180 could be interpreted as "Additional > guidelines" and thus I don't see a 2050 problem. > > I think the bigger problem here is, what is ARIN to do? Reading > 3180 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3180.html) there's no registry > function. You take a prefix, you add your AS number. Boom, done. > There's nothing for ARIN to allocate, track, report on or otherwise > administer. > > Since the purpose of a policy proposal is to change the NRPM, and > this references no sections of the NRPM, what specifcally do you > want ARIN to do? Perhaps if you rephrased in the form "Insert into > section x.y.z of the NRPM the following text:" it would be more > clear. > I think that you are correct, and such text is in the works. As far as what there is for a RIR to do, RFC 3180 is indeed automatic. RFC 3138, for GLOP extensions, says that (Section 3) Globally scoped IPv4 multicast addresses in the EGLOP space are assigned by a Regional Registry (RIR). An applicant MUST, as per [IANA], show that the request cannot be satisfied using Administratively Scoped addressing [RFC2365], GLOP addressing [RFC2770], or SSM. The fine-grained assignment policy is left to the assigning RIR. There thus needs to be established a mechanism for evaluating the "MUSTS" in this section, which should be pretty straightforward, and also for the granularity of assignments, for which we provided a specific suggestion in our proposal. Regards Marshall > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From hannigan at world.std.com Mon Mar 5 09:06:07 2007 From: hannigan at world.std.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:06:07 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments -not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: <2d106eb50703050556n2da1239did8fae6ae02744773@mail.gmail.com> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0018EAFD@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <2d106eb50703050556n2da1239did8fae6ae02744773@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d106eb50703050606u151c6448l8a9bcf77aa7dd436@mail.gmail.com> On 3/5/07, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On 3/5/07, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > [ snip ] > > > In any case, even if APNIC passes the policy, ICANN and the NRO can > > still block it from being implemented if it exceeds the charter of the > > RIRs. How does that work? -M< From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Mar 5 09:29:11 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:29:11 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments -not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00264055@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > > In any case, even if APNIC passes the policy, ICANN and the NRO can > > still block it from being implemented if it exceeds the > charter of the > > RIRs. > > How does that work? The NRO is the mechanism by which RIRs officially coordinate their work. If one RIR passes a policy and the other RIRs think that has exceeded the mandate of an RIR, in particular with respect to Attachment A, item 1 of the AS MOU, then the RIRs have a mechanism, the NRO, to communicate, coordinate and argue. Since the RIRs are ultimately under the oversight of ICANN, if ICANN thinks that an RIR is overstepping its authority, I think it highly likely that ICANN would object. As for mechanism, they can always write a public letter of complaint if nothing else. Remember, this is an international political self-governance issue. There are ALWAYS mechanisms even if there are no private armies. In any case, it looks like Marshall is the victim of a very badly written proposal combined with submitting it to the wrong place. If he had instead petitioned the IANA and IAB to release the space defined in RFC 3138 then I think he would have had more success. But once the space is allocated to ARIN, we still need some clear policy guidance on how to allocate it. The proposed policy is anything but clear and does not contain any guidance. In fact it reads more like a marketing statement than a policy. --Michael Dillon From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Mar 5 21:33:50 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:33:50 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast ... In-Reply-To: References: <45E86312.3090606@arin.net> Message-ID: At 13:57 -0500 3/2/07, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >I should add that the same proposal has been submitted to RIPE and >APNIC, and I presented on it to APNIC yesterday. When I (admittedly passively) heard the presentation at APNIC, I wondered why IANA is felt to be not suitable for the job and/or can not be made to be suitable. This may have been covered, but I missed part of the discussion and only now (off-net) came across the thread on this proposal. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Mar 5 21:43:50 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:43:50 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-7: ... In-Reply-To: <45E85B3B.2020509@arin.net> References: <45E85B3B.2020509@arin.net> Message-ID: At 12:13 -0500 3/2/07, Member Services wrote: >http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_7.html >Policy Proposal 2007-7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP >Requests/Assignments > >Author: Alex Rubenstein > >Proposal Version: 1 >Rationale: >details to verify their one-year growth projection." Unfortunately, the >above text does not specify any metrics for ARIN staff to apply when >determining if an additional assignment is justified. Though most >end-users only get one assignment, some end-users request a 2nd or 3rd >or Nth assignment. Is this something that needs to be specified? I mean, the text is absent meaning it is left to the staff's discretion. Is the current arrangement unacceptable? If so, why? Has the staff asked for such guidance? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Mar 5 21:47:17 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:47:17 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-6: IPv4 PI minimum size change In-Reply-To: <45E85888.5060807@arin.net> References: <45E85888.5060807@arin.net> Message-ID: At 12:02 -0500 3/2/07, Member Services wrote: >http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_6.html >Policy Proposal 2007-6: IPv4 PI minimum size change > >Author: David Williamson > >Proposal Version: 1.0 >Rationale: >While experiments indicate that a few ISPs still try to filter at the >/22 boundary, I have been repeatedly told that most don't filter >anything shorter than a /24. While routing policy and allocation >policies don't need to necessarily match, it is not unreasonable to have >them in alignment. I'm not doubting the claim but is there data to back it up? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Mar 5 22:54:42 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 12:54:42 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: <45E85B94.3050007@arin.net> References: <45E85B94.3050007@arin.net> Message-ID: At 12:15 -0500 3/2/07, Member Services wrote: >http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_8.html >Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications > >Author: Paul Andersen > >Proposal Version: 1.0 > >It should be understood that number resources are not "sold" under ARIN >administration. Rather, number resources are assigned to an organization What I find a bit confusing is the difference between the thought that ARIN "leases" resources versus the thought that a company might "sell" resources from one to another. (An off-shoot of this comes from the fee discussion in APNIC, where resources whose registration is static see the per-year fees decrease. This reflects the nature of the activity as that of managing a registry and not as a "LAN-lord.") ... >not to individuals representing those organizations. Thus, if a company >goes out of business, regardless of the reason, the point of contact >(POC) listed for the number resource does not have the authority to >sell, transfer, assign, or give the number resource to any other person >or organization. The POC must notify ARIN if a business fails so the >assigned number resources can be returned to the available pool of >number resources if a transfer is not requested and justified. What exactly does "going out of business" mean? A company can be absorbed by another through a purchase and the brand name tossed away while still maintaining the need for the resources. In a way I can see this saying the transfers can never happen, meaning that if I buy someone's hosting service I may have to apply for new addresses. Worse is the thought that I'd have to renumber if I don't get the transfer of resources. I'm asking an obtuse question because the text doesn't say which POC(s) is/are involved. What if the POC is a role account that transfers with the rest of a once independent company? >8.2 Transfer Requirements > >ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources only >upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has acquired the assets >which had, as of the date of the acquisition or proposed reorganization, >justified the current entity's use of the number resource. Examples of >assets that justify use of the number resource include, but are not >limited to: I pretty much agree with the intent of this proposal...it's the words I am quibbling about in the previous section. >Rationale: > >Staff analysis and community comments have a problem with the >inconsistent use of the terms "ASN" and "IP Address" in this section >which leads to confusion on which resources can be transferred. The >entire section now utilizes the term "number resources" to clarify what >would appear to be the original intent. I have come across people that find the ARIN on-web flow-chart confusing because AS numbers are not included in the prose. And I have been told that the prose comes from the policy. So I'll add a data point saying that this is in need or updating. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Mar 5 22:54:59 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 12:54:59 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-9: Modernization... In-Reply-To: <45E85EE3.5030100@arin.net> References: <45E85EE3.5030100@arin.net> Message-ID: At 12:29 -0500 3/2/07, Member Services wrote: >http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_9.html >Policy Proposal 2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy > >Author: Robert Seastrom > >Proposal Version: 1.0 >Rationale: > > * The example used in the Immediate Need policy gives the impression >that an immediate need must exist the day of the request. This seems >both unfair and unreasonable and should probably be changed to reflect a >realistic timeframe. How is the 30 day number justified? A normal request is for 6 months worth of space, how long is the processing of a normal request? I don't suppose that this is just a desire to have an expidited request procedure but to handle something other than "I forgot to ask sooner." Or is it? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Mar 5 22:48:26 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 12:48:26 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Informationfrom NRPM In-Reply-To: <2271C950731A734680BA3E2978816F1808B69116@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> References: <45CDCCF4.6040008@arin.net> <2271C950731A734680BA3E2978816F1808B69116@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: At 22:33 -0500 2/15/07, Alexander, Daniel wrote: >This discussion seems to play along the same lines as the policy >proposal to remove the multiple /48 requirement. Both of these skirt >around the extent of an RIR's control. Based on following this discussion around a few RIR's the distinction I make is that the RIR ought to define what it measures regarding utilization (to sustain or augment allocation) and avoid dictating operational parameters. Where does an ISP go for business advice, in this case operational advice? I don't think in this case it should be the RIR. An RIR "helping" an ISP would violate fairness. Where do ISP's go collectively for advice (as opposed to just one of them)? Fairness isn't a problem for that, but then it comes down to a question of whether the RIR is the best source of information. Having seen the debate over "moving" from /48 to /56 - on the one hand for more conservation but on the other hand upending some architectural assumptions - I think that the RIRs should reference the protocol engineering work done elsewhere. What I have here is pretty much what I elided from Dan's message. I'm restating it just to add another voice in the matter. >Policies should not be written to dictate how an ISP/LIR should conduct >it's business, but rather how the Internet community should use >resources in a responsible manner. I agree that the proposed wording in >6.5.4.1 should be removed. I agree that the proposed wording in section >6.5.4.2 should be removed. The problem is, in the absence of a clear >initial and subsequent allocation requirement, ARIN would be left with >nothing to prevent irresponsible practices. Should policy be used to dictate responsible behavior? Indirectly I suppose. Having just been in a jurisdiction that seeks to control a potential gaming habit among the local population by requiring locals to purchase expensive gaming permits to enter the newly built establishments that have gaming while permitting foreigners to enter freely; compare that to jurisdictions that deal with gaming habits by letting habits develop but deal with the consequences by less direct policies. Kind of like deadlock-prevention vs. deadlock-recovery approaches to operating systems. My preference is for the latter, but I will readily admit that my preference may not be the best practical approach. (I.e., I've gamed without developing the habit, etc.) My leaning is toward ARIN playing the role of having policies that are indirect - that is enforcing conservation via "you don't get more if you've squandered it" - but also being active in educating ISPs about the perils of waste and in particular, promoting documents developed where appropriate. We don't want to have a Betty Ford Clinic for ISPs. But I have seen what happens to the policy discussions when we put operational parameters in the text. BTW - I'm avoiding words that some spam-filtering software likes to pick up as in "Condado Plaza Hotel & $house_of_gaming". -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From pekkas at netcore.fi Tue Mar 6 01:56:22 2007 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:56:22 +0200 (EET) Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast ... In-Reply-To: References: <45E86312.3090606@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Edward Lewis wrote: > At 13:57 -0500 3/2/07, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > >> I should add that the same proposal has been submitted to RIPE and >> APNIC, and I presented on it to APNIC yesterday. > > When I (admittedly passively) heard the presentation at APNIC, I > wondered why IANA is felt to be not suitable for the job and/or can > not be made to be suitable. This may have been covered, but I missed > part of the discussion and only now (off-net) came across the thread > on this proposal. The idea is that getting these static multicast addresses costs money in one way or the other to reduce unnecessary requests. I suspect IANA won't want to get involved with that. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From dlw+arin at tellme.com Tue Mar 6 03:00:26 2007 From: dlw+arin at tellme.com (David Williamson) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 00:00:26 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-6: IPv4 PI minimum size change In-Reply-To: References: <45E85888.5060807@arin.net> Message-ID: <20070306080025.GT15348@shell01.corp.tellme.com> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 11:47:17AM +0900, Edward Lewis wrote: > >Rationale: > > >While experiments indicate that a few ISPs still try to filter at the > >/22 boundary, I have been repeatedly told that most don't filter > >anything shorter than a /24. While routing policy and allocation > >policies don't need to necessarily match, it is not unreasonable to have > >them in alignment. > > I'm not doubting the claim but is there data to back it up? It's a difficult thing to verify, frankly. You can do your own experiment if you have address space that's suitable for such things. Have a look at http://www.arin.net/reference/ip_blocks.html#ipv4. Pick an aggregate in one of the /8s that isn't allocated down to /24s. Announce a /24 out of a larger allocation, and start poking at random route servers. I did this experiment with a /24 at two different times spread over about 10 months. I found that my initial try had that /24 blocked across two or three major ISPs. My more recent run showed that only one blocked that /24, and that was a bit suspect (it popped up in a few route servers, so I suspect there was some weird one-off filtering between a couple of the bigger folks out there...hard to say.) Your mileage may vary. In any event, I don't think there's definitive data, and few ISPs will readily fess up to there exact filtering strategy. It would be pretty easy to filter based on the prefix lengths on that page mentioned above...or just use /24. The latter would *seem* to be the more common strategy. Like I said, difficult to verify, but reasonable to believe. -David From owen at delong.com Tue Mar 6 03:16:44 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 00:16:44 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-6: IPv4 PI minimum size change In-Reply-To: References: <45E85888.5060807@arin.net> Message-ID: <5447A17D-6EDE-40CD-A39D-B096138065F6@delong.com> Go to route-views and type sh ip bgp | i /24 Lots of data there for you. Owen On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: > At 12:02 -0500 3/2/07, Member Services wrote: > >> http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_6.html > >> Policy Proposal 2007-6: IPv4 PI minimum size change >> >> Author: David Williamson >> >> Proposal Version: 1.0 > >> Rationale: > >> While experiments indicate that a few ISPs still try to filter at the >> /22 boundary, I have been repeatedly told that most don't filter >> anything shorter than a /24. While routing policy and allocation >> policies don't need to necessarily match, it is not unreasonable >> to have >> them in alignment. > > I'm not doubting the claim but is there data to back it up? > > -- > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-=-=-=- > Edward Lewis > +1-571-434-5468 > NeuStar > > Sarcasm doesn't scale. > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Mar 6 04:52:39 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:52:39 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00264633@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > What exactly does "going out of business" mean? A company can be > absorbed by another through a purchase and the brand name tossed away > while still maintaining the need for the resources. Isn't that the key to all of this? IP addresses aren't assets and aren't intellectual property. They don't belong to persons or to corporations. They are assigned for use in a network and as long as there is a network which needs them, then they can be transferred. Admittedly there are some grey areas such as networks which are partly dismantled or temporarily shut down, but if there is a network running or about to be running, at the time ARIN is contacted and there is some kind of prior relationship between the transferee and the transferor then we should transfer resources. In any case, the number one issue is whether the size of the address blocks are justified by the new assignee. Even if they have a legal document where the previous assignee says that they can have the addresses, if they no longer justify the block size, then they should not get them. We need to be careful with changes to policy around JUSTIFICATION because as we wind down to the end of the IPv4 address space over the next 3 years or so, the question of what is justfication will become a hot issue. As will audits of address usage. > In a way I can see this saying the transfers can never happen, > meaning that if I buy someone's hosting service I may have to apply > for new addresses. Worse is the thought that I'd have to renumber if > I don't get the transfer of resources. This seems like the typical simple case where the buyer continues to operate exactly the same network infrastructure and therefore has exactly the same justification as the original assignee. Seems to me that we save money by simply doing a paper transfer of the same addresses to make the new owner, the new assignee. > I pretty much agree with the intent of this proposal...it's the words > I am quibbling about in the previous section. Seems to always be a big problem with ARIN policy proposals. At least there is a move towards clearer language and less ambiguity. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Mar 6 04:59:00 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:59:00 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast ... Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0026464E@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > The idea is that getting these static multicast addresses costs money > in one way or the other to reduce unnecessary requests. I suspect > IANA won't want to get involved with that. IANA has no choice but to get involved. The RIRs cannot allocate any resources unless IANA first allocates a resource pool to the RIRs. And in the ARIN region, we do not set fee levels to reduce unneccessary requests. Fee levels are set to recover costs and resources are allocated based on justified need. --Michael Dillon From owen at delong.com Tue Mar 6 10:55:19 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 07:55:19 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: References: <45E85B94.3050007@arin.net> Message-ID: On Mar 5, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: > At 12:15 -0500 3/2/07, Member Services wrote: > >> http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_8.html > >> Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications >> >> Author: Paul Andersen >> >> Proposal Version: 1.0 >> > >> It should be understood that number resources are not "sold" under >> ARIN >> administration. Rather, number resources are assigned to an >> organization > > What I find a bit confusing is the difference between the thought > that ARIN "leases" resources versus the thought that a company might > "sell" resources from one to another. > ARIN DOES NOT LEASE RESOURCES. ARIN DOES NOT SELL RESOURCES. RESOURCES, in this case, are simply integers of varying lengths (16 (ASN), 32(ASN/IPv4) or 128 bits(IPv6)). Actually, ARIN does nothing regarding title to said numbers whatsoever since said numbers are NOT property. They're just numbers. Here, I'll give you 10 of them right now: 593, 14, 29, 23094, 120934, 123, 25, 9124, 70192, 138904 What ARIN does is to provide a REGISTRATION SERVICE and a guarantee that noone cooperating with the ARIN registration service or an affiliated registration service (other RIRs, IANA, etc.) will be registered to the same number in the same number space (ASN, IPv4, and, IPv6 are separate number spaces). Assignment is NOT a lease. > (An off-shoot of this comes from the fee discussion in APNIC, where > resources whose registration is static see the per-year fees > decrease. This reflects the nature of the activity as that of > managing a registry and not as a "LAN-lord.") > While the APNIC fee structure may or may not better reflect the fact that assignments are not leases and resources do not have title, merely registration for purposes of maintaining uniqueness, both ARIN and APNIC assign and allocate resources under that same principle. > What exactly does "going out of business" mean? A company can be > absorbed by another through a purchase and the brand name tossed away > while still maintaining the need for the resources. > There are many possible events when a company ceases to exist. The scenario described above is one. In other scenarios, the assets (if any remain) may be sold, auctioned, or otherwise disposed of in payment of outstanding debts. The point I believe was being made was that if a company flat out ceases to exist, i.e. there is no transfer of a significant portion of the physical assets to a single remaining entity, there is no title in the number resources and the POC cannot go start a new venture and use the number resources from the previous entity for that purpose. If the substantial physical network implementing the justified utilization of the number resources is transferred, the ARIN transfer policy should accommodate the transfer of the number resources to match, regardless of whether the original organization continues to exist or not. >> Owen From kamal.mehta at us.ibm.com Tue Mar 6 12:08:50 2007 From: kamal.mehta at us.ibm.com (Kamal Mehta) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:08:50 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Kamal Mehta is travelling. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 03/03/2007 and will not return until 03/14/2007. I will have infrequent access to my e-mail during business hours, and will try to respond to my messages in a timely manner. If you need immediate assistance, please call the IBM AOD Service Center at 877-737-3700. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drw at cimtel.net Wed Mar 7 12:24:01 2007 From: drw at cimtel.net (Danny Whittenburg) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:24:01 -0600 Subject: [ppml] (no subject) Message-ID: <008601c760dd$5fdf877b$6b646464@macc243> NOTE: This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Mar 7 14:38:03 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:38:03 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: <45E86312.3090606@arin.net> <20070302225932.GC72044@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <20070307193803.GA10972@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 05:18:23AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > As far as what there is for a RIR to do, RFC 3180 is indeed > automatic. RFC 3138, for GLOP extensions, says that > (Section 3) > > Globally scoped IPv4 multicast addresses in the EGLOP space are > assigned by a Regional Registry (RIR). An applicant MUST, as per > [IANA], show that the request cannot be satisfied using > Administratively Scoped addressing [RFC2365], GLOP addressing > [RFC2770], or SSM. The fine-grained assignment policy is left to > the > assigning RIR. I think you could structure a strong polcy proposal using that paragraph as a springboard. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Wed Mar 7 14:48:55 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:48:55 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: References: <45E85B94.3050007@arin.net> Message-ID: Let me clarify... At 7:55 -0800 3/6/07, Owen DeLong wrote: >On Mar 5, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: >> At 12:15 -0500 3/2/07, Member Services wrote: >>> http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_8.html >> ...(quoting the proposal author) >>> It should be understood that number resources are not "sold" under ARIN >>> administration. Rather, number resources are assigned to an organization >> >> What I find a bit confusing is the difference between the thought >> that ARIN "leases" resources versus the thought that a company might >> "sell" resources from one to another. >> >ARIN DOES NOT LEASE RESOURCES. ARIN DOES NOT SELL RESOURCES. Yes, I'd wager everyone on this list has been clear on that for sometime. The point of my comment is that the wording of the proposal isn't clear. For example - "It should be understood that number resources are not 'sold' under ARIN administration" can be taken two ways - that ARIN does not sell the numbers or it can be that once ARIN assigns numbers they can be sold from one entity to another. For example - I can get trinkets from a job that I can then turn around and sell on Ebay. Or I can buy an airline ticket but I can't sell that on Ebay. I suppose that where I got confused is where the proposal talks about the numbers are "issued" (not assigned or allocated) to the organization and not the POC. (The admin POC?) -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From info at arin.net Wed Mar 7 17:52:15 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:52:15 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN XIX Remote Participation and Webcast Information Message-ID: <007401c7610b$404a1580$5f8888c0@arin.net> Are you be unable to join us in San Juan for ARIN XIX in person? If so and you are frustrated at the thought of missing the policy discussions and other interesting presentations, we have a solution for you! In its continuing effort to supply the community with an open forum, ARIN is inviting individuals who cannot attend the meeting in person to participate remotely. Remote participants may post, via e-mail, questions and comments to be addressed in normal question and answer periods throughout the agenda. Remote participation is available to all members of the community that cannot attend the meeting in person. The entire ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting and ARIN Members Meeting will also be webcast, for use by registered remote participants or anyone who is interested in following the meeting discussions and presentations. Registration for remote participation is available through our online meeting registration system. To register, please visit the ARIN XIX home page at http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/, click the "Register for the Meeting" button at the top of the page, and choose "ARIN XIX Remote Participant" from the drop-down box and complete the subsequent form. Registration for remote participation will close 20 April 2007 at 11:59 PM EDT. The live meeting webcast is available without registering as a remote participant. Comments received during the meeting from remote participants will be moderated and presented during normal question and answer periods. ARIN will use e-mail to provide the interactive portion of the remote participation effort. All remote participants are subject to the Remote Participation Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). Additional information about remote participation and the webcast, including the Remote Participation AUP, is available at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/webcast.html Detailed information on how to access the meeting webcast will be posted through the URL above before the meeting. The webcast will be using RealNetworks Helix Server, and the broadcast will begin Monday, 23 April 2007 at 9:00 AM AST (UTC/GMT -4 hours). To view the live or archived feeds, you can use RealPlayer 5.0 and above.20 Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From randy at psg.com Wed Mar 7 18:37:28 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:37:28 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications References: <45E85B94.3050007@arin.net> Message-ID: <17903.19640.437115.151766@roam.psg.com> >> ARIN DOES NOT LEASE RESOURCES. ARIN DOES NOT SELL RESOURCES. > Yes, I'd wager everyone on this list has been clear on that for > sometime. hmmm. then why are fees proportional to the amound of resources one holds? suggest looking at ripe fee model, now being considered in apnic, where resources are 'aged' for the purpose of fee calculation, on the assumptions that o fees are for service not rental of resource, and o service cost declines the longer you hold the resource randy From dts at senie.com Wed Mar 7 18:56:21 2007 From: dts at senie.com (Daniel Senie) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:56:21 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: <17903.19640.437115.151766@roam.psg.com> References: <45E85B94.3050007@arin.net> <17903.19640.437115.151766@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070307185134.068c4a20@senie.com> At 06:37 PM 3/7/2007, Randy Bush wrote: > >> ARIN DOES NOT LEASE RESOURCES. ARIN DOES NOT SELL RESOURCES. > > Yes, I'd wager everyone on this list has been clear on that for > > sometime. > >hmmm. then why are fees proportional to the amound of resources >one holds? And why are they different for ISPs vs end users for the same size blocks? The reasoning I've heard is that ISPs are expected to be doing more with SWIPs and thus generate expense, but is this really reasonable or fair? As a member with a /22 and a handful of SWIPs that rarely change and no expectation of adding or removing any (after all, SWIPs for /32's aren't done), what expense structure am I really incurring on ARIN? >suggest looking at ripe fee model, now being considered in apnic, >where resources are 'aged' for the purpose of fee calculation, on >the assumptions that > o fees are for service not rental of resource, and > o service cost declines the longer you hold the resource Indeed. I'd argue that the present fee structure at ARIN is problematic for smaller companies, especially smaller ISPs (since multihomed end users don't pay based on their address space size). Perhaps a base fee and a fee per event that generates a drain on resources (SWIP, support, etc.) would be more reasonable? From feenberg at nber.org Wed Mar 7 19:03:56 2007 From: feenberg at nber.org (Daniel Feenberg) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:03:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: <17903.19640.437115.151766@roam.psg.com> References: <45E85B94.3050007@arin.net> <17903.19640.437115.151766@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Randy Bush wrote: >>> ARIN DOES NOT LEASE RESOURCES. ARIN DOES NOT SELL RESOURCES. >> Yes, I'd wager everyone on this list has been clear on that for >> sometime. > > hmmm. then why are fees proportional to the amound of resources > one holds? > > suggest looking at ripe fee model, now being considered in apnic, > where resources are 'aged' for the purpose of fee calculation, on > the assumptions that > o fees are for service not rental of resource, and > o service cost declines the longer you hold the resource > > randy Without commenting on the content, I believe the word needed here is "inalienable". For example, a peasant in the middle ages had the right to farm his plot as long as he gave the required share to the lord of the manor, but not the right to sell or rent his plot to another. His rights could not be transferred (other than by inheiritance), hence inalienable. I believe this is analogous to the situation ARIN seeks to describe, unless ARIN seeks to retain the right to recall allocations arbitrarily. Daniel Feenberg > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From owen at delong.com Wed Mar 7 19:20:54 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 16:20:54 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070307185134.068c4a20@senie.com> References: <45E85B94.3050007@arin.net> <17903.19640.437115.151766@roam.psg.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070307185134.068c4a20@senie.com> Message-ID: <3EC58B0D-B500-4F6E-A917-E50F06E39F24@delong.com> On Mar 7, 2007, at 3:56 PM, Daniel Senie wrote: > At 06:37 PM 3/7/2007, Randy Bush wrote: > >>>> ARIN DOES NOT LEASE RESOURCES. ARIN DOES NOT SELL RESOURCES. >>> Yes, I'd wager everyone on this list has been clear on that for >>> sometime. >> >> hmmm. then why are fees proportional to the amound of resources >> one holds? > > And why are they different for ISPs vs end users for the same size > blocks? The reasoning I've heard is that ISPs are expected to be > doing more with SWIPs and thus generate expense, but is this really > reasonable or fair? As a member with a /22 and a handful of SWIPs > that rarely change and no expectation of adding or removing any > (after all, SWIPs for /32's aren't done), what expense structure am I > really incurring on ARIN? > Actually, I think the ARIN fee structure does a reasonably good job of translating the registration effort/cost into fees... As an end-user organization with a relatively static set of data, my fees are only $100/year, regardless of my resources because I am unlikely to change things often, and, when I do, it's usually just an address or POC. OTOH, as an ISP, the larger the pool of addresses I have, the more often it is likely I will change assignments, add/remove/update data on reassignments, etc. > >> suggest looking at ripe fee model, now being considered in apnic, >> where resources are 'aged' for the purpose of fee calculation, on >> the assumptions that >> o fees are for service not rental of resource, and >> o service cost declines the longer you hold the resource > > Indeed. I'd argue that the present fee structure at ARIN is > problematic for smaller companies, especially smaller ISPs (since > multihomed end users don't pay based on their address space size). > Perhaps a base fee and a fee per event that generates a drain on > resources (SWIP, support, etc.) would be more reasonable? > I've worked with a number of smaller ISPs, and, I have not seen the current fee structure pose a hardship for any of them. You're <=$2,250 per year until you need more than a /19. and <=$4,500 until you are all the way up through /16. In fact, having looked at the RIPE and APNIC fee structures, I would say that for most small ISP scenarios I have experienced, ARIN is less expensive from 0 to ASN+IP than RIPE or APNIC. Owen From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 7 20:07:18 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:07:18 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070307185134.068c4a20@senie.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Daniel Senie >Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 3:56 PM > >Indeed. I'd argue that the present fee structure at ARIN is >problematic for smaller companies, especially smaller ISPs (since >multihomed end users don't pay based on their address space size). >Perhaps a base fee and a fee per event that generates a drain on >resources (SWIP, support, etc.) would be more reasonable? > I disagree, and I think many people here have lost track of the point of ARIN at all. We all know ther is a need to manage numbering on the Internet. Just like road surface in the United States, for example. We need to manage all those cars on that resource. So we have this huge infrastructure of traffic tickets, traffic cops, courts, lawyers, lawmakers, etc. all with their finger in the road pie, and fundamentally trying to help all of us out managing the traffic on the roads so that the roads don't become unusable for the normal person. (except for perhaps a few police departments I know of who see their mission as revenue extraction but I digress) Now, what pays for this infrastructure is taxes, and insurance costs that are mandated, and so on. Now, lets relate that to IP numbering. ARIN is out there providing fundamentally the same service. Managing allocations. Keeping me, for example, from just throwing up a BGP advertisement for some random numbers if I happen to need more. Trying to keep people from hoarding numbers. Trying to arbitrate between a bunch of ISPs who all basically want to put each other out of business and steal each other's customers if they could get away with it. If for example, some wise ass decided it might be a good idea to get rid of ARIN and have AOL and Earthlink manage IP allocations, and numbering, how long do you think most small ISPs would last? Who do you think would get preference for IP numbering? Or even more frightening than AOL, Verizon! Unlike your local revenue-extracting police force, ARIN only has one real tool to bring order to the numbering. And that is charging fees. The fees ARIN charges are not in any way related to the "resources consumed for managing IP addresses" Hell, if you want to just do that and save some money, I'll tell you want, I'll save you a bundle. I'll fire up a spreadsheet and charge everyone on the Internet a dollar per /20 per every 5 years. I'll track AS numbers for free. I won't bother with verifying your using numbers, no siree! And in 2 months when all the big boys have sucked all v4 allocations dry, and have decided to advertise the subnets that you got assigned 3 years ago, well don't bother me about it. Work it out between yourselves. The number registry fees have only one justification, and that is as a tool for maintaining order. You charge a lot of money so that when the day comes that AOL runs out of numbers and starts to use yours, and doesen't bother with checking with a numbering authority to see if they are already in use, you can go in front of a judge in a courtroom who doesen't know an IP address from a shoelace and hold up a list of 5000 other organizations who are all paying ARIN a sum total of a billion bucks a year for the moral authority to tell AOL to toe the line, well then as they say, when the chips are down money talks and BS walks and how long do you think that AOL will be able to fight against that? By contrast you hold up a list of 5000 other organizations all paying a buck every 5 years for their numbers - how long do you think that is going to last against AOL? Haw! So please no more of this "fees based on usage" that is baloney, we all know ARIN and the other registries are purely political organizations, and their fees are related to the various political goals of a smooth running Internet, and the need for a lot of money to use as a club to smash against a lot of people out there who couldn't give one whit about the good of the Internet and only care about it as a means for enriching their own pockets, and if given a chance, would knock you permanently off it in seconds. Ted From randy at psg.com Wed Mar 7 20:18:14 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:18:14 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications References: <45E85B94.3050007@arin.net> <17903.19640.437115.151766@roam.psg.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070307185134.068c4a20@senie.com> Message-ID: <17903.25686.778290.690160@roam.psg.com> > Perhaps a base fee and a fee per event my personal opinion is per-event is too much of a pita, costs too much, and will create disincentives to events that we would like, such as keeping records up to date. randy From randy at psg.com Wed Mar 7 20:19:41 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:19:41 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications References: <45E85B94.3050007@arin.net> <17903.19640.437115.151766@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <17903.25773.159576.355445@roam.psg.com> > Without commenting on the content, I believe the word needed here is > "inalienable". ... > I believe this is analogous to the situation ARIN seeks to describe, > unless ARIN seeks to retain the right to recall allocations arbitrarily. i believe your word "arbitrarily" is non-op and have vague memories of non-arbitrary policies, or at least proposals, which led to recall. randy From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 8 05:27:39 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:27:39 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032ECE1@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > >> ARIN DOES NOT LEASE RESOURCES. ARIN DOES NOT SELL RESOURCES. > > hmmm. then why are fees proportional to the amound of resources > one holds? They are NOT proportional to the amount of resources one holds. Instead, they are ROUGHLY proportional to the amount of work that must be done by ARIN staff when processing applications and dealing with SWIPs, POCs etc. Organizations with larger networks are more work for ARIN staff and therefore pay a higher fee. This fee model is required to sustain the organization. When I submit an application for additional addresses, my organization pays no additional fees. The application gets processed based on justified requirements regardless of how big or small. The fees that we pay are not for addresses but to sustain the organization. We have also decided that any organization who wishes to get an ARIN allocation, must sustain the organization because that places all of us on a more-or-less level playing field. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 8 05:32:36 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:32:36 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032ECEF@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > And why are they different for ISPs vs end users for the same size > blocks? The reasoning I've heard is that ISPs are expected to be > doing more with SWIPs and thus generate expense, but is this really > reasonable or fair? As a member with a /22 and a handful of SWIPs > that rarely change and no expectation of adding or removing any > (after all, SWIPs for /32's aren't done), what expense structure am I > really incurring on ARIN? In order for your SWIP records to be available for queries in the whois database, you have to pay ARIN enough money to sustain it as a functioning organization. That includes a share of the President's salary, the Board of Trustees meeting expenses, the cost of all the servers, the electric bills, and the contributions to the staff pension plans. The current fee structure puts everyone on a more-or-less level playing field which is important in an organization like ARIN. --Michael Dillon From dts at senie.com Thu Mar 8 07:21:59 2007 From: dts at senie.com (Daniel Senie) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 07:21:59 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032ECEF@i2km07-ukbr.domain1 .systemhost.net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032ECEF@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308071512.06bf0450@senie.com> At 05:32 AM 3/8/2007, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > > And why are they different for ISPs vs end users for the same size > > blocks? The reasoning I've heard is that ISPs are expected to be > > doing more with SWIPs and thus generate expense, but is this really > > reasonable or fair? As a member with a /22 and a handful of SWIPs > > that rarely change and no expectation of adding or removing any > > (after all, SWIPs for /32's aren't done), what expense structure am I > > really incurring on ARIN? > >In order for your SWIP records to be available for queries in the whois >database, you have to pay ARIN enough money to sustain it as a >functioning organization. That includes a share of the President's >salary, the Board of Trustees meeting expenses, the cost of all the >servers, the electric bills, and the contributions to the staff pension >plans. > >The current fee structure puts everyone on a more-or-less level playing >field which is important in an organization like ARIN. Then end users should be paying the same as me. I can't agree that the SWIP record for my /22 and two additional SWIP records are so much more burden than the single SWIP record for a /22 for a multi-homed non-ISP as to be the differentiator of paying or not paying an annual fee. Either all should pay, or a system that IS equitable should be arrived upon. It's possible part of the issue is the definition of "ISP." We don't sell circuits. We have no turnover of SWIPs because we are a hosting shop and with the exception of a couple of customers, most of our customers are delegated a /32 from us, and that's below the threshold of doing SWIPs. Even if we didn't have the two SWIPs for delegations to the few customers with subnets, we would be counted as an ISP because we resell services to others, vs. consuming them ourselves. I'm really not trying to focus this on my own ARIN account, and I certainly agree something's got to pay for the organization to run. What I am arguing is the notion that the fee structure is equitable. I agree with Randy that payment on a per-incident basis is a pain to track and could have negative repercussions. I don't believe the present system is a good alternative to pay-per-incident. >--Michael Dillon > >_______________________________________________ >PPML mailing list >PPML at arin.net >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 8 07:40:30 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 12:40:30 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032EF6D@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > >The current fee structure puts everyone on a more-or-less > level playing > >field which is important in an organization like ARIN. > > Then end users should be paying the same as me. I can't agree that > the SWIP record for my /22 and two additional SWIP records are so > much more burden than the single SWIP record for a /22 for a > multi-homed non-ISP as to be the differentiator of paying or not > paying an annual fee. Either all should pay, or a system that IS > equitable should be arrived upon. "More-or-less" means that we don't try to calculate the exact cost burden of every activity. Instead, the costs are roughly partitioned into fee levels that are considered to be broadly fair by most people. Trying to be more exact would result in an unwieldy fee system, not to mention the extra cost of trying to measure the burden at a more granular level. It would also have the MAJOR disadvantage of being unpredictable. Today, you can predict what your fees will be from year to year and you can predict at what point you will jump up one level in the fee schedule. However, if fees were calculated based on the burden to ARIN to serve you, then you would not know your fees until after the fact. And you can't predict how many ARIN interactions and what type of interaction you might need in any given year. Why do most ISPs charge customers a flat monthly fee rather than per-hour or per-megabyte fees? Because it is cheaper to all concerned and it is predictable so everyone sleeps better at night. > It's possible part of the issue is the definition of "ISP." We don't > sell circuits. We have no turnover of SWIPs because we are a hosting > shop and with the exception of a couple of customers, most of our > customers are delegated a /32 from us, and that's below the threshold > of doing SWIPs. We are at the largest fee level and we also don't do SWIPs. Instead we run our own rwhois server. The bottom-line is that if you want to change ARIN's fee structures, the PPML is not a good place to discuss it. This is an issue for ARIN members to deal with, while the PPML is a public policy list where anyone can influence ARIN's IP address policies. It is not possible to make a policy proposal to change the fee structure. --Michael Dillon From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Thu Mar 8 07:55:34 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 07:55:34 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Another question on Policy Proposal 2007-8 In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308071512.06bf0450@senie.com> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032ECEF@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > <7.0.1.0.2.20070308071512.06bf0450@senie.com> Message-ID: The discussion on 2007-8 caused me to ask this question of myself: What if I am looking to buy a company that has address space. When listing the assets of the company, should the number resources ever be included? The answer, if the space has come from ARIN (or any RIR) is no. But what if the resources were obtained pre-RIR? Assuming there is a difference between resources obtained from ARIN or before ARIN/RIR, can I tell this from ARIN's whois server? During the due diligence phase of acquisition I probably should know if the address space comes under ARIN's transfer policy. Is there anyway to tell if resources fall under an ARIN RSA or under any RIR RSA? I tried to compare the whois entry for MIT's network (18.0.0.0/8) which I know has been around a while to something that has been more recent but I haven't been able to pull a "direct assignment" from the whois. (Are "direct assignments" still done?) The first question is - is there a difference, as far as being "property", of space handed out pre-RIR and from an RIR. If the difference is "unclear" vs. "not property", I understand. The second question is - is if there is a difference, how can this be determined from whois? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 8 08:14:43 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:14:43 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Another question on Policy Proposal 2007-8 Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032EFF1@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > What if I am looking to buy a company that has address space. When > listing the assets of the company, should the number resources ever > be included? The answer, if the space has come from ARIN (or any > RIR) is no. But what if the resources were obtained pre-RIR? Then no agreement was signed and therefore the status of these numbers is unclear. That does not mean that anyone OWNs them. It means that ARIN's control over those numbers is unknown and untested in the courts. It could mean that IANA controls those numbers. It could mean that the users of those numbers don't have to comply with ARIN's rules regarding justification or publishing whois data. But it doesn't mean that the numbers can be sold as assets because U.S. precedent is that network addresses are not property and are managed under a regulatory regime. In the case of IP addresses and ARIN, it is a self-regulatory regime. In the case of telephone numbers and NANPA it is a combined federal/state regulatory regime in which the FCC sets the rules and state PUCs may allow variances from those rules. In any case, you can't sell a thousands-block and you can't sell an ARIN allocation so why would anyone think they can sell an IANA allocation? > Assuming there is a difference between resources obtained from ARIN > or before ARIN/RIR, can I tell this from ARIN's whois server? During > the due diligence phase of acquisition I probably should know if the > address space comes under ARIN's transfer policy. If you are doing due diligence, then what document would be acceptable to indicate that an address block does not come under ARIN's transfer policy? A court ruling? A lawyer's statement? Given the recent court ruling http://www.arin.net/media/clarification-granted.pdf that requires Kremen to file a tranfer application, sign an RSA and comply with the RSA, I wouldn't pay a single penny for an IP address block in and of itself. The value lies in the network, not the IP addresses. --Michael Dillon From jcuthrell at neonova.net Thu Mar 8 08:30:34 2007 From: jcuthrell at neonova.net (Jay Cuthrell) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:30:34 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Another question on Policy Proposal 2007-8 In-Reply-To: References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032ECEF@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > <7.0.1.0.2.20070308071512.06bf0450@senie.com> Message-ID: <141B4A97-7F05-4D95-B558-DDBE1EFCB3A8@neonova.net> On Mar 8, 2007, at 7:55 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > The discussion on 2007-8 caused me to ask this question of myself: > > What if I am looking to buy a company that has address space. When > listing the assets of the company, should the number resources ever > be included? The answer, if the space has come from ARIN (or any > RIR) is no. But what if the resources were obtained pre-RIR? The immediate concern is the phrase "has address space". Valuation based on "address space" would be a very dicey selling point. > Assuming there is a difference between resources obtained from ARIN > or before ARIN/RIR, can I tell this from ARIN's whois server? During > the due diligence phase of acquisition I probably should know if the > address space comes under ARIN's transfer policy. For diligence (SWOT) I'd view it as a threat first. During your diligence, there should be a delineation of how tied such an "asset" is to successful ongoing operation. -Jay -- Jay Cuthrell CTO NeoNova Network Services LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jcuthrell Plaxo: https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=8590696957 From owen at delong.com Thu Mar 8 11:21:32 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:21:32 -0800 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Fee structure [was Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications] In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308071512.06bf0450@senie.com> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032ECEF@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070308071512.06bf0450@senie.com> Message-ID: <283DCFDE-204D-456C-B7E8-F670A0355E57@delong.com> > Then end users should be paying the same as me. I can't agree that > the SWIP record for my /22 and two additional SWIP records are so > much more burden than the single SWIP record for a /22 for a > multi-homed non-ISP as to be the differentiator of paying or not > paying an annual fee. Either all should pay, or a system that IS > equitable should be arrived upon. > No, that simply doesn't hold true. End users tend to be much more static. Their dat does not change nearly as often as ISP reassignment data tends to change. Further, End users do not get membership in ARIN as part of their annual fees. If an end user wishes to attend an ARIN Public Policy meeting, they must pay a separate registration fee for the meeting, or, pay an additional fee for membership in ARIN. There are other differences, but, I think this covers some of the major ones. > It's possible part of the issue is the definition of "ISP." We don't > sell circuits. We have no turnover of SWIPs because we are a hosting > shop and with the exception of a couple of customers, most of our > customers are delegated a /32 from us, and that's below the threshold > of doing SWIPs. > Then why do you need a re-assignable block? Why didn't you just apply under the end user criteria to begin with? The Subscriber policies/fees and end user policies/fees are based on the most common cases of each. The fact that your ARIN labor usage pattern more resembles an end user while you are paying subscriber rates does not mean that your particular situation holds true for the more general case. > > I'm really not trying to focus this on my own ARIN account, and I > certainly agree something's got to pay for the organization to run. > What I am arguing is the notion that the fee structure is equitable. > I agree with Randy that payment on a per-incident basis is a pain to > track and could have negative repercussions. I don't believe the > present system is a good alternative to pay-per-incident. > So what would you propose would be more equitable? I think that charging end-user subscribers the same as members would actually be quite inequitable in the opposite direction. Although PPML is not the place to discuss ARIN fees (that's a subject for the members meeting, not the public policy meeting), I do think it is reasonable to discuss the fee structure and relationships while not discussing the actual fees themselves. Owen From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 8 13:13:10 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:13:10 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308071512.06bf0450@senie.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Daniel Senie >Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:22 AM >To: michael.dillon at bt.com; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy >Clarifications > > >It's possible part of the issue is the definition of "ISP." We don't >sell circuits. We have no turnover of SWIPs because we are a hosting >shop and with the exception of a couple of customers, most of our >customers are delegated a /32 from us, and that's below the threshold >of doing SWIPs. > Then you should be running a rwhois server. You have a responsibility to disclose to the Internet the users on your IP addresses. It is also very stupid not to do so. If one of your IP numbers starts attacking us and you are not disclosing ownership via Rwhois, then I'll see you in court. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 8 13:29:20 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:29:20 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Another question on Policy Proposal 2007-8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Edward Lewis >Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:56 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Cc: ed.lewis at neustar.biz >Subject: [ppml] Another question on Policy Proposal 2007-8 > > >The discussion on 2007-8 caused me to ask this question of myself: > >What if I am looking to buy a company that has address space. When >listing the assets of the company, should the number resources ever >be included? The answer, if the space has come from ARIN (or any >RIR) is no. But what if the resources were obtained pre-RIR? > With the continual increase in spammers there are a lot of sites that are starting to block traffic from pre-RIR assignments that appear to have no justification for existence or are known spam sources. I know of one /24 that a customer of ours had, for example, years ago. That customer disconnected from us and their new ISP didn't route their number block. So today there is a /24 that is just floating around out there, it is 199.248.255.0/24 to be specific. They still have it and they have not used it in years. About a year ago I submitted documentation history to ARIN to try to get this purely for experimentation sake and they needed a signature from someone at the owner so I abandonded the attempt. Lest you think that upstream networks are blocking, think again. We acquired an ISP last year connected to cogentco. I was rather amused to find that I could advertise any number block I wanted through cogentco, they do -no- BGP route filtering of any kind, at least not that I could find. >Assuming there is a difference between resources obtained from ARIN >or before ARIN/RIR, can I tell this from ARIN's whois server? During >the due diligence phase of acquisition I probably should know if the >address space comes under ARIN's transfer policy. > >Is there anyway to tell if resources fall under an ARIN RSA or under >any RIR RSA? I tried to compare the whois entry for MIT's network >(18.0.0.0/8) which I know has been around a while to something that >has been more recent but I haven't been able to pull a "direct >assignment" from the whois. (Are "direct assignments" still done?) > The above number block I mentioned was a direct assignment, and yes it is still present in whois. >The first question is - is there a difference, as far as being >"property", of space handed out pre-RIR and from an RIR. If the >difference is "unclear" vs. "not property", I understand. > >The second question is - is if there is a difference, how can this be >determined from whois? > You really can't. The best thing is to check any convenient Looking Glass and see if the block is being advertised. If it is not, and it is not present in anyones whois or rwhois, it is open season. Your greatest difficulty would be finding an upstream feed willing to advertise it. If for example you connected to us, there is no way in hell I would take an advertisement from you for the block unless it appeared in a numbering authority's whois. My feeds have similar policies. But there are plenty of scummier networks out there who you could pay enough money to and get them advertised. And if you are a large transit AS then none of your peers are going to be filtering anyway. Ted From info at arin.net Thu Mar 8 16:22:16 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:22:16 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Community Consultation - Participation Details Message-ID: <45F07E88.2090902@arin.net> On Monday, 12 March, ARIN will open a community consultation following the guidelines in the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process. There will be one week of discussion followed by polling on the subject. Consult at arin.net, an open and archived mailing list, will host the public discussion. Only list subscribers will be eligible to participate in polling. Poll results will be publicly available and will be used by the ARIN President to help determine what course of action, if any, ARIN should take regarding the suggestion. The ACSP documentation is available at: http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html Details on how to subscribe to consult at arin.net are available at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ We welcome community-wide participation. Please address any questions to info at arin.net. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From kloch at kl.net Thu Mar 8 15:20:29 2007 From: kloch at kl.net (Kevin Loch) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:20:29 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Another question on Policy Proposal 2007-8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F0700D.70205@kl.net> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Lest you think that upstream networks are blocking, think again. We > acquired an ISP last year connected to cogentco. I was rather amused > to find that I could advertise any number block I wanted through > cogentco, they do -no- BGP route filtering of any kind, at least not > that I could find. Did you have bgp customers yourself? If your upstreams don't generate filters automatically from rr entries and you do have enough downstream bgp customers this is not that unusual. Some may trust that you are filtering all of your downstream customers and some may just not care until you start screwing up. - Kevin From jackie.spiro at htr.org Thu Mar 8 16:56:48 2007 From: jackie.spiro at htr.org (Jackie Spiro) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:56:48 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe Message-ID: <008901c761cc$ac52f910$9701a8c0@HTR.Local> Unsubscribe please. Jackie Spiro HTR...The Innovator's Edge 585-214-2402 www.htr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: fieruled.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1325 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Fiesta Bkgrd.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5048 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JBeville at cirronetworx.com Thu Mar 8 17:02:26 2007 From: JBeville at cirronetworx.com (Jay Beville) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:02:26 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <008901c761cc$ac52f910$9701a8c0@HTR.Local> References: <008901c761cc$ac52f910$9701a8c0@HTR.Local> Message-ID: <5ECD97669B046E46A0A7D7AD1F6FBFE4F066EE@EXCHANGE.cirrodomain.com> Unsubscribe please. Jay Beville Cirro NetworX T: 972.764.7411 F: 972.692.7572 C: 214-325-2819 jbeville at cirronetworx.com VisualworX Helpdesk - 866-326-2500 Notice: This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. SS 2510-2521 and is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5048 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From dcorbe at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 17:04:29 2007 From: dcorbe at gmail.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:04:29 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <008901c761cc$ac52f910$9701a8c0@HTR.Local> References: <008901c761cc$ac52f910$9701a8c0@HTR.Local> Message-ID: <19EC8E92-3755-4E07-8117-3B89F88CB09A@gmail.com> Jackie, All you need to do is click the link in the bottom of every E-Mail you receive from this list. There's a box there you can type in your E-Mail address to become unsubscribed from the list. -Daniel On Mar 8, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Jackie Spiro wrote: > Unsubscribe please. > > Jackie Spiro > HTR...The Innovator's Edge > 585-214-2402 > www.htr.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ahmad_Ghannoum at interconsecurity.com Thu Mar 8 17:32:35 2007 From: Ahmad_Ghannoum at interconsecurity.com (Ahmad_Ghannoum at interconsecurity.com) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:32:35 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe Message-ID: unsubscribe please Regards, Ahmad Ghannoum Senior Network Analyst Intercon Security 40 Sheppard Ave West Toronto, Ontario M2N 6K9 Phone:?? 416-229-6811 Fax:??????? 416-229-1207 Direct:?? 416-227-4744 www.interconsecurity.com Intercon has been delivering integrated security solutions for over 30 years. The breadth of products and services we offer, in combination with our approach to security, sets us apart in the industry. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:? The information outlined in this Email is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.? If you have received this email in error, please notify our office immediately.? If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited. |---------+----------------------------> | | "Jackie Spiro" | | | | | | Sent by: | | | ppml-bounces at arin| | | .net | | | | | | | | | 03/08/2007 04:56 | | | PM | | | | |---------+----------------------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: | | cc: | | Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Unsubscribe please. Jackie Spiro HTR...The Innovator's Edge 585-214-2402 www.htr.org (Embedded image moved to file: pic19264.gif) _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic19264.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1325 bytes Desc: not available URL: From scott.white at highpointnc.gov Thu Mar 8 17:48:01 2007 From: scott.white at highpointnc.gov (SCOTT WHITE) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:48:01 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe Message-ID: <0BBACAB997A1F04787F23DEF13DE08A4B224D0@MAIL-IS1.highpointnc.gov> Please unsubscribe my e-mail. Scott White CISSP, GCIH-Gold Systems Engineer City of High Point 336-883-3392 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsd at servervault.com Thu Mar 8 17:49:45 2007 From: dsd at servervault.com (Divins, David) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:49:45 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please note. This round is NOT my doing -dsd David Divins Principal Engineer ServerVault Corp. (703) 652-5955 -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ahmad_Ghannoum at interconsecurity.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:33 PM To: ppml at arin.net; ppml-bounces at arin.net Cc: ppml at arin.net; ppml-bounces at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Unsubscribe unsubscribe please Regards, Ahmad Ghannoum Senior Network Analyst Intercon Security 40 Sheppard Ave West Toronto, Ontario M2N 6K9 Phone:?? 416-229-6811 Fax:??????? 416-229-1207 Direct:?? 416-227-4744 www.interconsecurity.com Intercon has been delivering integrated security solutions for over 30 years. The breadth of products and services we offer, in combination with our approach to security, sets us apart in the industry. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:? The information outlined in this Email is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.? If you have received this email in error, please notify our office immediately.? If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited. |---------+----------------------------> | | "Jackie Spiro" | | | | | | Sent by: | | | ppml-bounces at arin| | | .net | | | | | | | | | 03/08/2007 04:56 | | | PM | | | | |---------+----------------------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: | | cc: | | Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Unsubscribe please. Jackie Spiro HTR...The Innovator's Edge 585-214-2402 www.htr.org (Embedded image moved to file: pic19264.gif) _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From Justin.Shaffer at mlb.com Thu Mar 8 17:57:24 2007 From: Justin.Shaffer at mlb.com (Shaffer, Justin) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:57:24 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe Message-ID: I clicked on the link, no confirmation message and no unsub. --- Justin Shaffer Senior Vice President, New Media MLB Advanced Media, L.P. 75 Ninth Avenue New York, NY 10011 Office: (212) 485-3499 Cell: (646) 996-3698 Email: justin.shaffer at mlb.com -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net To: ppml at arin.net ; ppml-bounces at arin.net Sent: Thu Mar 08 17:49:45 2007 Subject: Re: [ppml] Unsubscribe Please note. This round is NOT my doing -dsd David Divins Principal Engineer ServerVault Corp. (703) 652-5955 -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ahmad_Ghannoum at interconsecurity.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:33 PM To: ppml at arin.net; ppml-bounces at arin.net Cc: ppml at arin.net; ppml-bounces at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Unsubscribe unsubscribe please Regards, Ahmad Ghannoum Senior Network Analyst Intercon Security 40 Sheppard Ave West Toronto, Ontario M2N 6K9 Phone:?? 416-229-6811 Fax:??????? 416-229-1207 Direct:?? 416-227-4744 www.interconsecurity.com Intercon has been delivering integrated security solutions for over 30 years. The breadth of products and services we offer, in combination with our approach to security, sets us apart in the industry. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:? The information outlined in this Email is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.? If you have received this email in error, please notify our office immediately.? If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited. |---------+----------------------------> | | "Jackie Spiro" | | | | | | Sent by: | | | ppml-bounces at arin| | | .net | | | | | | | | | 03/08/2007 04:56 | | | PM | | | | |---------+----------------------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: | | cc: | | Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Unsubscribe please. Jackie Spiro HTR...The Innovator's Edge 585-214-2402 www.htr.org (Embedded image moved to file: pic19264.gif) _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml ************************ MLB.com: Where Baseball is Always On -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From EBurton at growmark.com Thu Mar 8 21:08:49 2007 From: EBurton at growmark.com (Burton, Ed) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:08:49 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe Message-ID: <1BBB621235F33E4E9D64558A4C31807113EB43CF@srv145.corp.gmkad.com> Please unsubscribe my e-mail. Ed Burton Internet Security Analyst GROWMARK, Inc. 309-557-6018 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at meganet.net Thu Mar 8 21:21:06 2007 From: brian at meganet.net (Brian Wallingford) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 21:21:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] Unsubscription Message-ID: I do not want to build a thread, so kindly do not respond on- (or for that matter, off-list). If (as one member mentioned) the link doesn't work, take a few extra seconds and go to http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html and follow the idiot-proof instructions, and spare the rest of us the inconvenience of reading your misdirected messages. sheesh. From drewk at nmmcc.com Thu Mar 8 22:03:58 2007 From: drewk at nmmcc.com (Drew Kexel) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:03:58 -0700 Subject: [ppml] FW: Unsubscribe Message-ID: <4F65907C927B624FB5990C1025C4C996017DD079@hermes.nmmcc.com> UNSUBSCRIBE Drew Kexel IT Systems and Support Manager New Mexico Mutual Desk (505) 343-7761 Cell (505) 379-2910 ________________________________ From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jay Beville Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 3:02 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Unsubscribe Unsubscribe please. Jay Beville Cirro NetworX T: 972.764.7411 F: 972.692.7572 C: 214-325-2819 jbeville at cirronetworx.com VisualworX Helpdesk - 866-326-2500 Notice: This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. SS 2510-2521 and is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. ________________________________ ** This attachment is virus free ** ************************************************************************************************** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information protected from disclosure by law. It is intended only for the use of the specified recipients. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution or any action based on this material is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ************************************************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5048 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From saeedi at ebrary.com Thu Mar 8 23:04:30 2007 From: saeedi at ebrary.com (Steve Saeedi) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:04:30 -0800 Subject: [ppml] FW: Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <4F65907C927B624FB5990C1025C4C996017DD079@hermes.nmmcc.com> References: <4F65907C927B624FB5990C1025C4C996017DD079@hermes.nmmcc.com> Message-ID: What is this? Kindergarten? instructions are at the bottom of each message. - Steve On Mar 8, 2007, at 7:03 PM, Drew Kexel wrote: > > UNSUBSCRIBE > > > > Drew Kexel > > IT Systems and Support Manager > > New Mexico Mutual > > Desk (505) 343-7761 > > Cell (505) 379-2910 > > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Jay Beville > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 3:02 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Unsubscribe > > > > Unsubscribe please. > > > > Jay Beville > Cirro NetworX > T: 972.764.7411 > F: 972.692.7572 > C: 214-325-2819 > jbeville at cirronetworx.com > > VisualworX Helpdesk - 866-326-2500 > > Notice: This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the > Electronic communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. SS 2510-2521 and > is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is > strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have > received the message in error, then delete it. > > > > > ** This attachment is virus free ** > ********************************************************************** > **************************** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail > communication and any attachments may contain confidential and > privileged information protected from disclosure by law. It is > intended only for the use of the specified recipients. Any > unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution or any action > based on this material is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > ********************************************************************** > **************************** > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From reid at mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Fri Mar 9 00:31:20 2007 From: reid at mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:31:20 -0800 Subject: [ppml] FW: Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: References: <4F65907C927B624FB5990C1025C4C996017DD079@hermes.nmmcc.com> Message-ID: <5CE2B3DB062764AF3F00BE41@hindolveston.reid.org> > What is this? Kindergarten? It's called Voluntary Illiteracy. It's not that a person can't read, it's that they choose not to. From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Mar 9 03:17:29 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 08:17:29 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032F5D4@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > >It's possible part of the issue is the definition of "ISP." We don't > >sell circuits. We have no turnover of SWIPs because we are a hosting > >shop and with the exception of a couple of customers, most of our > >customers are delegated a /32 from us, and that's below the threshold > >of doing SWIPs. > If one of your IP numbers starts > attacking us > and you are not disclosing ownership via Rwhois, then I'll > see you in court. That is a ludicrous statement. In court, you would very likely lose and the "hosting shop" would very likely win court costs and lawyers fees from you. The fact that this "hosting shop" has a single entry in whois stating that the entire address block is under its management, is sufficient for the purposes of addressing network abuse issues. When you go to court and sue this "hosting shop" because they didn't facilitate you in applying your own vigilante justice, the judge will laugh you right out the door. Whois directory listings are there for TECHNICAL PEOPLE to find other TECHNICAL PEOPLE to deal with NETWORK TECHNICAL ISSUES. Not for you to browbeat some grandmother over the phone because her rented server has been exploited by hackers. --Michael Dillon From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Fri Mar 9 06:21:44 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 06:21:44 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Another question on Policy Proposal 2007-8 In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032EFF1@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032EFF1@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > Message-ID: At 13:14 +0000 3/8/07, wrote: >allow variances from those rules. In any case, you can't sell a >thousands-block and you can't sell an ARIN allocation so why would >anyone think they can sell an IANA allocation? Because IANA hasn't said you can't sell an IANA allocation. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Fri Mar 9 07:55:07 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:55:07 -0500 Subject: [ppml] another off-shoot from 2007-8 Message-ID: Should the ARIN whois indicate if the resource is covered by an ARIN RSA or not? Could such a flag be used to help encourage holders of legacy resources to join ARIN? Are there folks that would filter applications or packets differently based on whether they resource is covered by an RSA? Would this be helpful in researching a company? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 9 17:01:04 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:01:04 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Another question on Policy Proposal 2007-8 In-Reply-To: <45F0700D.70205@kl.net> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Kevin Loch >Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:20 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Another question on Policy Proposal 2007-8 > > >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> Lest you think that upstream networks are blocking, think again. We >> acquired an ISP last year connected to cogentco. I was rather amused >> to find that I could advertise any number block I wanted through >> cogentco, they do -no- BGP route filtering of any kind, at least not >> that I could find. > >Did you have bgp customers yourself? That isn't the issue. You can have downstream bgp customers just fine but if neither they or you are providing transit to the general Internet then IMHO your feeds are doing a disservice to the Internet by not filtering. We aren't talking general traffic here. We are talking route advertisements. (and by the way, yes we do have 1 downstream bgp customer with his own numbering) >If your upstreams don't generate >filters automatically from rr entries and you do have enough downstream >bgp customers this is not that unusual. It is normal to NOT filter bgp advertisements when your peering or your have customers that are peering. I understand this and that isn't the problem. The problem is bozo-brained admins on peering networks who have end-node AS customers who all have known, defined AS's that they are advertising (or forwarding advertisements for) and they are allowing them to inject any advertisement they want, without any filtering. >Some may trust that you are >filtering all of your downstream customers and some may just not care >until you start screwing up. > There really is no justification for not filtering BGP advertisements from non-transit, end-node ASs. We have had enough problems in the past with this. I recall 3-4 years ago Sprint took half the Internet offline by advertising 0.0.0.0 for a good 4-6 hours. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 9 18:31:41 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:31:41 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032F5D4@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >michael.dillon at bt.com >Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:17 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy >Clarifications > > >> >It's possible part of the issue is the definition of "ISP." We don't >> >sell circuits. We have no turnover of SWIPs because we are a hosting >> >shop and with the exception of a couple of customers, most of our >> >customers are delegated a /32 from us, and that's below the threshold >> >of doing SWIPs. > >> If one of your IP numbers starts >> attacking us >> and you are not disclosing ownership via Rwhois, then I'll >> see you in court. > >That is a ludicrous statement. In court, you would very likely lose [rant deleted] What kind of drugs are you on, Matt? Last I knew, malicious attacks over the network are illegal. If a hosting authority was in charge of an IP block that an attack was originating from and they refused to disclose who launched the attack, (if in the US) the FBI would file charges against them. You bet I'd see them in court just like any victim of any other kind of crime would see the perp in court. The hosting company would be required to supply evidence that they had been victimized by a 3rd party before they would be let off the hook. But, if the attacks continued to happen after law enforcement notified them, then I think you would find the prosecutors turning up the magnifying glass on the hosting company. This is in fact exactly why the Motion Picture and Sound Association offers ISP's immunity for prosecution in exchange for the ISP signing a contract that allows them to get information about the ISP's customers who are downloading or uploading pirated music. No ISP would sign such a thing if they didn't have liability under the law. OF course, this is US law. I suppose it's different on your side of the pond? > >Whois directory listings are there for TECHNICAL PEOPLE to find other >TECHNICAL PEOPLE to deal with NETWORK TECHNICAL ISSUES. Not for you to >browbeat some grandmother over the phone because her rented server has >been exploited by hackers. > Well, I have a number of stories in that vein as a matter of fact. The one I like the most was years ago when one of our customers ran a program on a diskette someone had given him labeled "kaboom" and the next day several Air Force MP's showed up at his home to have a talk with him. I don't know if any "browbeating" went on as a result of it, but I suspect it did. I don't think the customer was a grandmother, though. Matt, your argument is along the line of "I didn't rob the bank, I just drove the getaway car" In all countries in the world that alibi has been rejected by the courts years ago. A hosting company that offers servers for rent does have culpability if a criminal uses one of those servers for illegal activity. That culpability remains until the hosting company can show that it was their customer and not them who was the criminal. Since all they have to do to show it wasn't them is publicize the assignment of the IP address, why on Earth would they want to incur all the hassle of not doing that? Ted From dave at mvn.net Fri Mar 9 19:34:12 2007 From: dave at mvn.net (David E. Smith) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:34:12 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F1FD04.9020008@mvn.net> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Last I knew, malicious attacks over the network are illegal. If a hosting > authority was in charge of an IP block that an attack was originating > from and they refused to disclose who launched the attack, (if in the US) > the FBI would file charges against them. You bet I'd see them in court > just like any victim of any other kind of crime would see the perp in court. > If the FBI or another LEO of competent jurisdiction shows up with a court order, I'll delightfully turn over the requested information. If you (in the sense of "some other network operator," not you personally) ask nicely, I may or may not provide you with information. If you start making demands, I'll just get cranky. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not under any /legal/ obligation to publicly identify all my customers to the world. I'm under obligation from ARIN to identify a few (the dozen or so that have eight or more IP addresses allocated to them), but that's pretty much it. > This is in fact exactly why the Motion Picture and Sound Association offers > ISP's immunity for prosecution in exchange for the ISP signing a contract > that allows them to get information about the ISP's customers who are downloading > or uploading pirated music. No ISP would sign such a thing if they didn't > have liability under the law. > Not necessarily. The RIAA has a history of making lawsuits with unreasonable demands (suing college students for millions of dollars), then settling out-of-court under slightly more reasonable terms. It's not too much of a stretch to say the MPAA might possibly use similar tactics with ISPs. They probably have a bigger budget, and better lawyers, than many ISPs. I don't have any proof of this, having never been on the business end of one of these suits, but it's quite plausible. David Smith MVN.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 01:01:22 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:01:22 +0300 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032F5D4@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: On 3/10/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Matt, your argument is along the line of "I didn't rob the bank, I just > drove > the getaway car" It sounds to me more like "I didn't rob the bank, as a car rental agency, I just rented the getaway car to the robbers." -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim From randy at psg.com Sat Mar 10 01:08:13 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:08:13 -1000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications In-Reply-To: References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E0032F5D4@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <45F24B4D.8080808@psg.com> houston, the analogy has reached orbit From TNeith at hawkeyecollege.edu Mon Mar 12 08:27:51 2007 From: TNeith at hawkeyecollege.edu (Thom Neith) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:27:51 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe Message-ID: <2460FD9A9DCE1D4DBFDA348CBBB6E31C560165@hcc-mail01.hawkeyecollege.edu> Thom Neith Hawkeye Community College 1501 East Orange Road PO Box 8015 Waterloo, Iowa 50704-8015 319-296-4223 319-296-4400 tneith at hawkeyecollege.edu This e-mail, including attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us immediately at the e-mail address listed above. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Mon Mar 12 08:43:34 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:43:34 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN XIX - Open Policy Hour Message-ID: <45F54AF6.4060405@arin.net> Some Questions About the Policy Process 1. Do you want to know what policy proposals will be discussed at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting? 2. Do you have an idea about how ARIN should manage Internet Number Resources? 3. Do you think that a current policy should be enhanced or changed, or even retired? 4. Are you hesitant about making a formal proposal on the Public Policy Mail List (PPML)? 5. Are you new to the Policy Development Process? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then you should attend the Open Policy Hour! What is The Open Policy Hour? Quite simply, it is your opportunity to get a better understanding of what is going to be discussed at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting or for you to discuss your ideas in an open, informal forum and receive feedback or both! The Open Policy Hour consists of two parts. Part One is the P2B2 or the Policy Proposal Background Briefing. ARIN staff will provide summary information regarding the policy proposals that will be discussed at the meeting. Members of the ARIN Advisory Council will be present to answer general questions about the policy proposals. There will be no discussion of the proposals, just the information that you need to help you understand the nature of the proposals. Part Two is the P2B or the Policy Proposal BoF. This is where you get a chance to "test drive" a policy idea. How can you participate? Bring your ideas and questions. If you have a policy suggestion for which you would like to receive feedback prior to submitting it to the community on the PPML, here is your opportunity. If you have a short (3-minute) presentation prepared you will be given the first opportunity to present it. To sign up to give a presentation please send an e-mail to policy at arin.net by 18 April 2007 with your name, organization, and a brief description of your policy subject. Come join your colleagues in this informal setting. The Open Policy Hour for ARIN XIX will be held on Sunday, 22 April, from 5:00 - 6:00 PM. If you are not familiar with the way policies are developed in the ARIN region, join ARIN staff fifteen minutes earlier, at 4:45 PM, for a review of the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process. Registration and hotel information for ARIN XIX is available at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/ Contact Member Services at info at arin.net if you have any questions. Regards, Member Services Department American Registry for Internet Numbers From gary at cadurx.com Mon Mar 12 10:18:28 2007 From: gary at cadurx.com (Gary Mackelprang) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:18:28 -0600 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe Message-ID: <002401c764b1$4e3d07c0$7e00a8c0@Gary> Please unsubscribe me thanks Gary Mackelprang, CaduRx Office: (801) 939-9999 Fax: (801) 939-9998 Cell: (801) 870-8500 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John_Leonowich at mannington.com Mon Mar 12 10:21:26 2007 From: John_Leonowich at mannington.com (John Leonowich) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:21:26 -0400 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe Message-ID: <6D6F27F0F3A98A46BD0D3A9243A8563F0268CAD1@salmail2.mannington.com> Please unsubscribe. John Leonowich Director, Technology Services Mannington Mills, Inc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ttse at fmtinv.com Mon Mar 12 10:23:51 2007 From: ttse at fmtinv.com (Thomas Tse) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:23:51 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Unsubscibe Message-ID: -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld ----------------------------------------- Confidentiality Note: The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments, if any, are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. If you are not the named addressee, or if you believe this message has been addressed to you in error, you are requested not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this information. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail. It is also requested that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Thank You. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darden at armc.org Mon Mar 12 10:28:18 2007 From: darden at armc.org (Darden, Patrick S.) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:28:18 -0400 Subject: [ppml] How To Unsubscribe from PPML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A lot of people don't seem to have read the instructions sent to them, and are boring those of us who have. Summary: How to Unsubscribe from PPML: If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your subscription page at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/options/ppml/darden%40armc.org You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to: PPML-request at arin.net with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaronh at bind.com Mon Mar 12 10:31:46 2007 From: aaronh at bind.com (Aaron Hughes) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:31:46 -0700 Subject: [ppml] How To Unsubscribe from PPML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070312143146.GB26212@user1.bind.com> URL correction: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/options/ppml/ Cheers, Aaron On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:28:18AM -0400, Darden, Patrick S. wrote: > A lot of people don't seem to have read the instructions sent to them, and are boring those of us who have. Summary: > > How to Unsubscribe from PPML: > > If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to > > or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your subscription page at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/options/ppml/darden%40armc.org > > You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to: > > PPML-request at arin.net > > with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the > > quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml -- Aaron Hughes aaronh at bind.com (703) 244-0427 Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8 http://www.bind.com/ From hbaird at niagarac.on.ca Mon Mar 12 11:06:04 2007 From: hbaird at niagarac.on.ca (Hal Baird) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:06:04 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Unsubscribe Message-ID: Please Unsubscribe From jsloan at duqlight.com Mon Mar 12 11:12:45 2007 From: jsloan at duqlight.com (John R Sloan) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:12:45 -0400 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe Message-ID: Please unsubscribe me thanks John Sloan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bcrowley at hampshire.edu Mon Mar 12 11:14:34 2007 From: bcrowley at hampshire.edu (Bob Crowley) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:14:34 -0400 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F56E5A.5060207@hampshire.edu> Please unsubscribe me Bob Crowley Network Engineer Hampshire College Amherst, Mass 01002 "The wonder is always new that any sane man can be a sailor." Emerson John R Sloan wrote: > > Please unsubscribe me > > > > thanks > > John Sloan > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >PPML mailing list >PPML at arin.net >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > From reid at mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Mon Mar 12 11:17:39 2007 From: reid at mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:17:39 -0700 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <45F56E5A.5060207@hampshire.edu> References: <45F56E5A.5060207@hampshire.edu> Message-ID: > Please unsubscribe me Gosh. I'm just an ordinary subscriber, and I can't unsubscribe you. The same is true of the hundreds of other people who got your request. You can unsubscribe yourself, however. It really does work exactly as documented. From info at arin.net Mon Mar 12 12:13:34 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:13:34 -0400 Subject: [ppml] How to Unsubscribe from PPML Successfully Message-ID: <45F57C2E.5090602@arin.net> ARIN is sending PPML subscription invitations to all registered designated member representatives (DMRs), Admin POCs, and Tech POCs. This endeavor has prompted many new individuals to subscribe to the mailing list. However, many individuals are then trying to remove themselves, generating the unsubscribe messages to the list. Sending a message to the mailing list, ppml at arin.net, will not unsubscribe you from the list! To unsubscribe from the Public Policy Mailing List, follow one of the options below: 1) Send an e-mail to ppml-unsubscribe at arin.net from your subscribed e-mail account, with the word "unsubscribe" in the BODY of the message. 2) Visit http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml. Enter your subscribed e-mail account in the unsubscribe form. Click the Unsubscribe or edit options button. Click the Unsubscribe button on the following page. A confirmation message will be e-mailed to you. You must reply to the message or click the URL in the message to complete the removal process. If you encounter any problems with the above directions, please e-mail info at arin.net. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From sma at i.frys.com Mon Mar 12 12:15:48 2007 From: sma at i.frys.com (Scott Andersen) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ppml] [Fwd: unsubscribe] Message-ID: <4863.WwtFWENbUA4=.1173716148.squirrel@webmail.i.frys.com> I have Unsubscribed, and still getting all of these emails. Thanks, Scott Andersen Director, ISO Fry's Electronics, Inc. ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe From: "John R Sloan" Date: Mon, March 12, 2007 8:12 am To: ppml at arin.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please unsubscribe me thanks John Sloan _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sma at i.frys.com Mon Mar 12 12:16:01 2007 From: sma at i.frys.com (Scott Andersen) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ppml] [Fwd: unsubscribe] Message-ID: <4863.WwtFWENbUA4=.1173716161.squirrel@webmail.i.frys.com> I have Unsubscribed, and still getting all of these emails. Thanks, Scott Andersen Director, ISO Fry's Electronics, Inc. ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe From: "Bob Crowley" Date: Mon, March 12, 2007 8:14 am To: ppml at arin.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please unsubscribe me Bob Crowley Network Engineer Hampshire College Amherst, Mass 01002 "The wonder is always new that any sane man can be a sailor." Emerson John R Sloan wrote: > > Please unsubscribe me > > > > thanks > > John Sloan > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >PPML mailing list >PPML at arin.net >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From info at arin.net Mon Mar 12 13:06:55 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:06:55 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Community Consultation Underway - Removal of WHOIS Query Result Limit Message-ID: <45F588AF.9050700@arin.net> ARIN is seeking community comments on the following suggestion: Remove the 256 result limit when querying WHOIS. Subscribe to consult at arin.net to participate in the discussion and to be eligible to participate in the subsequent polling. Details on how to subscribe to consult at arin.net are available at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ The ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process documentation is available at: http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html We welcome community-wide participation. Please address any questions to info at arin.net. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From cpink at flowjamaica.com Mon Mar 12 16:53:28 2007 From: cpink at flowjamaica.com (Craig Pink) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:53:28 -0500 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe Message-ID: <743D04E606B8EF4EB04E94DF19C9C7A1FA35AF@meritexch01.Merit.Local> Unsubscribe -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Andersen Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:16 AM To: Ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] [Fwd: unsubscribe] I have Unsubscribed, and still getting all of these emails. Thanks, Scott Andersen Director, ISO Fry's Electronics, Inc. ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe From: "Bob Crowley" Date: Mon, March 12, 2007 8:14 am To: ppml at arin.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Please unsubscribe me Bob Crowley Network Engineer Hampshire College Amherst, Mass 01002 "The wonder is always new that any sane man can be a sailor." Emerson John R Sloan wrote: > > Please unsubscribe me > > > > thanks > > John Sloan > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >- > >_______________________________________________ >PPML mailing list >PPML at arin.net >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From randy at psg.com Mon Mar 12 16:56:32 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:56:32 -1000 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <743D04E606B8EF4EB04E94DF19C9C7A1FA35AF@meritexch01.Merit.Local> References: <743D04E606B8EF4EB04E94DF19C9C7A1FA35AF@meritexch01.Merit.Local> Message-ID: <45F5BE80.8080801@psg.com> Craig Pink wrote: > Unsubscribe sure are a lot of clueless folk out there From lesmith at ecsis.net Mon Mar 12 17:08:53 2007 From: lesmith at ecsis.net (Larry Smith) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:08:53 -0500 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <45F5BE80.8080801@psg.com> References: <743D04E606B8EF4EB04E94DF19C9C7A1FA35AF@meritexch01.Merit.Local> <45F5BE80.8080801@psg.com> Message-ID: <200703121608.53470.lesmith@ecsis.net> On Monday 12 March 2007 15:56, Randy Bush wrote: > Craig Pink wrote: > > Unsubscribe > > sure are a lot of clueless folk out there Yep, if these are the people "managing" and / or maintaining networks, then we are in deep trouble... -- Larry Smith SysAd ECSIS.NET sysad at ecsis.net From randy at psg.com Mon Mar 12 17:32:32 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:32:32 -1000 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <200703121608.53470.lesmith@ecsis.net> References: <743D04E606B8EF4EB04E94DF19C9C7A1FA35AF@meritexch01.Merit.Local> <45F5BE80.8080801@psg.com> <200703121608.53470.lesmith@ecsis.net> Message-ID: <45F5C6F0.7070009@psg.com> >> Craig Pink wrote: >>> Unsubscribe >> sure are a lot of clueless folk out there > Yep, if these are the people "managing" and / or maintaining > networks, then we are in deep trouble... as someone suggested in private email > Can we declare them too clueless to hold ARIN resources, and reclaim > the AS numbers and IP address blocks? randy From Francois at Beauregard.com Mon Mar 12 18:57:17 2007 From: Francois at Beauregard.com (Francois Beauregard) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:57:17 -0400 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <200703121608.53470.lesmith@ecsis.net> References: <743D04E606B8EF4EB04E94DF19C9C7A1FA35AF@meritexch01.Merit.Local> <45F5BE80.8080801@psg.com> <200703121608.53470.lesmith@ecsis.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20070312184949.04633c78@getmail.beauregard.com> I don't think your fair guys... I know Internet is not how it used to be... but saddly, Internet is currently victim of it's own popularity... What a nice proof of success :-)... Many people don't know how to activate their mail client to look at the mail header (many MS Outlook types is you catch my drift, and the unsubscribe info is within those headers). Many admin contacts or tech contacts are actually the owners of business who relies on their tech people to do the job (why change their tech name every 2 or 3 months when they can get the notice and point fingers). Many people don't know how to use WHOIS, RWHOIS or NSLOOKUP... That's geek stuff (I know I'am one of them... owner and tech guy merged into one... Oh boy...) Let is go, it's a storm and it will pass through... At 17:08 2007-03-12, Larry Smith wrote: >On Monday 12 March 2007 15:56, Randy Bush wrote: > > Craig Pink wrote: > > > Unsubscribe > > > > sure are a lot of clueless folk out there > >Yep, if these are the people "managing" and / or >maintaining networks, then we >are in deep trouble... > >-- >Larry Smith >SysAd ECSIS.NET >sysad at ecsis.net >_______________________________________________ >PPML mailing list >PPML at arin.net >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Fran?ois Beauregard T?l?phone : (450) 359-1275 Couriel : Francois at Beauregard.com Messenger : fofborg at hotmail.com Page Personel: HTTP://Francois.Beauregard.com From Keith at jcc.com Tue Mar 13 11:14:19 2007 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:14:19 -0400 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe Message-ID: <26ccbd7a4d645bff24951781a03c24a445f6bfd1@jcc.com> >Many people don't know how to activate their mail client to look at the mail header >(many MS Outlook types is you catch my drift, and the unsubscribe info is within >those headers). Actually, the unsubscribe information is not in the headers, at least by the time the messages make it through my firewall. And no, I haven't looked to see what header information my firewall is picking off -- it's not been an issue before. The only hint on how to unsubscribe is the signature tacked on the end: _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Keith ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com USA ______________________________________________________________ From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Tue Mar 13 16:07:59 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:07:59 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <45E86319.5040609@arin.net> References: <45E86319.5040609@arin.net> Message-ID: I would like to voice a qualified "I object" to this rejection. I would like to see some discussion on this, even though I comprehend the reasons given below for the rejection and acknowledge that they are valid. My motivation for speaking up is to see if there might be a way that the spirit of the proposal can be pushed forward in ARIN even if the particular proposal has mechanics that are problematic. At this point, I don't have a specific recommendation, just wanted to say that there might be a reason to reconsider this, perhaps in another form. At 12:47 -0500 3/2/07, Member Services wrote: >On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of >the proposed policy 'IPv4 Countdown' and did not accept it as a formal >policy proposal. > >The AC rejected this proposal having taken into consideration the >anti-trust issues raised by the ARIN General Counsel and because the AC >deemed the proposal to be contrary to ARIN's mission. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 13 18:41:47 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:41:47 -0700 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20070312184949.04633c78@getmail.beauregard.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Francois Beauregard >Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:57 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] unsubscribe > > >I don't think your fair guys... I know Internet >is not how it used to be... but saddly, Internet >is currently victim of it's own >popularity... What a nice proof of success :-)... > >Many people don't know how to activate their mail >client to look at the mail header (many MS >Outlook types is you catch my drift, and the >unsubscribe info is within those headers). > >Many admin contacts or tech contacts are actually >the owners of business who relies on their tech >people to do the job (why change their tech name >every 2 or 3 months when they can get the notice and point fingers). > That's fine for domain names, but these contacts are for network allocations. I don't know of very many businesses with large ARIN network number allocations who have chief tech people who are quitting every 2-3 months. (and I would really wonder about the ones that do) This is why ARIN has the concept of ROLE contacts, BTW. >Many people don't know how to use WHOIS, RWHOIS >or NSLOOKUP... That's geek stuff (I know I'am >one of them... owner and tech guy merged into one... Oh boy...) > If you don't know you shouldn't have your name on any contact information from ARIN other than the billing contact, Simple as that. Kind of like if you don't know how to drive, you shouldn't own a car. Please note, you do not need allocations from ARIN to be able to do user-mode things on the Internet like surf the web, etc. What you need to understand Francois, is that the location that ARIN is fetching these e-mail addresses from is the location that the e-mail contacts are supposed to be of people who fix problems with these allocation blocks. If I am having a problem with your block I don't want to talk to you even if you own the block, unless your the guy fixing it. It is not neighborly on the Internet for you to not be putting the tech contact on these blocks. If your septic tank in your backyard stopped up and overflowed into my yard, and you call a contractor out to fix it and the contractor starts digging up my flower bed, I want to go to the guy doing the digging and say "eh, there - push off" I don't want to have to go to you, then to your contractor, then to his site foreman, and have my message distorted each step of the way. By the time the guy doing the actual digging hears about it, the flowers will all be dug up. >Let is go, it's a storm and it will pass through... > Please fix your contact info and you won't have to deal with it. Ted >At 17:08 2007-03-12, Larry Smith wrote: >>On Monday 12 March 2007 15:56, Randy Bush wrote: >> > Craig Pink wrote: >> > > Unsubscribe >> > >> > sure are a lot of clueless folk out there >> >>Yep, if these are the people "managing" and / or >>maintaining networks, then we >>are in deep trouble... >> >>-- >>Larry Smith >>SysAd ECSIS.NET >>sysad at ecsis.net >>_______________________________________________ >>PPML mailing list >>PPML at arin.net >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > >Fran?ois Beauregard > >T?l?phone : (450) 359-1275 >Couriel : Francois at Beauregard.com >Messenger : fofborg at hotmail.com >Page Personel: HTTP://Francois.Beauregard.com > > >_______________________________________________ >PPML mailing list >PPML at arin.net >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > From packetgrrl at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 19:08:28 2007 From: packetgrrl at gmail.com (cja@daydream.com) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:08:28 -0600 Subject: [ppml] unsubscribe In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.2.20070312184949.04633c78@getmail.beauregard.com> Message-ID: I hate to be contrary here but PPML is an open public policy list. It contains anyone who is interested in the policy for IP number resources in the ARIN region. This is not just a list of ARIN technical contacts. Here is the description from the ARIN site: ppml at arin.net Open to the general public. Provides a forum to raise and discuss policy-related ideas and issues surrounding existing and proposed ARIN policies. The PPML list is an intrinsic part of ARIN's Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process , which details how proposed policies are handled. I am not saying that the unsubscribe storm is not totally insane but maybe we should all get back to the policy related issues now. Thanks! ----Cathy On 3/13/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of > >Francois Beauregard > >Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:57 PM > >To: ppml at arin.net > >Subject: Re: [ppml] unsubscribe > > > > > >I don't think your fair guys... I know Internet > >is not how it used to be... but saddly, Internet > >is currently victim of it's own > >popularity... What a nice proof of success :-)... > > > >Many people don't know how to activate their mail > >client to look at the mail header (many MS > >Outlook types is you catch my drift, and the > >unsubscribe info is within those headers). > > > >Many admin contacts or tech contacts are actually > >the owners of business who relies on their tech > >people to do the job (why change their tech name > >every 2 or 3 months when they can get the notice and point fingers). > > > > That's fine for domain names, but these contacts are > for network allocations. I don't know of very many > businesses with large ARIN network number allocations > who have chief tech people who are quitting every 2-3 months. > (and I would really wonder about the ones that do) > > This is why ARIN has the concept of ROLE contacts, BTW. > > >Many people don't know how to use WHOIS, RWHOIS > >or NSLOOKUP... That's geek stuff (I know I'am > >one of them... owner and tech guy merged into one... Oh boy...) > > > > If you don't know you shouldn't have your name on any > contact information from ARIN other than the billing contact, > Simple as that. Kind of like if you don't know > how to drive, you shouldn't own a car. > > Please note, you do not need allocations from ARIN to be > able to do user-mode things on the Internet like surf the > web, etc. > > What you need to understand Francois, is that the location > that ARIN is fetching these e-mail addresses from is the location > that the e-mail contacts are supposed to be of people who > fix problems with these allocation blocks. If I am > having a problem with your block I don't want to talk to > you even if you own the block, unless your the guy fixing it. > It is not neighborly on the Internet for you to not > be putting the tech contact on these blocks. > > If your septic tank in your backyard stopped up and overflowed > into my yard, and you call a contractor out to fix it and > the contractor starts digging up my flower bed, I want to > go to the guy doing the digging and say "eh, there - push off" > > I don't want to have to go to you, then to your contractor, > then to his site foreman, and have my message distorted each step > of the way. By the time the guy doing the actual digging hears > about it, the flowers will all be dug up. > > >Let is go, it's a storm and it will pass through... > > > > Please fix your contact info and you won't have to deal with it. > > Ted > > >At 17:08 2007-03-12, Larry Smith wrote: > >>On Monday 12 March 2007 15:56, Randy Bush wrote: > >> > Craig Pink wrote: > >> > > Unsubscribe > >> > > >> > sure are a lot of clueless folk out there > >> > >>Yep, if these are the people "managing" and / or > >>maintaining networks, then we > >>are in deep trouble... > >> > >>-- > >>Larry Smith > >>SysAd ECSIS.NET > >>sysad at ecsis.net > >>_______________________________________________ > >>PPML mailing list > >>PPML at arin.net > >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > > >Fran?ois Beauregard > > > >T?l?phone : (450) 359-1275 > >Couriel : Francois at Beauregard.com > >Messenger : fofborg at hotmail.com > >Page Personel: HTTP://Francois.Beauregard.com > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >PPML mailing list > >PPML at arin.net > >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 13 21:39:05 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:39:05 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Edward Lewis >Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:08 PM >To: petition at arin.net >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >I would like to voice a qualified "I object" to this rejection. > >I would like to see some discussion on this, even though I comprehend >the reasons given below for the rejection and acknowledge that they >are valid. My motivation for speaking up is to see if there might be >a way that the spirit of the proposal can be pushed forward in ARIN >even if the particular proposal has mechanics that are problematic. > >At this point, I don't have a specific recommendation, just wanted to >say that there might be a reason to reconsider this, perhaps in >another form. > >At 12:47 -0500 3/2/07, Member Services wrote: >>On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of >>the proposed policy 'IPv4 Countdown' and did not accept it as a formal >>policy proposal. >> > > Objection methods are spelled out here: "...In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed policy, then the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process which can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; the petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the petition is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a petition is successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for discussion and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting...." Frankly, it was a politically naieve proposal and it is unsurprising that they killed it. (the anti-trust excuse given is just hogwash, of course) The IP numbering registries are all political bodies, and the process for IP address assignment is also political. As everyone who knows anything about politics knows, problems only get attention that are about ready to burn down the house. When all numbering registries have exhausted the pool of IPv4 assignments, only at that time will there be the political will to start the garbage collection process of reclaiming abandonded IP number blocks. Look on the Bogon list for a good place to start. But more than that, of all the number blocks assigned, it is clearly obvious that the vast majority of ones assigned to corporations are NOT being used externally. It is quite obvious, for example, that having something like 131.107.0.0/16 assigned to Microsoft makes it quite easy for Microsoft's administrators to have this giant worlwide WAN that runs BGP internally and has many interconnection points to the world. Very good. Then how come Looking Glass only shows MS's AS's (3598, and 8068-8075) interconnected to the rest of us via Level 3? And more importantly, is it reasonable to assume that Microsoft has anywhere near sixty five thousand hosts directly accessible from the global Internet? If they do not have sixty five thousand separate hosts then why do they need 65536 routable IPv4 addresses? Espically since they themselves sell Small Business Server and they also sell MS IDS, both of which are firewalls that force you to number your internal network privately. Obviously what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander, here. I also might point out that with a little effort you could find LOTS of IPv4 addresses. For the above example, for instance, Microsoft's administrators might argue that they need dozens of /24's to be able to advertise at many different Level 3 interconnection points because everyone filters anything below /24 And why is this? It is because in the past, router technology has not been able to deal with more than a few hundred thousand route entries. Fine then. ARIN can write an RFC introducing /29 global BGP routing. Everyone on the Internet running core routers can replace their old crap and buy new routers that can easily manage 20-30 million BGP route entries. VISA can manage ten times that number of credit card numbers globally so you know that companies could make that kind of router hardware if there was demand for it. Then Microsoft can replace all their /24 advertisements with /29 advertisements at their Level 3 interconnects. Needless to say there will be more screaming than you can imagine by the core that doesen't want to drop the cash into upgrading. Thus it won't happen until the alternative becomes more expensive (ie: shift the Internet to IPv6 and renumber) Clearly what is going to need to happen is for people like MS - who has no real justification for that large an IPv4 assignment - to renumber and give up most of their existing allocations. But until the Internet is COMPLETELY OUT of IPv4 addresses, there will NOT be the political will for ARIN to go to MS and force them to spend the money to renumber. The situation is the same and the US and soon China's dependence on oil imported from the Mid East. China and the US will never switch to alternative fuels until all of the oil is drained out of the Mid East oil reserves, and it is naieve to think otherwise. Thus, we will have to continue to pay attention to the idiots in Israel and Palestine killing each other until this happens, and those people will have no incentive to change their ways. Once the mid east oil runs out the world will ignore the mid east, and within 5 years they will have run out of weapons and there will be no more war there. Once the Internet "runs out" of IPv4 addresses, then these large organizations like Microsoft will have no choice but to give up their allocations and renumber into something that is inline with the hosts they have on the Internet and suddenly there will be an oversupply of IPv4 numbers. You need to understand the politics behind the IPv4-on-the-Internet-backbone debate. All the hardware and router vendors (ie Cisco) are solidly for going to IPv6 because they want to make $$$ selling hardware upgrades. The telcos and ISP's are all solidly against going to IPv6 and are for address reclamation, because they have gear that is working perfectly well and they don't want to scrap it. >From the hardware people's POV they have won this war already. But, they have time on their side. They know that eventually IPv4 allocations will run out and they think at that time that they will be able to sell gear. They do not want to look like greedy bastards so they will not publically support anything that will hasten the day that IPv4 allocations run out. >From the Telco's POV they know that there's lots of IPv4 hoarded out there by deep pocket companies like MS, and DoD and so on that got it ages ago when it was plentiful. They know that the more of this they can push the registries to cough up the more time they have to push off the day they have to spend the $$$ for new hardware. So they won't publically support anything either that hastens the day IPv4 allocations run out. And the standards bodies like ARIN don't want to get caught in the crossfire. They are going to pretend the problem is out of their control and there is nothing that they can do. Thus, they will be blameless when the day comes that the last IPv4 allocation is given out. To politically naieve people like you I am sure all this sounds like a bunch of idiots that are just heading straight for a train wreck and you cannot understand why nobody is jumping up and down and trying to slow the train down. What you don't understand is that the cooler heads know all about this, but they also know that if they jump up and down, that nobody is going to pay attention to them. It is better to remain aloof, then when the train wreck does happen and you got a lot of stunned people running around panicing, then you can come sailing out on your white horse with your new IPv6 plan and "rescue" everyone. They will be so happy your picking up the wreck that they won't care your screwing them up the ass doing it. This is just how life and politics works. Ted From kloch at kl.net Wed Mar 14 01:36:17 2007 From: kloch at kl.net (Kevin Loch) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:36:17 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F789D1.4000205@kl.net> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > It is quite obvious, for example, that having something like 131.107.0.0/16 > assigned to Microsoft makes it quite easy for Microsoft's administrators to > have this giant worlwide WAN that runs BGP internally and has many > interconnection > points to the world. Very good. Then how come Looking Glass only shows > MS's AS's (3598, and 8068-8075) interconnected to the rest of us > via Level 3? What looking glass are you using to arrive at this conclusion? Microsoft peers with lots of networks (especially via 8075). They do appear to use 3356 transit for certain prefixes but that may not be out of necessity, and even those prefixes are seen by many peers directly. They also have much more than just a single /16. Much of it is assignments made by ARIN under modern policies (including justification requirements). They may ask for additional space in the future. I have no doubts that their space is efficiently utilized. - Kevin From maem at nic.ad.jp Wed Mar 14 03:14:08 2007 From: maem at nic.ad.jp (MAEMURA Akinori) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:14:08 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200703141614.JBD17420.NBFN@nic.ad.jp> Hi Ed, Ted and all, Thank you Ed for your support on this proposal. The proposor team will make the petition later according to the process which Ted kindly spelled out. Ted's observation and analysis was wise and cool. I am happy to have that. The Proposers' point of view is to anticipate the run-out period to avoid a mix-up situation as far as we can. According to www.potaroo.net for example, IANA's stock of IPv4 /8 block will run out in July 2011 which is four years and four months later from now. We don't have much time until the exhaustion. Four years is less than a conventional depreciation period and Gantt Chart of a big carrier's mid-term deployment plan might already include this point of time. People might say IPv4 address space would be never "exhausted" because assigned-but-unused spaces will circulate. However, it will need an orderly reclamation process which will need an additional address policy. Even if they will circulate, I am not at all sure the sufficient amount of circulated/ re-used space will be supplied to meet the pace of recent IPv4 address consumption - 10 * /8s per one year. We don't intend an artificially earlier termination of IPv4 address space by that particular policy proposal while it might have been regarded so by many people, but want to ensure all requests by the termination date is are be received, evaluated and then allocated if no problem. Our problem is we don't have a very clear idea how much space will be rushing in in the last minutes additionally to expected rate. I don't want to be either in the middle of a crossfire nor just looking at a train wreck. Why we are doing something like going into a crossfire is because an Internet Registry might be accused of wrong handling of the exhaustion. And we are proposing this to a member meeting because that the poilcy of a membership organization will be discussed there and determined according to the consensus of membership and community. Hope it makes sense to you. We are happy to answer to your questions if you have any unclear points. Regards, ----- MAEMURA Akinori General Manager IP Department maem at nic.ad.jp JPNIC - Japan Network Information Center In message "Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown" ""Ted Mittelstaedt" " wrote: | | >-----Original Message----- | >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of | >Edward Lewis | >Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:08 PM | >To: petition at arin.net | >Cc: ppml at arin.net | >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown | > | > | >I would like to voice a qualified "I object" to this rejection. | > | >I would like to see some discussion on this, even though I comprehend | >the reasons given below for the rejection and acknowledge that they | >are valid. My motivation for speaking up is to see if there might be | >a way that the spirit of the proposal can be pushed forward in ARIN | >even if the particular proposal has mechanics that are problematic. | > | >At this point, I don't have a specific recommendation, just wanted to | >say that there might be a reason to reconsider this, perhaps in | >another form. | > | >At 12:47 -0500 3/2/07, Member Services wrote: | >>On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of | >>the proposed policy 'IPv4 Countdown' and did not accept it as a formal | >>policy proposal. | >> | > | > | | Objection methods are spelled out here: | | "...In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed policy, then | the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the | proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition | Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process which | can be found at: | http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html | | The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN Internet | Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; the | petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting | is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the petition | is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a petition is | successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for discussion | and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting...." | | | Frankly, it was a politically naieve proposal and it is unsurprising | that they killed it. (the anti-trust excuse given is just hogwash, | of course) | | The IP numbering registries are all political bodies, and the process | for IP address assignment is also political. As everyone who knows | anything about politics knows, problems only get attention that are | about ready to burn down the house. | | When all numbering registries have exhausted the pool of IPv4 assignments, | only at that time will there be the political will to start the garbage | collection process of reclaiming abandonded IP number blocks. Look on | the Bogon list for a good place to start. But more than that, of all the | number blocks assigned, it is clearly obvious that the vast majority of ones | assigned to corporations are NOT being used externally. | | It is quite obvious, for example, that having something like 131.107.0.0/16 | assigned to Microsoft makes it quite easy for Microsoft's administrators to | have this giant worlwide WAN that runs BGP internally and has many | interconnection | points to the world. Very good. Then how come Looking Glass only shows | MS's AS's (3598, and 8068-8075) interconnected to the rest of us | via Level 3? | | And more importantly, is it reasonable to assume that Microsoft has anywhere | near sixty five thousand hosts directly accessible from the global Internet? | | If they do not have sixty five thousand separate hosts then why do they | need 65536 routable IPv4 addresses? Espically since they themselves sell | Small Business Server and they also sell MS IDS, both of which are firewalls | that force you to number your internal network privately. Obviously what is | sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander, here. | | I also might point out that with a little effort you could find LOTS of IPv4 | addresses. | | For the above example, for instance, Microsoft's administrators might argue | that they need dozens of /24's to be able to advertise at many different | Level 3 | interconnection points because everyone filters anything below /24 | | And why is this? It is because in the past, router technology has not | been able to deal with more than a few hundred thousand route entries. | | Fine then. ARIN can write an RFC introducing /29 global BGP routing. | Everyone on the Internet running core routers can replace their old crap and | buy new routers that can easily manage 20-30 million BGP route entries. | VISA can manage ten times that number of credit card numbers globally so | you know that companies could make that kind of router hardware if there | was demand for it. | | Then Microsoft can replace all their /24 advertisements with /29 | advertisements | at their Level 3 interconnects. | | Needless to say there will be more screaming than you can imagine by the | core that doesen't want to drop the cash into upgrading. Thus it won't | happen until the alternative becomes more expensive (ie: shift the Internet | to IPv6 | and renumber) | | Clearly what is going to need to happen is for people like MS - who has no | real justification for that large an IPv4 assignment - to renumber and give | up most of their existing allocations. | | But until the Internet is COMPLETELY OUT of IPv4 addresses, there will NOT | be the political will for ARIN to go to MS and force them to spend the money | to renumber. | | The situation is the same and the US and soon China's dependence on oil | imported | from the Mid East. | | China and the US will never switch to alternative fuels until all of the oil | is | drained out of the Mid East oil reserves, and it is naieve to think | otherwise. | | Thus, we will have to continue to pay attention to the idiots in Israel and | Palestine killing each other until this happens, and those people will have | no | incentive to change their ways. | | Once the mid east oil runs out the world will ignore the mid east, and | within | 5 years they will have run out of weapons and there will be no more war | there. | | Once the Internet "runs out" of IPv4 addresses, then these large | organizations | like Microsoft will have no choice but to give up their allocations and | renumber into something that is inline with the hosts they have on the | Internet | and suddenly there will be an oversupply of IPv4 numbers. | | You need to understand the politics behind the IPv4-on-the-Internet-backbone | debate. | | All the hardware and router vendors (ie Cisco) are solidly for going to IPv6 | because they want to make $$$ selling hardware upgrades. | | The telcos and ISP's are all solidly against going to IPv6 and are for | address | reclamation, because they have gear that is working perfectly well and they | don't want to scrap it. | | >From the hardware people's POV they have won this war already. But, they | have time on | their side. They know that eventually IPv4 allocations will run out and | they | think at that time that they will be able to sell gear. They do not want to | look | like greedy bastards so they will not publically support anything that will | hasten the day that IPv4 allocations run out. | | >From the Telco's POV they know that there's lots of IPv4 hoarded out there | by | deep pocket companies like MS, and DoD and so on that got it ages ago when | it was plentiful. They know that the more of this they can push the | registries to | cough up the more time they have to push off the day they have to spend the | $$$ | for new hardware. So they won't publically support anything either that | hastens the day IPv4 allocations run out. | | And the standards bodies like ARIN don't want to get caught in the | crossfire. | They are going to pretend the problem is out of their control and there is | nothing that they can do. Thus, they will be blameless when the day comes | that | the last IPv4 allocation is given out. | | To politically naieve people like you I am sure all this sounds like a bunch | of | idiots that are just heading straight for a train wreck and you cannot | understand | why nobody is jumping up and down and trying to slow the train down. What | you | don't understand is that the cooler heads know all about this, but they also | know that if they jump up and down, that nobody is going to pay attention to | them. | It is better to remain aloof, then when the train wreck does happen and you | got | a lot of stunned people running around panicing, then you can come sailing | out | on your white horse with your new IPv6 plan and "rescue" everyone. They will | be | so happy your picking up the wreck that they won't care your screwing them | up the ass doing it. | | This is just how life and politics works. | | Ted | | _______________________________________________ | PPML mailing list | PPML at arin.net | http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml | | From hosaka at nic.ad.jp Wed Mar 14 03:57:11 2007 From: hosaka at nic.ad.jp (Toshiyuki Hosaka) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:57:11 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Initiation of Petition was Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: <45E86319.5040609@arin.net> References: <45E86319.5040609@arin.net> Message-ID: <45F7AAD7.7090609@nic.ad.jp> Dear All, This is a formal petition request to advance the policy proposal entitled "IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal". The full text of the proposal is posted on the ARIN website at the following URL: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html This policy proposal was to respond in an orderly way to the upcoming exhaustion of the IPv4 address space. The AC rejected this proposal due to anti-trust issues however I strongly believe that we should discuss this kind of policy in the ARIN open policy forum, rather than simple rejection, since IPv4 address exhaustion is so important issue to the whole community. According to the Internet Policy Evaluation Process, people who wish to document their support for the petition must do the following within the next five (5) days: 1) post a response to the Public Policy Mailing List stating their support for the proposal, and, 2) send email to petition at arin.net with full point of contact information, including their telephone number and organizational affiliation. If you have any questions about this process you can refer to the ARIN website at http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html for the full text explaining the petition process. Thanks and best regards, Toshi -- Toshiyuki Hosaka JPNIC Member Services wrote (2007/03/03 2:47): > On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of > the proposed policy 'IPv4 Countdown' and did not accept it as a formal > policy proposal. > > The AC rejected this proposal having taken into consideration the > anti-trust issues raised by the ARIN General Counsel and because the AC > deemed the proposal to be contrary to ARIN's mission. > > During the initial review period the AC may decide to: > 1) Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is presented, > 2) Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine it with another > proposal, or > 3) Not accept the policy proposal. > > In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed policy, then > the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the > proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition > Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process which > can be found at: > http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html > > The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN Internet > Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; the > petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting > is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the petition > is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a petition is > successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for discussion > and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting. > > The proposed policy text can be found at: > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 14 04:02:57 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:02:57 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <45F789D1.4000205@kl.net> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Kevin Loch >Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:36 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> It is quite obvious, for example, that having something like >131.107.0.0/16 >> assigned to Microsoft makes it quite easy for Microsoft's >administrators to >> have this giant worlwide WAN that runs BGP internally and has many >> interconnection >> points to the world. Very good. Then how come Looking Glass only shows >> MS's AS's (3598, and 8068-8075) interconnected to the rest of us >> via Level 3? > >What looking glass are you using to arrive at this conclusion? > This was an example to drive home a point. One that you apparently missed. It was not at all an intent to deeply analyze Microsoft but merely to point out some giant holes that were illustrated by an obvious real world example. >Microsoft peers with lots of networks (especially via 8075). >They do appear to use 3356 transit for certain prefixes but >that may not be out of necessity, and even those prefixes are seen >by many peers directly. > >They also have much more than just a single /16. Yes, I know. >Much of it is >assignments made by ARIN under modern policies (including >justification requirements). Ah, yes. Now, please explain how exactly ARIN continues to make sure that these requirements are met? We got space allocated from ARIN a number of years ago. Never once since then have we ever gotten a phone call from ARIN asking to re-up our justification. Nor has anyone that I have ever heard with space allocated. As long as you pay your bill every year they don't talk to you. Perhaps one part of a "address reclamation" proposal might be that the number registries are required to contact the address holders once a year and get a new justification. Of course, admins at those comapnies could lie like dogs in filling out the justification requests - but at LEAST someone would be requiring them to lie like dogs! Right now they aren't even doing that!! I mean seriously - people are asking questions ON THIS LIST like "hypothetically if a company is sold, is it's /whatever worth anything?" Translation: this non-functional company that we just bought and are about to eviscerate has gobs of allocated addresses they aren't going to be needing anytime soon - can we sell them to some bozo and make a lot of money? >They may ask for additional space in the >future. I have no doubts that their space is efficiently utilized. > And there be the problem. From the Internet's point of view, if a company like MS gets a /19 allocated and puts it ENTIRELY behind it's own firewalls, with no access in to those addresses from the outside, then what use is that to the Internet? Not a damn bit. It is like, well Microsoft just setup a training center in Los Angeles so we are going to sell them Interstate 5 so their employees can drive back and forth without being bothered by congestion. You need to read up on what ARIN is telling people. They are out there telling some pea-ant webhoster that they are expecting that the webhoster is going to stick his 500 customers on a virtual server - behind a single IP addresss - to promote efficient IP utilization. And then you are saying that it's OK to just hand out swaths of /20's willy-nilly just to make someone's internal network a bit easier to manage? If a situation develops in 5 years where ARIN is telling people they cannot allocate any IPv4 space, while at the same time you have large organizations like Microsoft sitting on hundreds of thousands of IPv4 numbers that are unreachable from a traceroute on the public Internet, I forsee a huge political outcry that will basically destroy ARIN's authority to allocate numbers. But, I suppose you want that. If not, then use your head to think about the points I made. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 14 05:04:14 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:04:14 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <200703141614.JBD17420.NBFN@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: MAEMURA Akinori [mailto:maem at nic.ad.jp] >Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:14 AM >To: tedm at ipinc.net; Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >Hi Ed, Ted and all, > >Thank you Ed for your support on this proposal. The proposor >team will make the petition later according to the process >which Ted kindly spelled out. > >Ted's observation and analysis was wise and cool. I am happy >to have that. > Your welcome. If you really want my $0.02 on this you need to work out several "baby step" proposals. The first would be one to define an orderly way to bring abandoned space into the sheepfold so it could be added to the pool of IPv4 available to be allocated. The second would be one to define additional requirements for justification submittal. One of the biggest and most obvious would be that if an IPv4 allocation holder was to be acquired by another IPv4 allocation holder - regardless of whether both allocation holders were in the same number registry or not - that the acquiring party would have to submit justification for holding the acquired block. The third would be one to define a mechanism that IANA could offer a "bounty" for proof of deliberate criminal contract violations that is similar to what the SPA and BSA offer for reporting software piracy. In other words if an admin at a network was ordered to "hoard" assignments he could rat out the network and trigger an IP number audit. Anyway, I think you see where I'm going here. This problem won't be solved by a single proposal like you submitted. The only chance of solving it in an orderly proactive manner will be by a series of proposals that will gradually tighten down on ALL ipv4 blocks. Each proposal can only be a tad bit more controversial than the last. If you try to do too much it is going to backfire. You just do not understand how many people right now have a vested interest in allowing the train wreck to happen. Honestly, they WANT it to happen. >The Proposers' point of view is to anticipate the run-out >period to avoid a mix-up situation as far as we can. > >According to www.potaroo.net for example, IANA's stock of >IPv4 /8 block will run out in July 2011 which is four years >and four months later from now. > >We don't have much time until the exhaustion. Four years >is less than a conventional depreciation period and Gantt >Chart of a big carrier's mid-term deployment plan might >already include this point of time. > >People might say IPv4 address space would be never "exhausted" >because assigned-but-unused spaces will circulate. However, >it will need an orderly reclamation process which will need >an additional address policy. Even if they will circulate, >I am not at all sure the sufficient amount of circulated/ >re-used space will be supplied to meet the pace of recent >IPv4 address consumption - 10 * /8s per one year. > Yes, I am afraid it will. The same situation exists for domain names. With most people having a vocabulary of perhaps 500 words (OK, I'm being a smartass, but really now) you only have perhaps 2-3000 immediately desirable and recognizable .com domain names for each language. Thus despite the fact that there are millions of theoretical domain names, in reality the supply of desirable domain names is quite constricted. Yet, these names do in fact circulate. They do so because the free market has taken over. If you want a particular domain name all you have to do is pay for it. It might cost you quite a lot of money - but I suspect even coca-cola.com would be for sale - assuming you had the 900 billion dollars to purchase the entire company in order to get it - the point here is that if the price goes high enough, anything is for sale. If the number registries REFRAIN from taking a strong hand in retrieving unused IPv4 allocations then what will happen after the end of available IPv4 allocations is that people will start selling them. And as the price for them goes up - they will become available. You will find companies like my Microsoft example suddenly "discovering" that they have an entire /16 available - for the right price. And as the price goes up - the demand will go down. Until the market has equalized. This is just like gasoline sales. The new equlized market will then continue on a VERY long time - very likely SEVERAL DECADES before the cost of IPv4 allocation will go so rediculously high that the pressure will become enormous to switch the Internet over the IPv6. If you think about it you might begin to understand one of the reasons that the large orgs are rather diffident about IPv6 switchover, and are very lackadasical about turning in unused allocations. They aren't stupid, even boneheads know that if they have something that is constrained, it is worth money to someone. >We don't intend an artificially earlier termination of IPv4 >address space by that particular policy proposal while it >might have been regarded so by many people, but want to >ensure all requests by the termination date is are be >received, evaluated and then allocated if no problem. Our >problem is we don't have a very clear idea how much space >will be rushing in in the last minutes additionally to >expected rate. > I think you will find that by the last couple of years when it becomes obvious that ARIN is going to end up like Network Solutions (aka, 'competition' will set in) that the activity to obtain allocations then is going to make the activity to obtain domain names right after the new TLD's were opened a few years back look like kids in a sandbox. A lot of people out there are going to create entire dummy ISPs out of thin air then request giant alloctions with the idea of selling them a year or so after constrainment has happened. This is why it is important NOW to get things like the "rat out your lying sack o network admin" proposal implemented. If nobody is willing to give the registries teeth then they won't bite anyone, and IPv4 constrainment is going to happen faster than anyone thinks. Then a decade from now we will all be getting our IPv4 allocations from IPv4 brokers. And those brokers will be getting tons of money for doing nothing, just like the scum domain name speculators do today. > >I don't want to be either in the middle of a crossfire nor >just looking at a train wreck. Why we are doing something >like going into a crossfire is because an Internet Registry >might be accused of wrong handling of the exhaustion. > If the Internet Registries do nothing of course they will be criticized. But if they do anything then they are going to also be criticized. Thus, why bother since your going to be screwed either way? Better to hold on to what you have now and hope when the storm hits that you can hang on. Ask yourself this. What do you think that IANA in it's heart of hearts wants to be doing in 2012? Do you think they want to be fighting a hundred lawsuits by organizations that they are telling that they are going to take away allocations from and give to someone else? Or do you think they would rather be sitting back mediating between organizations that want to make lawful monetary transactions with each other - I have/you buy. >And we are proposing this to a member meeting because that >the poilcy of a membership organization will be discussed >there and determined according to the consensus of >membership and community. > >Hope it makes sense to you. We are happy to answer to your >questions if you have any unclear points. > It makes perfect sense to me. It is a textbook technical response to a political problem. And it will fail in a textbook manner, as all technical responses to political problems fail. I don't mean to sound negative, but you need to know what your getting into. Like any problem this is one that is possible to solve. But it will be -very hard- to solve because for a great many people, the problem isn't that there's a lack of IPv4 numbers, the problem is that not enough people have adopted IPv6 that they can start pushing for the Internet to be switched over. Those people really and truly want an IPv4 train wreck if for no other reason that they can point to it and say "see, I told you that you should have switched over" Ted > >Regards, >----- >MAEMURA Akinori General Manager IP Department >maem at nic.ad.jp JPNIC - Japan Network Information Center > > > > > > >In message > "Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown" > ""Ted Mittelstaedt" " wrote: > >| >| >-----Original Message----- >| >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >| >Edward Lewis >| >Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:08 PM >| >To: petition at arin.net >| >Cc: ppml at arin.net >| >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown >| > >| > >| >I would like to voice a qualified "I object" to this rejection. >| > >| >I would like to see some discussion on this, even though I comprehend >| >the reasons given below for the rejection and acknowledge that they >| >are valid. My motivation for speaking up is to see if there might be >| >a way that the spirit of the proposal can be pushed forward in ARIN >| >even if the particular proposal has mechanics that are problematic. >| > >| >At this point, I don't have a specific recommendation, just wanted to >| >say that there might be a reason to reconsider this, perhaps in >| >another form. >| > >| >At 12:47 -0500 3/2/07, Member Services wrote: >| >>On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of >| >>the proposed policy 'IPv4 Countdown' and did not accept it as a formal >| >>policy proposal. >| >> >| > >| > >| >| Objection methods are spelled out here: >| >| "...In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed >policy, then >| the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the >| proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition >| Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process which >| can be found at: >| http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html >| >| The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN Internet >| Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; the >| petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting >| is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the petition >| is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a petition is >| successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for discussion >| and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting...." >| >| >| Frankly, it was a politically naieve proposal and it is unsurprising >| that they killed it. (the anti-trust excuse given is just hogwash, >| of course) >| >| The IP numbering registries are all political bodies, and the process >| for IP address assignment is also political. As everyone who knows >| anything about politics knows, problems only get attention that are >| about ready to burn down the house. >| >| When all numbering registries have exhausted the pool of IPv4 >assignments, >| only at that time will there be the political will to start the garbage >| collection process of reclaiming abandonded IP number blocks. Look on >| the Bogon list for a good place to start. But more than that, of all the >| number blocks assigned, it is clearly obvious that the vast >majority of ones >| assigned to corporations are NOT being used externally. >| >| It is quite obvious, for example, that having something like >131.107.0.0/16 >| assigned to Microsoft makes it quite easy for Microsoft's >administrators to >| have this giant worlwide WAN that runs BGP internally and has many >| interconnection >| points to the world. Very good. Then how come Looking Glass only shows >| MS's AS's (3598, and 8068-8075) interconnected to the rest of us >| via Level 3? >| >| And more importantly, is it reasonable to assume that Microsoft >has anywhere >| near sixty five thousand hosts directly accessible from the >global Internet? >| >| If they do not have sixty five thousand separate hosts then why do they >| need 65536 routable IPv4 addresses? Espically since they themselves sell >| Small Business Server and they also sell MS IDS, both of which >are firewalls >| that force you to number your internal network privately. >Obviously what is >| sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander, here. >| >| I also might point out that with a little effort you could find >LOTS of IPv4 >| addresses. >| >| For the above example, for instance, Microsoft's administrators >might argue >| that they need dozens of /24's to be able to advertise at many different >| Level 3 >| interconnection points because everyone filters anything below /24 >| >| And why is this? It is because in the past, router technology has not >| been able to deal with more than a few hundred thousand route entries. >| >| Fine then. ARIN can write an RFC introducing /29 global BGP routing. >| Everyone on the Internet running core routers can replace their >old crap and >| buy new routers that can easily manage 20-30 million BGP route entries. >| VISA can manage ten times that number of credit card numbers globally so >| you know that companies could make that kind of router hardware if there >| was demand for it. >| >| Then Microsoft can replace all their /24 advertisements with /29 >| advertisements >| at their Level 3 interconnects. >| >| Needless to say there will be more screaming than you can imagine by the >| core that doesen't want to drop the cash into upgrading. Thus it won't >| happen until the alternative becomes more expensive (ie: shift >the Internet >| to IPv6 >| and renumber) >| >| Clearly what is going to need to happen is for people like MS - >who has no >| real justification for that large an IPv4 assignment - to >renumber and give >| up most of their existing allocations. >| >| But until the Internet is COMPLETELY OUT of IPv4 addresses, >there will NOT >| be the political will for ARIN to go to MS and force them to >spend the money >| to renumber. >| >| The situation is the same and the US and soon China's dependence on oil >| imported >| from the Mid East. >| >| China and the US will never switch to alternative fuels until >all of the oil >| is >| drained out of the Mid East oil reserves, and it is naieve to think >| otherwise. >| >| Thus, we will have to continue to pay attention to the idiots in >Israel and >| Palestine killing each other until this happens, and those >people will have >| no >| incentive to change their ways. >| >| Once the mid east oil runs out the world will ignore the mid east, and >| within >| 5 years they will have run out of weapons and there will be no more war >| there. >| >| Once the Internet "runs out" of IPv4 addresses, then these large >| organizations >| like Microsoft will have no choice but to give up their allocations and >| renumber into something that is inline with the hosts they have on the >| Internet >| and suddenly there will be an oversupply of IPv4 numbers. >| >| You need to understand the politics behind the >IPv4-on-the-Internet-backbone >| debate. >| >| All the hardware and router vendors (ie Cisco) are solidly for >going to IPv6 >| because they want to make $$$ selling hardware upgrades. >| >| The telcos and ISP's are all solidly against going to IPv6 and are for >| address >| reclamation, because they have gear that is working perfectly >well and they >| don't want to scrap it. >| >| >From the hardware people's POV they have won this war already. >But, they >| have time on >| their side. They know that eventually IPv4 allocations will run out and >| they >| think at that time that they will be able to sell gear. They do >not want to >| look >| like greedy bastards so they will not publically support >anything that will >| hasten the day that IPv4 allocations run out. >| >| >From the Telco's POV they know that there's lots of IPv4 >hoarded out there >| by >| deep pocket companies like MS, and DoD and so on that got it >ages ago when >| it was plentiful. They know that the more of this they can push the >| registries to >| cough up the more time they have to push off the day they have >to spend the >| $$$ >| for new hardware. So they won't publically support anything either that >| hastens the day IPv4 allocations run out. >| >| And the standards bodies like ARIN don't want to get caught in the >| crossfire. >| They are going to pretend the problem is out of their control >and there is >| nothing that they can do. Thus, they will be blameless when the >day comes >| that >| the last IPv4 allocation is given out. >| >| To politically naieve people like you I am sure all this sounds >like a bunch >| of >| idiots that are just heading straight for a train wreck and you cannot >| understand >| why nobody is jumping up and down and trying to slow the train >down. What >| you >| don't understand is that the cooler heads know all about this, >but they also >| know that if they jump up and down, that nobody is going to pay >attention to >| them. >| It is better to remain aloof, then when the train wreck does >happen and you >| got >| a lot of stunned people running around panicing, then you can >come sailing >| out >| on your white horse with your new IPv6 plan and "rescue" >everyone. They will >| be >| so happy your picking up the wreck that they won't care your >screwing them >| up the ass doing it. >| >| This is just how life and politics works. >| >| Ted >| >| _______________________________________________ >| PPML mailing list >| PPML at arin.net >| http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml >| >| > > From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 14 06:05:00 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:05:00 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > I would like to see some discussion on this, even though I comprehend > the reasons given below for the rejection and acknowledge that they > are valid. My motivation for speaking up is to see if there might be > a way that the spirit of the proposal can be pushed forward in ARIN > even if the particular proposal has mechanics that are problematic. ARIN has long had a problem with ill-thought-out, hastily written policy proposals that were shoved into the public arena before they were ready. In one sense, this is yet another of these. Like other poorly crafted proposals it also suffers from the "plain English" problem. What is an A-Date or T-Date? Why can't the authors just say what they mean in plain English? How many times did you have to read the proposal, jumping back and forth in the text, to figure out just what they are saying. This is bad. The Rationale section is there to allow authors to explain the reasoning behind a policy, not to explain the meaning of the policy text. In addition, the authors suggest that ARIN policy should require ARIN to take some action when IANA resources reach a certain level. But IANA is not controlled by ARIN. Does IANA even report on the size of their pool in /8 equivalents? How is this to be measured? But that is not all that is undefined. Does ARIN have a clear policy definition of "critical infrastructure" as referred in the proposal? The proposal refers to "projections" but does ARIN actually make such projections? And of course, the policy requires ARIN to terminate allocating IPv4 ranges which is entirely contrary to ARIN's charter. ARIN exists to allocate IPv4 addresses and the only reason for this to stop is for the supply to be exhausted. As long as IANA gives ARIN IPv4 addresses, ARIN should continue to allocate them according to its policy guidelines. In case you hadn't noticed, this policy proposal was made by people from outside the ARIN region. The same proposal was put before APNIC in their own region. They are attempting to create a global policy without following the global policy process of NRO http://www.nro.net/policy/index.html Note that in the NRO process, the global policy is ratified by the ICANN board of directors before coming into action. Also note that IANA is one of the functions of ICANN, in other words if you want to make policies based on IANA resources or IANA actions, you should go through the NRO. Two of the three existing global policies actually do deal with IANA so presumably the process works reasonably well. As for anti-trust, well, this policy sounds like somebody making up rules just for the sake of making up rules. The real goal seems to be publicity of the fact that we are now in the wind-down phase of IPv4 and IANA could run out of free /8s as early as 3 years from now. In my opinion, ARIN policy is not the way to solve a publicity problem and not the way to solve an education problem. --Michael Dillon From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Wed Mar 14 08:22:06 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:22:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] policies at ARIN Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > Message-ID: I want to address the meta-issue here, not arguing with Michael, but his valid objections are symptoms of my concern with the policy process as we know it. At 10:05 +0000 3/14/07, wrote: >ARIN has long had a problem with ill-thought-out, hastily written policy >proposals that were shoved into the public arena before they were ready. Yes, this is true. Avoiding any comment on the policy at hand, when I hear "long had a problem with" I begin to question whether it is the massive number of misguided attempts or a process that is ill equipped to meet demand. This is why I have been making comments over the past two years asking for a better way to craft policies in smaller groups, workshops, with input from experts and from staff to help shape the policies. For example, Leo Bicknell's ambitious undertaking to revamp the directory services would have benefitted from more time by a few experts putting all that together. Leo did an admirable job but the limited time for open discussion at the Public Policy meetings, the in frequent nature of them (twice a year is not enough to keep something so big rolling), and the relatively low-bandwidth communication that email is doom any serious overhaul of how ARIN conducts business. OTOH, maybe slowing and dampening "progress" is a good thing. ;) My time as a government bureaucrat taught me that the last thing I want is a quick and efficient government. But seriously, there are times when we do need to bring the ARIN practices up to date. >In one sense, this is yet another of these. Like other poorly crafted >proposals it also suffers from the "plain English" problem. What is an >A-Date or T-Date? Why can't the authors just say what they mean in >plain English? How many times did you have to read the proposal, jumping I think the latter is a symptom of us not wanting to hear "the big picture story" but just "what do you want to do?" I know that there's been pressure to formulate a policy proposal to get it considered in time for a Public Policy meeting. If it isn't a policy, it isn't considered. Besides being a policy, it has to be something that passes muster with the ARIN AC and it's mission, so, it has to be pointed. When it comes to potential global policies, these are something that faca a catch-22. They have to be approved in all regions, so something has to be submitted. >back and forth in the text, to figure out just what they are saying. >This is bad. The Rationale section is there to allow authors to explain >the reasoning behind a policy, not to explain the meaning of the policy >text. I'm not going to argue over that, as in, you have a point but that is not what I am addressing now. >In addition, the authors suggest that ARIN policy should require ARIN to >take some action when IANA resources reach a certain level. But IANA is >not controlled by ARIN. Does IANA even report on the size of their pool >in /8 equivalents? How is this to be measured? I see the proposal as having to be something that goes to IANA or be global. To get there it has to be discussed in all regions. Maybe I don't understand the global policy process, maybe there's a check-box that was missed. (I am assuming that this is meant to be a global policy. I am not tied to the origination of the proposal, but the rejection of it was brought to my attention which is why I am speaking up now.) >But that is not all that is undefined. Does ARIN have a clear policy >definition of "critical infrastructure" as referred in the proposal? The >proposal refers to "projections" but does ARIN actually make such >projections? Ok, I will make a proposal-specific comment here. Perhaps the confusion is because the APNIC Chief Scientist has done extensive work on projecting exhaustion dates. ARIN has avoided making such prognostications. >And of course, the policy requires ARIN to terminate allocating IPv4 >ranges which is entirely contrary to ARIN's charter. ARIN exists to >allocate IPv4 addresses and the only reason for this to stop is for the >supply to be exhausted. As long as IANA gives ARIN IPv4 addresses, ARIN >should continue to allocate them according to its policy guidelines. I might disagree with that...but I don't want to open that can o' worms in this mail. >In case you hadn't noticed, this policy proposal was made by people from >outside the ARIN region. The same proposal was put before APNIC in their >own region. They are attempting to create a global policy without >following the global policy process of NRO >http://www.nro.net/policy/index.html "Public Policy" means public. I am a SIG chair in the APNIC region but my desk is near Washington DC. There is no "they" and "us" when it comes to the public discussion of the RIRs. >Note that in the NRO process, the global policy is ratified by the ICANN >board of directors before coming into action. Also note that IANA is one >of the functions of ICANN, in other words if you want to make policies >based on IANA resources or IANA actions, you should go through the NRO. >Two of the three existing global policies actually do deal with IANA so >presumably the process works reasonably well. > >As for anti-trust, well, this policy sounds like somebody making up >rules just for the sake of making up rules. The real goal seems to be >publicity of the fact that we are now in the wind-down phase of IPv4 and >IANA could run out of free /8s as early as 3 years from now. In my >opinion, ARIN policy is not the way to solve a publicity problem and not >the way to solve an education problem. I may have made more proposal-specific comments here than I intended. The message I am sending is that the roughness here is another reason I have been asking for a more robust, committee-like approach for preliminary discussion about ARIN policies and more technically-motivated discussion about service levels and the like. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Wed Mar 14 08:32:59 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:32:59 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Initiation of Petition was Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: <45F7AAD7.7090609@nic.ad.jp> References: <45E86319.5040609@arin.net> <45F7AAD7.7090609@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: Okay, so this is what my "petition/protest" mail was all about: From before (to make sure it counts under the rules): I would like to voice a qualified "I object" to this rejection. I would like to see some discussion on this, even though I comprehend the reasons given below for the rejection and acknowledge that they are valid. My motivation for speaking up is to see if there might be a way that the spirit of the proposal can be pushed forward in ARIN even if the particular proposal has mechanics that are problematic. At this point, I don't have a specific recommendation, just wanted to say that there might be a reason to reconsider this, perhaps in another form. At 16:57 +0900 3/14/07, Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote: >Dear All, > >This is a formal petition request to advance the policy proposal >entitled "IPv4 >Countdown Policy Proposal". The full text of the proposal is posted >on the ARIN >website at the following URL: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html > >This policy proposal was to respond in an orderly way to the >upcoming exhaustion >of the IPv4 address space. The AC rejected this proposal due to anti-trust >issues however I strongly believe that we should discuss this kind >of policy in >the ARIN open policy forum, rather than simple rejection, since IPv4 address >exhaustion is so important issue to the whole community. > >According to the Internet Policy Evaluation Process, people who wish >to document >their support for the petition must do the following within the next >five (5) days: > > 1) post a response to the Public Policy Mailing List stating their > support for the proposal, > > and, > > 2) send email to petition at arin.net with full point of contact > information, including their telephone number and organizational > affiliation. > >If you have any questions about this process you can refer to the ARIN website >at http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html for the full text explaining the >petition process. > >Thanks and best regards, >Toshi >-- >Toshiyuki Hosaka >JPNIC > > > >Member Services wrote (2007/03/03 2:47): >> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of >> the proposed policy 'IPv4 Countdown' and did not accept it as a formal >> policy proposal. >> >> The AC rejected this proposal having taken into consideration the >> anti-trust issues raised by the ARIN General Counsel and because the AC >> deemed the proposal to be contrary to ARIN's mission. >> >> During the initial review period the AC may decide to: >> 1) Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is presented, >> 2) Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine it with another >> proposal, or >> 3) Not accept the policy proposal. >> >> In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed policy, then >> the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the >> proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition >> Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process which >> can be found at: >> http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html >> >> The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN Internet >> Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; the >> petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting >> is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the petition >> is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a petition is >> successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for discussion >> and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting. >> >> The proposed policy text can be found at: >> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html >> >> Regards, >> >> Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML mailing list >> PPML at arin.net >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml >> > > >_______________________________________________ >PPML mailing list >PPML at arin.net >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 14 08:49:50 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:49:50 -0000 Subject: [ppml] policies at ARIN Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473D06@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > I see the proposal as having to be something that goes to IANA or be > global. To get there it has to be discussed in all regions. Maybe I > don't understand the global policy process, maybe there's a check-box > that was missed. > "Public Policy" means public. I am a SIG chair in the APNIC region > but my desk is near Washington DC. There is no "they" and "us" when > it comes to the public discussion of the RIRs. REGIONAL Internet Registry means Regional. Even though my desk is in London, England, my company relies on ARIN as the prime supplier of network addresses and our network in the USA is the core of our success as a business. Even though many of us particpate in other regional fora, including other RIRs, the fact is that the system still allows for in-region policy-making. I wish the NRO web page was more clear on global policy proposals but it did seem to me that one should submit a proposal to them first, before it goes to the RIRs. That way we, at the RIR level, only have to deal with well-crafted and well thought-out global policy proposals. > I may have made more proposal-specific comments here than I intended. > The message I am sending is that the roughness here is another reason > I have been asking for a more robust, committee-like approach for > preliminary discussion about ARIN policies and more > technically-motivated discussion about service levels and the like. Personally, I think the problem is with the proposal submitters. We have a discussion list here. No one says that you can't discuss a proposal before submitting it. Why don't more people bounce around an idea and get several opinions on the policy and its wording, before submitting it. You need to get some contrarian views to get the rough edges off of your policy before make it an official proposal. --Michael Dillon From plzak at arin.net Wed Mar 14 09:03:28 2007 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:03:28 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Initiation of Petition was Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: <45E86319.5040609@arin.net> <45F7AAD7.7090609@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: Ed, Please state specifically whether or not you support the petition and follow the instructions that have been provided by Toshiyuki to wit: "send email to petition at arin.net with full point of contact information, including their telephone number and organizational affiliation". Thanks, Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Lewis [mailto:Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:33 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Cc: petition at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Initiation of Petition was Re: Proposed Policy: > IPv4 Countdown - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal > > Okay, so this is what my "petition/protest" mail was all about: > > From before (to make sure it counts under the rules): > > I would like to voice a qualified "I object" to this rejection. > > I would like to see some discussion on this, even though I comprehend > the reasons given below for the rejection and acknowledge that they > are valid. My motivation for speaking up is to see if there might be > a way that the spirit of the proposal can be pushed forward in ARIN > even if the particular proposal has mechanics that are problematic. > > At this point, I don't have a specific recommendation, just wanted to > say that there might be a reason to reconsider this, perhaps in > another form. > > > At 16:57 +0900 3/14/07, Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote: > >Dear All, > > > >This is a formal petition request to advance the policy proposal > >entitled "IPv4 > >Countdown Policy Proposal". The full text of the proposal is posted > >on the ARIN > >website at the following URL: > > > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html > > > >This policy proposal was to respond in an orderly way to the > >upcoming exhaustion > >of the IPv4 address space. The AC rejected this proposal due to anti- > trust > >issues however I strongly believe that we should discuss this kind > >of policy in > >the ARIN open policy forum, rather than simple rejection, since IPv4 > address > >exhaustion is so important issue to the whole community. > > > >According to the Internet Policy Evaluation Process, people who wish > >to document > >their support for the petition must do the following within the next > >five (5) days: > > > > 1) post a response to the Public Policy Mailing List stating their > > support for the proposal, > > > > and, > > > > 2) send email to petition at arin.net with full point of contact > > information, including their telephone number and organizational > > affiliation. > > > >If you have any questions about this process you can refer to the ARIN > website > >at http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html for the full text explaining > the > >petition process. > > > >Thanks and best regards, > >Toshi > >-- > >Toshiyuki Hosaka > >JPNIC > > > > > > > >Member Services wrote (2007/03/03 2:47): > >> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review > of > >> the proposed policy 'IPv4 Countdown' and did not accept it as a > formal > >> policy proposal. > >> > >> The AC rejected this proposal having taken into consideration the > >> anti-trust issues raised by the ARIN General Counsel and because > the AC > >> deemed the proposal to be contrary to ARIN's mission. > >> > >> During the initial review period the AC may decide to: > >> 1) Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is > presented, > >> 2) Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine it with > another > >> proposal, or > >> 3) Not accept the policy proposal. > >> > >> In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed policy, > then > >> the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the > >> proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition > >> Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process > which > >> can be found at: > >> http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html > >> > >> The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN > Internet > >> Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; > the > >> petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting > >> is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the > petition > >> is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a petition > is > >> successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for > discussion > >> and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting. > >> > >> The proposed policy text can be found at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Member Services > >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PPML mailing list > >> PPML at arin.net > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > >> > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >PPML mailing list > >PPML at arin.net > >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > -- > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-=- > Edward Lewis +1-571-434- > 5468 > NeuStar > > Sarcasm doesn't scale. From info at arin.net Wed Mar 14 09:20:01 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:20:01 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Initiation of Petition was Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: <45F7AAD7.7090609@nic.ad.jp> References: <45E86319.5040609@arin.net> <45F7AAD7.7090609@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <45F7F681.7030502@arin.net> The deadline for issuing statements of support for this petition is 12:00 noon ET, 21 March 2007. Per the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, "People who wish to document their support for the petition must do the following: 1) post a response to the Public Policy Mailing List stating their support for the proposal, and 2) send email to petition at arin.net with full point of contact information, including their telephone number and organizational affiliation. The ARIN President will verify whether people from at least four different organizations support the petitioned policy proposal." If the petition is successful, the policy proposal will be numbered, posted online for discussion, and presented at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting in San Juan. If the petition is not successful, the policy proposal will be considered closed. Regards, Member Services Department American Registry for Internet Numbers Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote: > Dear All, > > This is a formal petition request to advance the policy proposal entitled "IPv4 > Countdown Policy Proposal". The full text of the proposal is posted on the ARIN > website at the following URL: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html > > This policy proposal was to respond in an orderly way to the upcoming exhaustion > of the IPv4 address space. The AC rejected this proposal due to anti-trust > issues however I strongly believe that we should discuss this kind of policy in > the ARIN open policy forum, rather than simple rejection, since IPv4 address > exhaustion is so important issue to the whole community. > > According to the Internet Policy Evaluation Process, people who wish to document > their support for the petition must do the following within the next five (5) days: > > 1) post a response to the Public Policy Mailing List stating their > support for the proposal, > > and, > > 2) send email to petition at arin.net with full point of contact > information, including their telephone number and organizational > affiliation. > > If you have any questions about this process you can refer to the ARIN website > at http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html for the full text explaining the > petition process. > > Thanks and best regards, > Toshi > -- > Toshiyuki Hosaka > JPNIC > > > > Member Services wrote (2007/03/03 2:47): > >>On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of >>the proposed policy 'IPv4 Countdown' and did not accept it as a formal >>policy proposal. >> >>The AC rejected this proposal having taken into consideration the >>anti-trust issues raised by the ARIN General Counsel and because the AC >>deemed the proposal to be contrary to ARIN's mission. >> >>During the initial review period the AC may decide to: >>1) Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is presented, >>2) Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine it with another >>proposal, or >>3) Not accept the policy proposal. >> >>In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed policy, then >>the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the >>proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition >>Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process which >>can be found at: >>http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html >> >>The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN Internet >>Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; the >>petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting >>is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the petition >>is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a petition is >>successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for discussion >>and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting. >> >>The proposed policy text can be found at: >>http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html >> >>Regards, >> >>Member Services >>American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >>_______________________________________________ >>PPML mailing list >>PPML at arin.net >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Wed Mar 14 09:50:02 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:50:02 -0400 Subject: [ppml] policies at ARIN Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473D06@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473D06@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > Message-ID: At 12:49 +0000 3/14/07, wrote: >REGIONAL Internet Registry means Regional. Even though my desk is in >London, England, my company relies on ARIN as the prime supplier of >network addresses and our network in the USA is the core of our success >as a business. Even though many of us particpate in other regional fora, >including other RIRs, the fact is that the system still allows for >in-region policy-making. Consideration is regional, but the ideas are global. (I'm reacting to "this policy proposal was made by people from outside the ARIN region.") The RIRs have to act in concert, lest we invite competition. Geoff Huston has an excellent article on that on CircleID explaining why that is bad. >I wish the NRO web page was more clear on global policy proposals but it >did seem to me that one should submit a proposal to them first, before >it goes to the RIRs. That way we, at the RIR level, only have to deal >with well-crafted and well thought-out global policy proposals. And now you are singing along with me, at least the part about needing to be more clear. >Personally, I think the problem is with the proposal submitters. We have >a discussion list here. No one says that you can't discuss a proposal >before submitting it. Why don't more people bounce around an idea and >get several opinions on the policy and its wording, before submitting >it. You need to get some contrarian views to get the rough edges off of >your policy before make it an official proposal. Why don't people bounce around an idea? 1) Email is in general poor for expressing wide ranging topics. 2) The rude nature of replies that sometimes appear on this list. 3) The lack of responses to questions at times. 4) The lack of enough clue on this list to comprehend all of the angles. (And I include me as clueless on many issues, e.g., law, privacy, etc.) 5) The sporadic high volume of mail on some topics that drowns out all other conversation. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Wed Mar 14 12:02:00 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:02:00 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: Trying to conform to all of the steps...sorry for rebroadcasting. Contact: Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar From: Edward Lewis I support the petition. I support the proposal. Here's the checklist to see if I am finally in compliance... >People who wish to document their support for the petition must do >the following: > >1) post a response to the Public Policy Mailing List stating their >support for the proposal, and This is mail to PPML. The support for the proposal is stated. >2) send email to petition at arin.net with full point of contact >information, including their >telephone number and organizational affiliation. The email is also sent to petition. The POC information, including telephone number and affiliation, that appears elsewhere in the message is now copied to the body of the message. At 12:47 -0500 3/2/07, Member Services wrote: >On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of >the proposed policy 'IPv4 Countdown' and did not accept it as a formal >policy proposal. > >The AC rejected this proposal having taken into consideration the >anti-trust issues raised by the ARIN General Counsel and because the AC >deemed the proposal to be contrary to ARIN's mission. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Wed Mar 14 14:24:22 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:24:22 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4052FBC33@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Ted, I can't tell from your tone whether you're trying to rant or make constructive contributions. > Your welcome. If you really want my $0.02 on this you need > to work out several "baby step" proposals. If you can make it to the public policy meeting, you could get some feedback on these pre-proposals at the open policy forum. I beg anyone who wants to discuss potential policy approaches to IPv4 exhaustion to come to the open policy forum. It'd be nice if you'd let policy at arin.net know ahead of time. If you can't make it, you can still email ideas to PPML. > The first would be one to define an orderly way to bring > abandoned space into the sheepfold so it could be added to > the pool of IPv4 available to be allocated. I would love to see a policy proposal on this. ARIN does reclaim "abandoned" space if you mean, "Space assigned/ allocated to organizations who no longer exist or who no longer want that space." Non-payment of renewals starts staff looking for any live contact; that's part of the reason for renewal fees. > The second would be one to define additional requirements for > justification submittal. One of the biggest and most obvious > would be that if an IPv4 allocation holder was to be acquired > by another IPv4 allocation holder - regardless of whether > both allocation holders were in the same number registry or > not - that the acquiring party would have to submit > justification for holding the acquired block. http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight 8.1 Transfers ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of IP space only upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has acquired the assets which had, as of the date of the acquisition or proposed reorganization, justified the current entity's use of the IP space. Examples follow in the NRPM. I read this to mean that if you buy a network, the need for address space for that network does not change. Please, though, send a proposal. > The third would be one to define a mechanism that IANA could > offer a "bounty" for proof of deliberate criminal contract > violations that is similar to what the SPA and BSA offer for > reporting software piracy. In other words if an admin at a > network was ordered to "hoard" assignments he could rat out > the network and trigger an IP number audit. That's an interesting idea. It might be easier to limit it to ARIN, rather than IANA. Could you make this a proposal? > You just do not > understand how many people right now have a vested interest > in allowing the train wreck to happen. Honestly, they WANT > it to happen. I don't understand. Who? > If you think about it you might begin to understand one of > the reasons that the large orgs are rather diffident about > IPv6 switchover, and are very lackadasical about turning in > unused allocations. They aren't stupid, even boneheads know > that if they have something that is constrained, it is worth > money to someone. I don't know any large orgs that are diffident about IPv6. They all seem concerned, to various degrees, and most are active. I don't know anyone who is hoarding in hopes of selling. > If the Internet Registries do nothing of course they will be > criticized. But if they do anything then they are going to > also be criticized. Thus, why bother since your going to be > screwed either way? Better to hold on to what you have now > and hope when the storm hits that you can hang on. The Internet Registries is us. Send proposals. > Ask yourself this. What do you think that IANA in it's heart > of hearts wants to be doing in 2012? Do you think they want > to be fighting a hundred lawsuits by organizations that they > are telling that they are going to take away allocations from > and give to someone else? Or do you think they would rather > be sitting back mediating between organizations that want to > make lawful monetary transactions with each other - I have/you buy. The IANA doesn't get a vote. People on this list decide. > It makes perfect sense to me. It is a textbook technical > response to a political problem. And it will fail in a > textbook manner, as all technical responses to political > problems fail. It's a political problem in the sense that we may not have the right policies in place. Propose some. > the problem isn't that > there's a lack of IPv4 numbers, the problem is that not > enough people have adopted IPv6 that they can start pushing > for the Internet to be switched over. Those people really > and truly want an IPv4 train wreck if for no other reason > that they can point to it and say "see, I told you that you > should have switched over" This is the part I don't understand. People are not adopting IPv6, because they want to create a market for IPv4 addresses, so that they can say, "I told you to adopt IPv6." If this is important to the policy process, could you clarify? > Ted Lee From alh-ietf at tndh.net Wed Mar 14 17:04:13 2007 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:04:13 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > I would like to see some discussion on this, even though I comprehend > > the reasons given below for the rejection and acknowledge that they > > are valid. My motivation for speaking up is to see if there might be > > a way that the spirit of the proposal can be pushed forward in ARIN > > even if the particular proposal has mechanics that are problematic. > > ARIN has long had a problem with ill-thought-out, hastily written policy > proposals that were shoved into the public arena before they were ready. > In one sense, this is yet another of these. Like other poorly crafted > proposals it also suffers from the "plain English" problem. What is an > A-Date or T-Date? Why can't the authors just say what they mean in > plain English? How many times did you have to read the proposal, jumping > back and forth in the text, to figure out just what they are saying. > This is bad. The Rationale section is there to allow authors to explain > the reasoning behind a policy, not to explain the meaning of the policy > text. First you have to give them credit for writing in English at all, then it would be useful to realize that they were likely trying to be as precise as possible by using a mathematical approach to the description. "Plain English" does not always translate well, even among those who believe they are native English speakers. > > In addition, the authors suggest that ARIN policy should require ARIN to > take some action when IANA resources reach a certain level. But IANA is > not controlled by ARIN. Does IANA even report on the size of their pool > in /8 equivalents? How is this to be measured? Yes, IANA maintains a public document of their allocations: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space to save you the trouble of parsing it, there is a graph at: http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/IANA-IPv4-distribution.pdf Similar graphs are published by ARIN, APnic, RIPE-ncc from time to time. You are likely to find +/- 1 or 2 in various buckets because the records are inconsistent for some of the pre-'95 allocations. > > But that is not all that is undefined. Does ARIN have a clear policy > definition of "critical infrastructure" as referred in the proposal? The > proposal refers to "projections" but does ARIN actually make such > projections? > > And of course, the policy requires ARIN to terminate allocating IPv4 > ranges which is entirely contrary to ARIN's charter. ARIN exists to > allocate IPv4 addresses and the only reason for this to stop is for the > supply to be exhausted. As long as IANA gives ARIN IPv4 addresses, ARIN > should continue to allocate them according to its policy guidelines. This is what will happen in practice at all the RIR's. > > In case you hadn't noticed, this policy proposal was made by people from > outside the ARIN region. The same proposal was put before APNIC in their > own region. They are attempting to create a global policy without > following the global policy process of NRO > http://www.nro.net/policy/index.html The reality is that there will never be global agreement on how to manage down the tail end of the pool, because there will never be global agreement on the fundamentals that are used to enforce allocation policy, despite the existence of the NRO. The proof of that viewpoint is the very existence of the RIR's themselves. If there could be global agreement on policy, we would only be dealing with IANA as the central body for managing the resource. > > Note that in the NRO process, the global policy is ratified by the ICANN > board of directors before coming into action. Also note that IANA is one > of the functions of ICANN, in other words if you want to make policies > based on IANA resources or IANA actions, you should go through the NRO. > Two of the three existing global policies actually do deal with IANA so > presumably the process works reasonably well. The NRO is really all about how to get the RIRs to play nice in the sandbox with each other. Yes there is a formal process, but at the end of the day the process that matters is on the outbound side of the RIR to their members. > > As for anti-trust, well, this policy sounds like somebody making up > rules just for the sake of making up rules. The real goal seems to be > publicity of the fact that we are now in the wind-down phase of IPv4 and > IANA could run out of free /8s as early as 3 years from now. In my > opinion, ARIN policy is not the way to solve a publicity problem and not > the way to solve an education problem. I agree that RIR policy is not a place to be solving publicity problems. At the same time the members need to be aware of the pending reality, and if there are going to be changes needed for the post exhaustion event, that planning needs to start well in advance. While Geoff currently shows a 2011 date, my projection has been holding steady at the end of 2009 for the end of the RIR pools: http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/IPv4-pool-combined-view.pdf For those that might remember my initial date as 2008, that was for the IANA pool. There was a marked decrease in the rate of allocations from IANA to RIPE & APnic last year so that flattened out the IANA curve, but the outbound side of the RIRs to their membership has not shown any substantial variation. In any case Geoff has been looking at what will be needed from an RIR perspective to support the post exhaustion environment. An observation I have been working from lately : It is simple human nature to ignore the problem until it becomes a crisis. Given that, most Network Managers will not act until they run into a problem getting IPv4 space. Despite the best intentions in RIR policy management, we will burn through the remaining IPv4 space sometime in the next 2-4 years, and IPv4 addresses will become a commodity traded on E-bay. It is simply too late to make any difference by modifying RIR policy. That said, I actually expect the 'sale' activity to be short lived, because venture capital will quickly collect the available resource and return it to market in 'lease' form. Today, while the dogma proclaims that addresses are not property, people routinely get away with 'leasing' a single publicly routable IPv4 address for ~$5/day (hotel VPN fee), and the average global 'lease' rate I hear for static publicly routable IPv4 on long term contract is ~$1/day/address (YMMV). Once the taboo is totally trashed by the reality of global market trading in the finite resource, those prices will only go up. Yes the unused existing allocations will flood into the market, but that surge will only lower the investment price for those with longer term vision that see the real value in leasing a commodity that there will not be any more of. The other thing to note is that despite whatever space might suddenly appear as unused and available, the existing consumption rate is over 1 /8 per month and growing. Note that ongoing consumption is occurring globally: http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/IPv4-delegated-per-RIR.pdf It will take a lot of reclamation, for a very long period of time to avoid having the price skyrocket for adding new customers or services. ISPs will have to pay whatever the market demands until their -customers- stop using IPv4. Of course they will pass that added cost along, so at contract renewal time the customers will be astounded at the rate increases just to keep doing what they had been for years. Eventually this will resolve itself as people realize the machines they have are capable of IPv6, some services will offer IPv6 access forcing others to follow suit or loose eyeballs, at which point the only ones that will even be aware of IPv4 or care are those that just refuse to evolve. Tony From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Wed Mar 14 17:08:15 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:08:15 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Transfers and Fees (was: something else, from a week ago) Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4052FBE08@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> I wasn't paying close attention to the thread with subject "Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications" and I hadn't realized it had drifted into fee discussions. As Treasurer and chair of the Finance Committee, it's my job to make sure fees are examined regularly. Randy: Suggestion for fees declining with age; I'll bring it up at a FinCom meeting (maybe not the next one, but soon). Daniel: > It's possible part of the issue is the definition of "ISP." There may be room for a more precise definition of "ISP." Any AC member would be delighted to help you open that can. Ted: > ARIN only has one real tool to bring order to the numbering. > And that is charging fees. I don't entirely agree with that. We try not to use fees as a bludgeon, although I admit one of the reasons for maintenance fees is to make sure there's somebody still at the other end. > The fees ARIN charges are not in any way related to the "resources > consumed for managing IP addresses" That is entirely incorrect. We charge fees to cover our expenses. That's what the members told us to do long ago, so that's what we do. Members can tell us to handle fees differently; we listen. The current structure is designed to distribute the cost roughly in proportion to the amount of work generated. It may not be perfect or precise, but we balance precision against the cost of the system. > You charge a lot of money so that when the day comes that AOL runs > out of numbers and starts to use yours, and doesen't bother with > checking with a numbering authority to see if they are already in > use, you can go in front of a judge in a courtroom who doesen't know > an IP address from a shoelace and hold up a list of 5000 other > organizations who are all paying ARIN a sum total of a billion bucks > a year for the moral authority to tell AOL to toe the line, well then > as they say, when the chips are down money talks and BS walks and how > long do you think that AOL will be able to fight against that? Closer to $10 million a year. http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html Which you'll note matches our expenses pretty closely. 2635 members (as of Fall 2006 meeting, http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XVIII/PPT/friday/MSD_Hamlin.pp t#270,4,Statistics: Membership Growth ) but I don't have the total number of Orgs handy. I don't think that moral authority can be quantified in dollars. > we all know ARIN and the other registries are purely political organizations You say that like it's a bad thing. It's a political organization insofar as it sets policies. The political system used is consensus, as judged by the AC. Lee From kloch at kl.net Wed Mar 14 17:13:16 2007 From: kloch at kl.net (Kevin Loch) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:13:16 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> Message-ID: <45F8656C.7080103@kl.net> Tony Hain wrote: > I agree that RIR policy is not a place to be solving publicity problems. At > the same time the members need to be aware of the pending reality, and if > there are going to be changes needed for the post exhaustion event, that > planning needs to start well in advance. One of the objections I have to the proposal is that I expect "increased publicity" will only make the problem happen faster, not better. - Kevin From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 14 17:17:31 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:17:31 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Transfers and Fees (was: something else, from a week ago) Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00474319@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > I don't entirely agree with that. We try not to use fees as a > bludgeon, although I admit one of the reasons for maintenance fees > is to make sure there's somebody still at the other end. The very fact that ARIN holds the addresses as uniquely registered for an organization's use is a benefit to the organization. The maintenance fee is for that service because without fee income, ARIN cannot maintain the registry. In addition, ARIN provides in-addr.arpa services that all block holders benefit from. And if an org is no longer benefiting from holding a uniquely registered block of addresses, then it can no longer justify their use. --Michael Dillon From marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com Wed Mar 14 17:28:27 2007 From: marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:28:27 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Initiation of Petition was Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal Message-ID: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A023EF63E@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Ed- I believe this subject is going to be discussed at the next conference. That was one of the things the AC agreed needed to be done despite the proposal not being accepted. I do not know when in the agenda it is slated for discussion, but maybe Ray or someone from the ARIN staff can confirm. Regards Marla Azinger -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Edward Lewis Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:33 AM To: ppml at arin.net Cc: petition at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Initiation of Petition was Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal Okay, so this is what my "petition/protest" mail was all about: From before (to make sure it counts under the rules): I would like to voice a qualified "I object" to this rejection. I would like to see some discussion on this, even though I comprehend the reasons given below for the rejection and acknowledge that they are valid. My motivation for speaking up is to see if there might be a way that the spirit of the proposal can be pushed forward in ARIN even if the particular proposal has mechanics that are problematic. At this point, I don't have a specific recommendation, just wanted to say that there might be a reason to reconsider this, perhaps in another form. At 16:57 +0900 3/14/07, Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote: >Dear All, > >This is a formal petition request to advance the policy proposal >entitled "IPv4 >Countdown Policy Proposal". The full text of the proposal is posted >on the ARIN >website at the following URL: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html > >This policy proposal was to respond in an orderly way to the >upcoming exhaustion >of the IPv4 address space. The AC rejected this proposal due to anti-trust >issues however I strongly believe that we should discuss this kind >of policy in >the ARIN open policy forum, rather than simple rejection, since IPv4 address >exhaustion is so important issue to the whole community. > >According to the Internet Policy Evaluation Process, people who wish >to document >their support for the petition must do the following within the next >five (5) days: > > 1) post a response to the Public Policy Mailing List stating their > support for the proposal, > > and, > > 2) send email to petition at arin.net with full point of contact > information, including their telephone number and organizational > affiliation. > >If you have any questions about this process you can refer to the ARIN website >at http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html for the full text explaining the >petition process. > >Thanks and best regards, >Toshi >-- >Toshiyuki Hosaka >JPNIC > > > >Member Services wrote (2007/03/03 2:47): >> On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of >> the proposed policy 'IPv4 Countdown' and did not accept it as a formal >> policy proposal. >> >> The AC rejected this proposal having taken into consideration the >> anti-trust issues raised by the ARIN General Counsel and because the AC >> deemed the proposal to be contrary to ARIN's mission. >> >> During the initial review period the AC may decide to: >> 1) Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is presented, >> 2) Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine it with another >> proposal, or >> 3) Not accept the policy proposal. >> >> In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed policy, then >> the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the >> proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition >> Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process which >> can be found at: >> http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html >> >> The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN Internet >> Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; the >> petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting >> is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the petition >> is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a petition is >> successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for discussion >> and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting. >> >> The proposed policy text can be found at: >> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html >> >> Regards, >> >> Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML mailing list >> PPML at arin.net >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml >> > > >_______________________________________________ >PPML mailing list >PPML at arin.net >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 14 17:45:22 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:45:22 -0700 Subject: [ppml] policies at ARIN Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473D06@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >michael.dillon at bt.com >Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:50 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] policies at ARIN Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >> I see the proposal as having to be something that goes to IANA or be >> global. To get there it has to be discussed in all regions. Maybe I >> don't understand the global policy process, maybe there's a check-box >> that was missed. >> "Public Policy" means public. I am a SIG chair in the APNIC region >> but my desk is near Washington DC. There is no "they" and "us" when >> it comes to the public discussion of the RIRs. > >REGIONAL Internet Registry means Regional. Even though my desk is in >London, England, my company relies on ARIN as the prime supplier of >network addresses and our network in the USA is the core of our success >as a business. Even though many of us particpate in other regional fora, >including other RIRs, the fact is that the system still allows for >in-region policy-making. > >I wish the NRO web page was more clear on global policy proposals but it >did seem to me that one should submit a proposal to them first, before >it goes to the RIRs. That way we, at the RIR level, only have to deal >with well-crafted and well thought-out global policy proposals. > >> I may have made more proposal-specific comments here than I intended. >> The message I am sending is that the roughness here is another reason >> I have been asking for a more robust, committee-like approach for >> preliminary discussion about ARIN policies and more >> technically-motivated discussion about service levels and the like. > >Personally, I think the problem is with the proposal submitters. We have >a discussion list here. No one says that you can't discuss a proposal >before submitting it. Why don't more people bounce around an idea and >get several opinions on the policy and its wording, before submitting >it. This is a rhetorical question. We all know why some proposal submitters don't bounce ideas around first. It is because they are convinced that their idea is perfect the way it is and they aren't open to suggestions for modification. After all it takes a giant ego to make the assumption that you have a solution to a problem that is better than any other solution anyone else hasn't thought of yet. Such egos are necessary to shepherd an idea through to implementation, but they are usually pretty rotten about accepting suggestions for alternatives, it is just the nature of the beast. Ted From gih at apnic.net Wed Mar 14 18:04:04 2007 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:04:04 +1100 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <45F8656C.7080103@kl.net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> <45F8656C.7080103@kl.net> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20070315085519.013705f8@apnic.net> At 08:13 AM 15/03/2007, Kevin Loch wrote: >Tony Hain wrote: > > > I agree that RIR policy is not a place to be solving publicity problems. At > > the same time the members need to be aware of the pending reality, and if > > there are going to be changes needed for the post exhaustion event, that > > planning needs to start well in advance. > >One of the objections I have to the proposal is that I expect "increased >publicity" will only make the problem happen faster, not better. Any visibly scarce resource where potential demand exceeds supply is subject to a run. The models I've been working on with respect to IPv4 exhaustion (http://ipv4.potaroo.net) make he flawed assumption that there will be no run and the procession to Ipv4 unallocated pool exhaustion will be an orderly one. If it indeed plays out this way it may well be the first time in the entire history of humanity. It is far more reasonable to expect that demand will pick up and exhaustion will probably happen earlier than the current predictions. So the existence of this proposal will, as far as I can see, have negligible impact on the steadily increasing pressures of demand on the shrinking unallocated Ipv4 address pools. The "publicity", or knowledge of forthcoming exhaustion of this particular resource is unavoidable, and in the larger scheme of things, I'd offer the view that its probably a far more responsible act to promulgate this information as widely as possible so that all players are equally well informed about the situation than not. regards, Geoff From randy at psg.com Wed Mar 14 18:30:20 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:30:20 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20070315085519.013705f8@apnic.net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> <45F8656C.7080103@kl.net> <7.0.0.16.2.20070315085519.013705f8@apnic.net> Message-ID: <45F8777C.7000905@psg.com> > Any visibly scarce resource where potential demand exceeds supply is > subject to a run. The models I've been working on with respect to > IPv4 exhaustion (http://ipv4.potaroo.net) make he flawed assumption > that there will be no run and the procession to Ipv4 unallocated pool > exhaustion will be an orderly one. If it indeed plays out this way it > may well be the first time in the entire history of humanity. have there been hands on the governor before, i.e. the rirs? except ripe, which seems dedicated to running v4 out asap, the others seem to be continuing their course of stewardship. will be interesting to see if this has any effect. my major problem with this proposal, which i have voiced in the apnic forum whence it came, is that holding back some space is going to cause a major layer 10-20 power play for that last withheld space, with un/itu, governments, ... all wanting to help and very very urgently. one other aspect of a scarce resource is the intervention for over the last bits. this will be the most destructive effect on the technology and culture we will have ever seen. end of the internet as we know it. news at 11. gmt, of course. randy From drc at virtualized.org Wed Mar 14 18:56:09 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:56:09 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> Message-ID: <2F23B9FE-8AA9-4B78-854D-DC0F56FC55EE@virtualized.org> Hi, > The NRO is really all about how to get the RIRs to play nice in the > sandbox > with each other. Actually, the NRO was all about what would happen if ICANN collapsed. What it is all about now is an exercise for the reader (:-)). > An observation I have been working from lately : It is simple human > nature > to ignore the problem until it becomes a crisis. Given that, most > Network > Managers will not act until they run into a problem getting IPv4 > space. Very true. This is why the proposal coming from APNIC confuses me. In particular, section 4.1 (4) says that there should be no change in allocation policies "until the last moment". One day, an ISP can get address space from the RIR, the next day, it can't. Period. Well, unless your lawyers or government (if the RIR is located in your country) can get at the space reserved in 4.1 (2). This seems to be a pretty optimal way for both instigating a rush on address space as well as engendering confusion, chaos, and lawsuits. > ISPs will have to pay whatever the market demands until their - > customers- stop using > IPv4. I suspect -customers- will have to pay whatever the market demands. ISPs will undoubtedly be happy to route prefixes provided to them by their customers for a (perhaps not so) nominal fee. Of course, this implies fragmenting prefixes and a surge in the amount of unaggregatable routing information being propagated back and forth (whether this is a real problem depends is an interesting ongoing debate). If a customer doesn't have a prefix, then I'm sure ISPs will be happy to provide them with a few addresses the customer can assign to their NAT boxes for a (perhaps not so) nominal fee. I suspect ISPs, when faced with the prospect of getting not insignificant revenue from the address space they already 'have under their control', will quickly see the advantages of renumbering their infrastructure with IPv6, tunneling IPv4 through IPv6, or (possibly augmented) RFC 1918 space and using their existing non-private IPv4 for customer NAT box interconnects. > Eventually this will resolve itself as > people realize the machines they have are capable of IPv6, some > services > will offer IPv6 access forcing others to follow suit or loose > eyeballs, at > which point the only ones that will even be aware of IPv4 or care > are those > that just refuse to evolve. I'm not sure I follow this. Services would lose eyeballs if they were IPv6-only so any IPv6-only site will need to have some mechanism to communicate with the vast majority of the Internet that only has IPv4. Since IPv4 will not be available (thus breaking the base assumption of the "dual stack" transition strategy), the only option I see is NAT. Since you're already doing NAT, why bother deploying IPv6? Given inertia and your observation of human nature, it would seem a likely outcome of the impending IPv4 free pool runout will be a vast swamp of IPv4 NAT end points, interconnecting and interconnected with private networks (either IPv4 tunneled through IPv6 or RFC 1918 space). Blech. Rgds, -drc From drc at virtualized.org Wed Mar 14 19:07:34 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:07:34 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <45F8777C.7000905@psg.com> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> <45F8656C.7080103@kl.net> <7.0.0.16.2.20070315085519.013705f8@apnic.net> <45F8777C.7000905@psg.com> Message-ID: Randy, On Mar 14, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > have there been hands on the governor before, i.e. the rirs? The governors have removed themselves from the playing field by asserting address space can't be bought or sold. When faced between revenues/signed contracts and "what's best for the Internet", my experience has been ISPs will generally choose the former. How many ISPs today verify a prefix is registered to the presenting customer? How many will do so in the future? I suspect there is a business opportunity out there for a registry that is agnostic to how address space was obtained. All you'd need do is get the big ISPs to play along... > end of the internet as we know it. news at 11. Sorry, that was preempted by the more important latest breaking news on Britney (still bald) and Anna Nicole (still dead). Oops. My cynicism is showing again, isn't it? Rgds, -drc From alh-ietf at tndh.net Wed Mar 14 19:38:19 2007 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:19 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <2F23B9FE-8AA9-4B78-854D-DC0F56FC55EE@virtualized.org> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> <2F23B9FE-8AA9-4B78-854D-DC0F56FC55EE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <2d0d01c76691$d9472d00$8bd58700$@net> David Conrad wrote: > .... > > Eventually this will resolve itself as > > people realize the machines they have are capable of IPv6, some > > services > > will offer IPv6 access forcing others to follow suit or loose > > eyeballs, at > > which point the only ones that will even be aware of IPv4 or care > > are those > > that just refuse to evolve. > > I'm not sure I follow this. Services would lose eyeballs if they > were IPv6-only so any IPv6-only site will need to have some mechanism > to communicate with the vast majority of the Internet that only has > IPv4. I was not suggesting IPv6-only service. > Since IPv4 will not be available (thus breaking the base > assumption of the "dual stack" transition strategy), the only option > I see is NAT. Since you're already doing NAT, why bother deploying > IPv6? The model I didn't do a very good job of explaining is: Pool exhausts ISP - watches Ebay & calculates probable cost for adding new customers - charges existing customers that much so everyone gets 'equal' service - revenue from existing customers is used to acquire space for adding new customers Random Web site - adds IPv6 access anticipating customer reaction Customer - sees the cost of remaining on IPv4 at contract renewal - notices IPv6 is in their products & works with Random Web site no matter what ISP offers - chooses to opt out of IPv4 to reduce cost Other Web sites - recognize that traffic is dropping while Random is reporting higher share - figure out that IPv4 costs are causing Customer to change behavior & add IPv6 > > Given inertia and your observation of human nature, it would seem a > likely outcome of the impending IPv4 free pool runout will be a vast > swamp of IPv4 NAT end points, interconnecting and interconnected with > private networks (either IPv4 tunneled through IPv6 or RFC 1918 space). > > Blech. Well that will be the endpoint if there is no cost bias to cause the consumer to switch before we get there. It is not in IANA or the RIR's power to cause cost biases. Education is something that can be done, but some consider that to be 'publicity'. I have been out telling everyone I meet about the exhaustion event, because I agree with Geoff that the responsible thing to do is keep everyone informed. If people are 'surprised' by the exhaustion event there will be political backlash targeting the IANA/RIR structure as being incompetent. Yes at some point that awareness will lead to a run on the bank, but I care less about the impact to the dead-end IPv4 than I do about the long term management of IPv6. Tony From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Wed Mar 14 20:07:23 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:07:23 -0400 Subject: [ppml] policies at ARIN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 14:45 -0700 3/14/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >We all know why some proposal submitters don't bounce ideas around first. >It is because they are convinced that their idea is perfect the way it >is and they aren't open to suggestions for modification. After all it >takes a giant ego to make the assumption that you have a solution to a >problem that is better than any other solution anyone else hasn't thought >of yet. Such egos are necessary to shepherd an idea through to >implementation, but they are usually pretty rotten about accepting >suggestions for alternatives, it is just the nature of the beast. While that may be true in some cases, why assume that it is true for this instance? Have these proposers given evidence of having "giant egos?" Have they dismissed "suggestions for alternatives?" In this case, the policy proposed here was previously presented at APNIC. The APNIC member meeting was March 2, ARIN's member meeting is April 25. (I am using those dates "for instance" as the policy discussions are usually a few days earlier in each region.) I.e., the level of detail of this proposal is present because (for one) it was presented once already. It had to be in shape 6+ weeks early to meet the APNIC calendar. I happen to be aware that the proposers have been seeking opinions and are open to suggestions for this proposal. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Mar 14 20:14:14 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:14:14 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Initiation of Petition was Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal In-Reply-To: <45F7AAD7.7090609@nic.ad.jp> References: <45E86319.5040609@arin.net> <45F7AAD7.7090609@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <20070315001414.GA9701@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:57:11PM +0900, Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote: > This is a formal petition request to advance the policy proposal entitled "IPv4 > Countdown Policy Proposal". The full text of the proposal is posted on the ARIN > website at the following URL: > > 1) post a response to the Public Policy Mailing List stating their > support for the proposal, > > and, > > 2) send email to petition at arin.net with full point of contact > information, including their telephone number and organizational > affiliation. I support making this a policy proposal. I believe it is important for the community to be able to speak directly to this policy proposal in the next meeting. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Mar 14 20:21:55 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:21:55 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <20070315002155.GB9701@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:05:00AM -0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > In case you hadn't noticed, this policy proposal was made by people from > outside the ARIN region. The same proposal was put before APNIC in their > own region. They are attempting to create a global policy without > following the global policy process of NRO > http://www.nro.net/policy/index.html So here's the problem with the NRO process on that page. I'm going to quote the first paragraph, broken down: Step #1: "Any individual may submit a global proposal." Submit to who? In what form? This page has no location for someone to submit a global proposal to the NRO, no method to submit it to ICANN, and no method to submit it to the RIR's. Given that this statement is 100% unclear, it makes sense to infer you should submit it to the RIR's, primarily due to the next step... Step #2: "Each RIR community must ratify an identical version of the proposed policy." With the three existing global policies the authors have submitted identical proposals to all the RIR's, just as this author has done. Given that Step #1 is completely unclear, and we have three cases where submitting it to all the RIR's worked, I'd say that's the de facto standard on how to submit a global policy. Step #3: "The NRO Executive Council (NRO EC) then refers the coordinated proposal to the ASO Address Council (ASO AC), which reviews the process by which the proposal was developed and, under the terms of the ASO Memorandum of Understanding, passes it to the ICANN Board of Directors for ratification as a global policy." Clearly can't be done until all of the RIR's have passed the policy proposals in each region. In short, I take issue with you saying they are not following the global policy process. The global policy has a huge issue with step #1, and as far as I can tell three cases where it has been essentially skipped. Maybe we need a global policy to clarify the global policy. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Wed Mar 14 20:25:04 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:25:04 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <2F23B9FE-8AA9-4B78-854D-DC0F56FC55EE@virtualized.org> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> <2F23B9FE-8AA9-4B78-854D-DC0F56FC55EE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: At 15:56 -0700 3/14/07, David Conrad wrote: >Given inertia and your observation of human nature, it would seem a >likely outcome of the impending IPv4 free pool runout will be a vast >swamp of IPv4 NAT end points, interconnecting and interconnected with >private networks (either IPv4 tunneled through IPv6 or RFC 1918 space). > >Blech. And this is why I am interested in this proposal being discussed. I agree that the proposal as written is far from perfect, to say the least. I want to get past that, but then again, it is the only proposal on the table at the moment. Well, on the serving tray as it's been bounced from the table. I do see that it is possible that ARIN ought to be in position to terminate the distribution of IPv4 space under the term of "stewardship." ARIN has held a position of neutrality (minus relaxed fees for IPv6 - sorry Lee, I don't mean to start another branch into fees, but I'm just mentioning some past practice) of IPv4 and IPv6 because it is not ARIN's place to promote a technology. That's cool, and it works if innovation is happening elsewhere and in response to market demand. It is also not ARIN's place to take back resources that are being properly used. But the time is coming when maybe, just maybe, ARIN should take on the role, in concert with the other RIRs and IANA, of retiring IPv4 for the good of the Internet. Imagine a day in which a lot of the network outside of the ARIN region is IPv6 and only ARIN is still using IPv4. We'd have a network ripped in half (well, not 50/50) with our region falling behind the rest of the world (in IPvX). Imagination running wild - there are 2.3 billion living in the largest *two* nations in the APNIC region. There are what, 0.4 billion in the ARIN region? 50 years from now, where's the center of the Internet going to be? If now we feel we are and we are comfortable that we have enough IPv4 and can stand NAT, will the following generations of engineers thank us for standing still when the center has shifted away? Perhaps we do need to have a proposal that has an overt goal of retiring IPv4 and replacing it with IPv6. I say this now, after having been a critic of IPv6 because I don't see market forces making the shift happen. Perhaps this is a case where we want ARIN to help lead a transition and not just be a servant of the industry. Perhaps, perhaps. I'm just sayin' is all...this is mighty hypothetical and is at the root cause of why I am interested in this. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From gih at apnic.net Wed Mar 14 20:45:38 2007 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:45:38 +1100 Subject: [ppml] Global Policies and Coordinated Policies In-Reply-To: <20070315002155.GB9701@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <20070315002155.GB9701@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20070315113018.0460d038@apnic.net> >In a message written on Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:05:00AM -0000, >michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > In case you hadn't noticed, this policy proposal was made by people from > > outside the ARIN region. The same proposal was put before APNIC in their > > own region. They are attempting to create a global policy without > > following the global policy process of NRO > > http://www.nro.net/policy/index.html As someone who was deeply involved in drafting the NRO documents some years back, it may be helpful here if I attempt to clarify the distinction between "Global Policies" in the sense of the NRO process referenced here and "Coordinated Policies" in the context of the RIRs. In the context of the NRO "Global Policies" these are policies that require the actions of the IANA or some other ICANN-related body in order to be implemented (see Section 5 of the ASO MoU). For example, changing the allocation unit of IPv6 address blocks from IANA to the RIRs was a "Global Policy" There is a defined process for the development process, and I believe that the current description is in Attachment A of http://www.nro.net/documents/nro11.html Coordinated Policies are policies that are intended to be common across the RIRs, but do not require the actions of any external entity in order to be implemented. As I recall there was an effort some years back to coordinate the IPv6 allocation policies across the RIRs, for example. Coordinated Policy proposals do not need to follow the NRO Global Policy process. Coordinated Policy proposals do need to be submitted to all the regional policy development fora, and the proposal may require continual refinement until it reaches a point where it has achieved acceptance from all the regional policy fora. regards, Geoff From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Wed Mar 14 20:47:21 2007 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:47:21 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net><2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> <2F23B9FE-8AA9-4B78-854D-DC0F56FC55EE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: >Hi, >> ISPs will have to pay whatever the market demands until their - >> customers- stop using >> IPv4. >I suspect -customers- will have to pay whatever the market demands. >ISPs will undoubtedly be happy to route prefixes provided to them by >their customers for a (perhaps not so) nominal fee. Of course, this >implies fragmenting prefixes and a surge in the amount of >unaggregatable routing information being propagated back and forth >(whether this is a real problem depends is an interesting ongoing >debate). This is the real problem of the end-game IMO.... It is going to put added pressure on the route table and bring that very real problem to the fore. Addressing is not broken nearly as bad as routing for the future. Blech. Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 14 21:48:24 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:48:24 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4052FBC33@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Howard, W. Lee >Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:24 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >Ted, I can't tell from your tone whether you're trying to rant >or make constructive contributions. > Well, I honestly consider the issue of IPv4 runout to be a lost cause, since as I already mentioned, too many deep pockets have a vested interest in making the transition as uncomfortable as possible. In short, "they" want to switch the Internet over to IPv6 and are simply not interested in any proposals that will extend IPv4. I personally believe that with effort on the number registries part, we could extend the use of IPv4 on the backbone until long after everyone on the list here has retired. But I see no real interest in doing this among any of the major players. Instead all "they" care about is making everyone buy new hardware and renumbering. So, ultimately I think that all attempts to soften the blow or put off the day of reckoning or make that day easier, are going to be ignored. But, I do think it is facinating to watch someone try to change the status quo. Sometimes, they even succeed in doing it. > >> Your welcome. If you really want my $0.02 on this you need >> to work out several "baby step" proposals. > >If you can make it to the public policy meeting, you could >get some feedback on these pre-proposals at the open policy >forum. I beg anyone who wants to discuss potential policy >approaches to IPv4 exhaustion to come to the open policy >forum. It'd be nice if you'd let policy at arin.net know ahead >of time. > >If you can't make it, you can still email ideas to PPML. > > >> The first would be one to define an orderly way to bring >> abandoned space into the sheepfold so it could be added to >> the pool of IPv4 available to be allocated. > >I would love to see a policy proposal on this. >ARIN does reclaim "abandoned" space if you mean, "Space assigned/ >allocated to organizations who no longer exist or who no longer >want that space." Non-payment of renewals starts staff looking >for any live contact; that's part of the reason for renewal fees. > I'm not talking about space where the owners have stopped paying the bill. That's a non-issue. I'm talking about space where the owners ARE paying the bill but clearly they aren't using it. Or, space assigned pre-ARIN that isn't being used. When MCI pulled out of North America in 2003 every ISP in ARIN's territory that had IP allocations from MCI had to get new allocations. There were many many ISPs. You cannot possibly make any believable argument that MCI had any further need for those IP allocations. They had pulled out!! ALL of the numbers in those blocks were available! Yet, did ARIN go to MCI and say "Hey, you announced in the newspapers your turning off your network. So, since you don't need the allocations in that network anymore, we are taking them back" HELL NO! They let MCI keep them. When the entire network that was used in North America for those numbers WAS TURNED OFF. Then, to add insult to injury, A YEAR LATER when SAVVIS bought MCI, THEY GOT ALL THOSE NUMBER BLOCKS AS PART OF THE SALE and ARIN let them take them over!!! In short, SAVVIS buys a network with NO CUSTOMERS ON IT and that has been TURNED OFF, and CLAIMS IT NEEDS IP ADDRESSES FOR IT???? When they ALREADY HAD THEIR OWN!!! Yeahhh - RIIGGHHTT! I believe that! Sure, sure. Damn hoarder! >> The second would be one to define additional requirements for >> justification submittal. One of the biggest and most obvious >> would be that if an IPv4 allocation holder was to be acquired >> by another IPv4 allocation holder - regardless of whether >> both allocation holders were in the same number registry or >> not - that the acquiring party would have to submit >> justification for holding the acquired block. > >http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight >8.1 Transfers >ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of IP space only upon >receipt of evidence that the new entity has acquired the assets which >had, as of the date of the acquisition or proposed reorganization, >justified the current entity's use of the IP space. > Once more that doesen't address the issue. The issue is where an entity that has plenty of numbering buys another entity that has numbering, and continues to maintain it as for example a wholly owned subsidiary. In those cases since the subsidiary is wholly owned, I believe the subsidiary should automatically lose the right to obtain and use allocations from the registry, that they must instead go through their parent that owns them for allocations. But, in reality, since the subsidiary is a separate corporation, even if only on paper, the parent can merely continue to use the subsidiary's old name when dealing with ARIN and thus avoid any existing rules such as 8.1 Transfers that you cited above. >Examples follow in the NRPM. I read this to mean that if you >buy a network, the need for address space for that network >does not change. But that does not follow since in the majority of ISP acquisitions that have happened, the acquiring ISP merely moves the aquired ISP's customers to their own existing infrastructure and then decommissions the acquired ISP's network hardware. And, it is also a fact that there's always customer loss when an ISP acquires another ISP and so therefore the need is going to go down. Think about it - why would a network be for sale anyway? Because it does not have enough customers to make a profit, that is why. And if it doesen't have enough customers then who is using all it's allocations? Nobody. > Please, though, send a proposal. > I would if I thought that the numbering authorities were truly interested in extending the use of IPv4 on the Internet past the point at which allocations run out. I just don't believe they are. >> The third would be one to define a mechanism that IANA could >> offer a "bounty" for proof of deliberate criminal contract >> violations that is similar to what the SPA and BSA offer for >> reporting software piracy. In other words if an admin at a >> network was ordered to "hoard" assignments he could rat out >> the network and trigger an IP number audit. > >That's an interesting idea. It might be easier to limit it >to ARIN, rather than IANA. Could you make this a proposal? > >> You just do not >> understand how many people right now have a vested interest >> in allowing the train wreck to happen. Honestly, they WANT >> it to happen. > >I don't understand. Who? > Cisco for one. That is why they have been so late at introducing IPv6 support for their "legacy" routers. Oh sure, they have IPv6 in IOS 12.4 service provider now. You just can't run it on anything other than a brand new router because the IOS package it is in is so big. In 3 years when IPv4 allocations run out it will be virtually impossible to upgrade your older routers to handle BGP by simply updating IOS, you will have to buy hardware. >> If you think about it you might begin to understand one of >> the reasons that the large orgs are rather diffident about >> IPv6 switchover, and are very lackadasical about turning in >> unused allocations. They aren't stupid, even boneheads know >> that if they have something that is constrained, it is worth >> money to someone. > >I don't know any large orgs that are diffident about IPv6. They >all seem concerned, to various degrees, and most are active. If they were concerned then they would be getting rid of their large allocations and slimming down, to make more IPv4 addreeses available. In other words, they would be putting money into paying employees to renumber. Not simply making concerned noises in various public statements. >I >don't know anyone who is hoarding in hopes of selling. > People aren't exactly going to advertise that they are doing that since it's kind of a violation of the ARIN regs, you know. But once the IPv4 allocations run out, unless the Internet is immediately switched over to IPv6 you are going to find out who has been hoarding pretty quick. >> If the Internet Registries do nothing of course they will be >> criticized. But if they do anything then they are going to >> also be criticized. Thus, why bother since your going to be >> screwed either way? Better to hold on to what you have now >> and hope when the storm hits that you can hang on. > >The Internet Registries is us. Send proposals. > If ARIN makes a public statement that it is looking for proposals to stave off the day that IPv4 allocations will run out, then I'll be right there. >> Ask yourself this. What do you think that IANA in it's heart >> of hearts wants to be doing in 2012? Do you think they want >> to be fighting a hundred lawsuits by organizations that they >> are telling that they are going to take away allocations from >> and give to someone else? Or do you think they would rather >> be sitting back mediating between organizations that want to >> make lawful monetary transactions with each other - I have/you buy. > >The IANA doesn't get a vote. People on this list decide. > All registries are going to have to work in unison on this issue. >> It makes perfect sense to me. It is a textbook technical >> response to a political problem. And it will fail in a >> textbook manner, as all technical responses to political >> problems fail. > >It's a political problem in the sense that we may not have >the right policies in place. Propose some. > >> the problem isn't that >> there's a lack of IPv4 numbers, the problem is that not >> enough people have adopted IPv6 that they can start pushing >> for the Internet to be switched over. Those people really >> and truly want an IPv4 train wreck if for no other reason >> that they can point to it and say "see, I told you that you >> should have switched over" > >This is the part I don't understand. >People are not adopting IPv6, because they want to create a >market for IPv4 addresses, so that they can say, "I told you >to adopt IPv6." If this is important to the policy process, >could you clarify? > People are not adopting IPv6 because it is very expensive to renumber and there are side effects that can last years. Let me ask you have you ever renumbered a nameserver that has had a large number of domains on it and an even larger number of people using it as their nameserver? Also there is another reason that not many people have switched to IPv6 and that is, since it is costly and disrupts customers, if an ISP devotes resources to doing it, the ISP's customers that are affected are going to wonder why they simply don't just go to a competitor ISP that isn't requiring them to do all this IPv6 stuff. In short it is a competitive advantage to NOT change your network and disrupt your customers, yet have everyone else change their network and disrupt their customers. This creates a condition where all of the ISPs facing this would much rather have everything disrupted at one time. If for example IANA announced that on January 1st 2012 that there would be no more IPv4 traffic allowed on the global BGP network, and that every ISP and network would have to renumber at that time, then all the ISPs could go to their customers and tell them that they MUST spend money on upgrading their network to be IPv6 compliant, whether that means buying a proxy or translator or whatever, or on Jan 1st they would lose Internet access. The customers could not then go to some competitor ISP and tell that ISP "I don't wanna pay for a new firewall/desktop/switching my network over" because that ISP would tell them "Sorry we can't do anything about it either" But the way it is now, it's a giant game of chicken. Since there is no drop-dead date that everyone has to renumber, no ISP is going to stick out it's neck and be the first into the boat, because if they start telling their customers that they have to spend money, the customers will simply move to some other ISP that isn't telling them they have to spend money. This is the same reason that all of the television broadcasters in the United States told the US Congress that if they wanted to change to digital broadcasting and get back the large VHF allocations, that every last broadcaster in every city would have to switch over the same date. Broadcasters know that if you have a situation in a city where one broadcaster stops broadcasting analog and starts broadcasting digital, the other broadcaster continues to broadcast analog, that most people will not bother buying converters for their old analog TV sets they will just watch the TV broadcasts of the broadcaster that does not switch over. Thus, the broadcaster that DOES switch is going to suffer. The way that they got Congress to set it up, every last owner of a TV set in the US will be screwed over all at the same exact time. So no broadcaster will get an advantage, and the customers will all be forced kicking and screaming into buying new TV sets or a converter. (frankly I kind of hope a lot of people stop watching TV for a while - it might raise the average intelligence of the US population a few points!) So now do you understand when I say a lot of people have a vested interest in having the IPv4 allocations running out be a big train wreck? Ted From drc at virtualized.org Thu Mar 15 00:29:07 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:29:07 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net><2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> <2F23B9FE-8AA9-4B78-854D-DC0F56FC55EE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5033E305-CB53-49F6-883A-7A85EB6C7818@virtualized.org> > >I suspect -customers- will have to pay whatever the market demands. > >ISPs will undoubtedly be happy to route prefixes provided to them by > >their customers for a (perhaps not so) nominal fee. Of course, this > >implies fragmenting prefixes and a surge in the amount of > >unaggregatable routing information being propagated back and forth > >(whether this is a real problem depends is an interesting ongoing > >debate). > > This is the real problem of the end-game IMO.... It is going to put > added pressure on the route table and bring that very real problem > to the fore. > Addressing is not broken nearly as bad as routing for the future. It might be useful to point this out to your Friendly Neighborhood Router Vendor. At least one large router vendor apparently believes it is realistic to build routers that can handle millions of routes. Since current hardware can't (as I understand it) handle that sort of routing load, they should get busy... Rgds, -drc From drc at virtualized.org Thu Mar 15 00:37:09 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:37:09 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <2d0d01c76691$d9472d00$8bd58700$@net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> <2F23B9FE-8AA9-4B78-854D-DC0F56FC55EE@virtualized.org> <2d0d01c76691$d9472d00$8bd58700$@net> Message-ID: <66314EED-BE03-42F8-928F-42468A44AAC1@virtualized.org> Tony, On Mar 14, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > I was not suggesting IPv6-only service. ... > The model I didn't do a very good job of explaining is: > Pool exhausts ... > Customer ... > - chooses to opt out of IPv4 to reduce cost Doesn't this mean IPv6-only (which implies IPv6-to-IPv4 NAT for the foreseeable future)? Rgds, -drc From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 15 04:37:49 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:37:49 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004743BA@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > I agree that the proposal as written is far from perfect, to say the > least. I want to get past that, You cannot get past that. If this is a global policy proposal then an identical policy must be passed by each RIR. Therefore, you can't change the wording of this proposal to fix it. It has to be bounced from the table. > I do see that it is possible that ARIN ought to be in position to > terminate the distribution of IPv4 space under the term of > "stewardship." That is a real stretch. Stewardship refers not merely to allocating the space and it also does not mean being frugal with the addresses. It certainly does not mean being miserly. Stewardship refers to everything associated with the address space including whois, in-addr.arpa, maintaining contact with the allocees, fair policies based on justified need, processes for auditing justified need, etc. > It is also not ARIN's place to take back resources that are being > properly used. Indeed! When the IPv4 space runs out, it runs out. ARIN also manages a big chunk of IPv6 space that can be used in place of IPv4 in a growing number of situations. > Imagine a day in which a lot of the network outside of the ARIN > region is IPv6 and only ARIN is still using IPv4. We'd have a > network ripped in half (well, not 50/50) with our region falling > behind the rest of the world (in IPvX). In my version of this thought experiment, the ARIN region quickly realized that roughly 90% of their infrastructure was capable of running IPv6 with only a software upgrade so they did upgrade. Problem solved. > Imagination running wild - there are 2.3 billion living in the > largest *two* nations in the APNIC region. There are what, 0.4 > billion in the ARIN region? 50 years from now, where's the center of > the Internet going to be? If now we feel we are and we are > comfortable that we have enough IPv4 and can stand NAT, will the > following generations of engineers thank us for standing still when > the center has shifted away? In my version of this thought experiment, I finally got permission to attend the ARIN meeting 50 years from now after showing my boss my new certificate of proficiency in Chinese. People who indulge in this kind of thinking are generally unilingual and are unaware of how language issues affect Internet architecture. The centre of the English language Internet is unlikely to shift. The centre of the French speaking Internet wobbles between Canada and France. The centre of the Chinese speaking Internet is squarely in Asia. And so on. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 15 04:49:24 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:49:24 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004743E1@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > If for example IANA announced that on January 1st 2012 that there > would be no more IPv4 traffic allowed on the global BGP network, and > that every ISP and network would have to renumber at that time, In order to participate effectively in ARIN policymaking it is helpful to understand the political milieu in which ARIN sits and also to understand some technical basics of Internet functioning. For instance, IANA is a function of ICANN in which various lists of numbers are maintained. This includes SNMP MIBs, port numbers, IP addresses etc. All of these numbers are defined by various IETF RFCs. IANA doesn't have much authority to do anything other than manage numbers. It certainly cannot mandate any aspect of ISP network operations. There is no such thing as the global BGP network. Instead, there are many regional, national and international IP networks which use BGP to manage routing traffic between the networks, as opposed to within the networks. A basic assumption of BGP is that each network is autonomously managed and has its own distinct policies. In other words each individual network owner makes their own decisions about protocols and traffic on their own network. > This is the same reason that all of the television broadcasters in > the United States told the US Congress that if they wanted to change > to digital broadcasting and get back the large VHF allocations, that > every last broadcaster in every city would have to switch > over the same > date. They should study the British experience. We are well into the transition to digital even though analog transmitters have only been shut off in a few remote areas. Companies with only 1 or two analog channels now have 4 to 6 digital channels. People switch because there is more free content on digital. Is there a lesson here for IPv6? --Michael Dillon From randy at psg.com Thu Mar 15 05:12:37 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:12:37 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <5033E305-CB53-49F6-883A-7A85EB6C7818@virtualized.org> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net><2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> <2F23B9FE-8AA9-4B78-854D-DC0F56FC55EE@virtualized.org> <5033E305-CB53-49F6-883A-7A85EB6C7818@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <45F90E05.8060402@psg.com> > It might be useful to point this out to your Friendly Neighborhood > Router Vendor. At least one large router vendor apparently believes > it is realistic to build routers that can handle millions of routes. is this the same one that can not move traffic at line rate on an interface? randy From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Thu Mar 15 10:07:16 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:07:16 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004743BA@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004743BA@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > Message-ID: At 8:37 +0000 3/15/07, wrote: >In my version of this thought experiment, the ARIN region quickly >realized that roughly 90% of their infrastructure was capable of running >IPv6 with only a software upgrade so they did upgrade. Problem solved. What I am hearing and experiencing is that this isn't happening. No one has a goal of using IPv6. I've never gotten a budget request approved "just to update the technology." No matter how trivial or cheap, change costs something, and more significantly, represents risk. A lot of the lessons I learned involved the introduction of 10BaseT on a government campus, i.e., it's been a while. Have accounting people become that much more friendly to IT? It has been said that it is human nature to only respond when it's an emergency. This is stated as if this were a bad thing. For business, they react appropriately according to importance, and the layer 3 protocol they use pales compared to the revenue generating activity they are supposed to pursue. Sometimes, you shouldn't react until the last minute - see queuing theory, the later you can delay picking a server the better a decision you will make. >In my version of this thought experiment, I finally got permission to >attend the ARIN meeting 50 years from now after showing my boss my new >certificate of proficiency in Chinese. Funny you mention Chinese... >People who indulge in this kind of thinking are generally unilingual and >are unaware of how language issues affect Internet architecture. The >centre of the English language Internet is unlikely to shift. The centre >of the French speaking Internet wobbles between Canada and France. The >centre of the Chinese speaking Internet is squarely in Asia. And so on. There isn't an "English" Internet or a "French" Internet. Besides that goal of One Internet, the language of business is international. (To wit: in a Taiwanese movie ("Yi Yi"), the Chinese-speaking father had to entertain a Japanese-speaking business partner at dinner. The scene was in English - I don't mean to say English rules, but in this case, it appears completely out of cultural context. The director, Edward Yang, could have had the scene in Mandarin but even he left it in what would have been the language used.) There may be a center for a language, but the Internet is a tool for global commerce too, not just expatriate clubs. This is why I am concerned that we might otherwise be left behind without a push. Of course, all of my concern is absolute conjecture. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 15 11:39:38 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:39:38 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D8D4D@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > What I am hearing and experiencing is that this isn't happening. > > No one has a goal of using IPv6. I've never gotten a budget request > approved "just to update the technology." You probably don't even know that it is happening. Did you get budget approval for your business case to upgrade some routers to Cisco 7206VXRs? If so, you have just upgraded to IPv6-capable technology. Same thing goes for Windows 2k servers. Or Mac OS/X desktops/laptops. The capability has been spreading for a while. You may not have IPv6 installed, or if installed it may not be enabled, but dealing with that issue is a lot cheaper and easier than a forklift upgrade. > It has been said that it is human nature to only respond when it's an > emergency. And when they panic and ask the technical people if they really are doomed, the techies will say, "Nah, we just need to install a software patch and do some network integration testing. Won't cost more than 10% extra on this year's budget.". > There isn't an "English" Internet or a "French" Internet. When was the last time you did a search at www.rambler.ru ? Or needed to find out how to get an Austrian visa for a resident of Ukraine http://www.ukremb.at/ ? There is a HUGE section of the Internet where the users (people who do web, IM and email) never use English, don't need to use English, and don't even know any English beyond a few words learned in school. > Besides > that goal of One Internet, the language of business is > international. There may be a center for a language, but the > Internet is a tool for global commerce too, not just expatriate clubs. That global commerce happens in Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Spanish and many other languages. English is not nearly as dominant as it seems. There are huge sections of the Internet (and global commerce) that unilingual English-speaking people are not aware of (or completely misunderstand) because they don't speak the languages. If China decided to use pure IPv6 for Internet broadband access services, most English speaking people wouldn't even notice, because English-unilinguals and Chinese unilinguals have no reason to communicate with each other. Therefore, English unilinguals do not go to Chinese sites and Chinese unilinguals never go to English sites. It is no accident that Korea and Japan are the two countries with the biggest uptake of IPv6 including for consumer connectivity. --Michael Dillon From alh-ietf at tndh.net Thu Mar 15 12:29:35 2007 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:29:35 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <66314EED-BE03-42F8-928F-42468A44AAC1@virtualized.org> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> <2F23B9FE-8AA9-4B78-854D-DC0F56FC55EE@virtualized.org> <2d0d01c76691$d9472d00$8bd58700$@net> <66314EED-BE03-42F8-928F-42468A44AAC1@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <2d9301c7671f$1eb11f80$5c135e80$@net> David Conrad wrote: > Tony, > > On Mar 14, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > > I was not suggesting IPv6-only service. > ... > > The model I didn't do a very good job of explaining is: > > Pool exhausts > ... > > Customer > ... > > - chooses to opt out of IPv4 to reduce cost > > Doesn't this mean IPv6-only (which implies IPv6-to-IPv4 NAT for the > foreseeable future)? It means it is 'customer choice' to go IPv6-only, which does not imply nat. If they see sufficient value to retain the IPv4 connectivity they pay the price. I suspect many of them will not, which will result in not connecting to the IPv4-only sites. As long as they have a viable alternative site that supports IPv6, no nat is required for them to drop their IPv4. Tony From randy at psg.com Thu Mar 15 12:31:28 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:31:28 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <2d9301c7671f$1eb11f80$5c135e80$@net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <2cf101c7667c$520c8ac0$f625a040$@net> <2F23B9FE-8AA9-4B78-854D-DC0F56FC55EE@virtualized.org> <2d0d01c76691$d9472d00$8bd58700$@net> <66314EED-BE03-42F8-928F-42468A44AAC1@virtualized.org> <2d9301c7671f$1eb11f80$5c135e80$@net> Message-ID: <45F974E0.3000008@psg.com> > It means it is 'customer choice' to go IPv6-only, which does not imply nat. true, only if they want to get to the internet. From ralph at cancerboard.ab.ca Thu Mar 15 12:23:54 2007 From: ralph at cancerboard.ab.ca (Ralph Hand) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:23:54 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D8D4D@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D8D4D@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: I know we don't have a goal of migrating to ipv6 and don't know of any technology groups that do have that plan. There is still an incredible amount of equipment out there (especially in the heathcare arena) that is just not ipv6 compatible and never will be. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- Ralph Andrew Hand Manager - Networks, Electronic Security and Servers Alberta Cancer Board 1220 - 10405 Jasper Avenue Edmonton, AB, Canada, T5J 3N4 -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:40 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > What I am hearing and experiencing is that this isn't happening. > > No one has a goal of using IPv6. I've never gotten a budget request > approved "just to update the technology." You probably don't even know that it is happening. Did you get budget approval for your business case to upgrade some routers to Cisco 7206VXRs? If so, you have just upgraded to IPv6-capable technology. Same thing goes for Windows 2k servers. Or Mac OS/X desktops/laptops. The capability has been spreading for a while. You may not have IPv6 installed, or if installed it may not be enabled, but dealing with that issue is a lot cheaper and easier than a forklift upgrade. > It has been said that it is human nature to only respond when it's an > emergency. And when they panic and ask the technical people if they really are doomed, the techies will say, "Nah, we just need to install a software patch and do some network integration testing. Won't cost more than 10% extra on this year's budget.". > There isn't an "English" Internet or a "French" Internet. When was the last time you did a search at www.rambler.ru ? Or needed to find out how to get an Austrian visa for a resident of Ukraine http://www.ukremb.at/ ? There is a HUGE section of the Internet where the users (people who do web, IM and email) never use English, don't need to use English, and don't even know any English beyond a few words learned in school. > Besides > that goal of One Internet, the language of business is > international. There may be a center for a language, but the > Internet is a tool for global commerce too, not just expatriate clubs. That global commerce happens in Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Spanish and many other languages. English is not nearly as dominant as it seems. There are huge sections of the Internet (and global commerce) that unilingual English-speaking people are not aware of (or completely misunderstand) because they don't speak the languages. If China decided to use pure IPv6 for Internet broadband access services, most English speaking people wouldn't even notice, because English-unilinguals and Chinese unilinguals have no reason to communicate with each other. Therefore, English unilinguals do not go to Chinese sites and Chinese unilinguals never go to English sites. It is no accident that Korea and Japan are the two countries with the biggest uptake of IPv6 including for consumer connectivity. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. From alh-ietf at tndh.net Thu Mar 15 12:53:30 2007 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:53:30 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004743BA@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > Message-ID: <2d9a01c76722$760d98a0$6228c9e0$@net> Edward Lewis wrote: > At 8:37 +0000 3/15/07, wrote: > > >In my version of this thought experiment, the ARIN region quickly > >realized that roughly 90% of their infrastructure was capable of > running > >IPv6 with only a software upgrade so they did upgrade. Problem solved. > > What I am hearing and experiencing is that this isn't happening. The crisis has not occurred yet, so why would you expect any significant level of activity? > > No one has a goal of using IPv6. I've never gotten a budget request > approved "just to update the technology." No matter how trivial or > cheap, change costs something, and more significantly, represents > risk. A lot of the lessons I learned involved the introduction of > 10BaseT on a government campus, i.e., it's been a while. Have > accounting people become that much more friendly to IT? No, they have not. This is clearly a cost/benefit trade-off to the accountant. When the price on the contract from the ISP for retaining IPv4 exceeds the cost of training/testing/etc. for the IPv6 deployment, the CIO will follow the path of lowest cost to keep the accounting people at bay. Until then there will be resistance because as you note, change has a cost. For large organizations with PI space that date is likely to be far into the future, assuming they have sufficient space to accommodate growth (else they end up in the open market). The driver for them is more likely to be that their suppliers are smaller and have to live in PA space, so these suppliers will be clamoring to shift to IPv6 by claiming they will have to raise their prices to the business partner to cover their rising costs. The feedback mechanism that will drive business decisions is cost/benefit, so until the cost rises there would have to be some application of clear benefit. Those applications can't make it to market in a world that is dominated by nat, because the dev/support costs are just too high. That is why 7 years ago I put a stake in the ground and said that Windows would tunnel and create a virtual IPv6 network so that the app development community would have an environment to deploy into that was free of concerns about nat awareness & traversal. That tunnel model will persist until the service providers offer a native IPv6 path, at which point the stack will prefer the more efficient route. Tony From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Thu Mar 15 14:29:20 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:29:20 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <2d9a01c76722$760d98a0$6228c9e0$@net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004743BA@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > <2d9a01c76722$760d98a0$6228c9e0$@net> Message-ID: At 9:53 -0700 3/15/07, Tony Hain wrote: >The crisis has not occurred yet, so why would you expect any significant >level of activity? I have no expectation that there would be activity. That only means I am not in a state of frustration as I wonder what needs to be done at this point. >Until then there will be resistance because as you note, change has a cost. I used to feel that the resistance was the problem but I've learned through experience that the resistance is "right." The world doesn't live for the Internet, the Internet serves the world. I don't have a plan, I don't even care to see IPv6 come into being. But I am concerned that the global Internet, one well-connected and global data communications system, is about to hit a wall because of the shortage of addresses in IPv4. The question is what is the proper way to get IPv4 retired and something (IPv6 seems convenient) in to replace it. The resistance isn't a problem. It's a design parameter. >The feedback mechanism that will drive business decisions is cost/benefit, (Standard analogy disclaimer...analogies don't always hold to all points. And maybe the analogy doesn't apply or is misapplied.) There was a time when a bunch of us felt that the price of gasoline should reflect the cost of the pollution it engendered. If so, it would discourage it's consumption and encourage mass transit or other forms of transportation. The big problem is "what does pollution cost" and if you did collect the money, who would be empowered to spend it and how would they on big air scrubbers. Today though we have been making progress in fuel efficiency and cleaning up the atmosphere. Not that we are done, etc., but, something has bappened even though gas is still cheap, it is still cheaper to drive into the city than take the metro. What has been used is "regulation" - something that we don't use in the Internet. It's an ugly word and something we fight all the time, but maybe it there is something that can be done to move us off the still functioning IPv4 network to prevent any bifurcation of the network? 'Course, maybe after all this debate the will is to let well enough alone and deal with any upcoming crisis. Perhaps that isn't a bad strategy, but, can there seems to be energy (like what's behind the countdown proposal) that says we can do better. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Thu Mar 15 14:57:30 2007 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:57:30 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <5033E305-CB53-49F6-883A-7A85EB6C7818@virtualized.org> Message-ID: > From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:29 PM > To: Bill Darte > > > >I suspect -customers- will have to pay whatever the market > demands. > > >ISPs will undoubtedly be happy to route prefixes provided > to them by > > >their customers for a (perhaps not so) nominal fee. Of > course, this > > >implies fragmenting prefixes and a surge in the amount of > > >unaggregatable routing information being propagated back and forth > > >(whether this is a real problem depends is an interesting ongoing > > >debate). > > > > This is the real problem of the end-game IMO.... It is going to put > > added pressure on the route table and bring that very real problem > > to the fore. > > Addressing is not broken nearly as bad as routing for the future. > > It might be useful to point this out to your Friendly Neighborhood > Router Vendor. At least one large router vendor apparently believes > it is realistic to build routers that can handle millions of > routes. > Since current hardware can't (as I understand it) handle that > sort of > routing load, they should get busy... > > Rgds, > -drc > So my question for anyone to answer... What is the 'average size' assignment today? Given that.... If the legacy and oversized assignments of the past were 'sold or leased' off in the IPv4 black market.... How many new routing slots would that consume....and over how much time? MIT's /8 is conserved as a /14 or /15 for internal use...the rest is leased to the highest bidder....that kinda thing... bd From randy at psg.com Thu Mar 15 15:08:04 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:08:04 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004743BA@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > <2d9a01c76722$760d98a0$6228c9e0$@net> Message-ID: <45F99994.40608@psg.com> > I don't have a plan, I don't even care to see IPv6 come into being. > But I am concerned that the global Internet, one well-connected and > global data communications system, is about to hit a wall because of > the shortage of addresses in IPv4. The question is what is the > proper way to get IPv4 retired and something (IPv6 seems convenient) > in to replace it. not exactly. by your own view, the problem is how to keep the users of one well-connected and global internet happy moving their data. and what is gonna happen is simple o because v6-only will not let folk connect to the internet o there will be a formal market in v4 space, which will get subdivided into smaller and smaller chunks in order to meet the need that o there will be a jillion v4 nats we may or may not like it. but there is currently no viable alternative path. randy From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Mar 15 15:15:01 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:15:01 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown References: Message-ID: <01c201c7673d$31cd90d0$3b3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" >>Microsoft peers with lots of networks (especially via 8075). >>They do appear to use 3356 transit for certain prefixes but >>that may not be out of necessity, and even those prefixes are seen >>by many peers directly. >> >>They also have much more than just a single /16. > > Yes, I know. > >>Much of it is assignments made by ARIN under modern policies >>(including justification requirements). > > Ah, yes. Now, please explain how exactly ARIN continues to make > sure that these requirements are met? > > We got space allocated from ARIN a number of years ago. > Never once since then have we ever gotten a phone call from > ARIN asking to re-up our justification. Nor has anyone that I have > ever heard with space allocated. As long as you pay your bill > every year they don't talk to you. They verify the requirements are met before another assignment is made. There is an unstated assumption that nobody's requirements will ever go down substantially. That's obviously wrong, but one must balance the cost of fixing it vs the cost of not fixing it. > Perhaps one part of a "address reclamation" proposal might be > that the number registries are required to contact the address > holders once a year and get a new justification. Similar things have been proposed in the past, but it never seems to go anywhere since it's assumed most of the waste is in the pre-ARIN space and there's still no definitive answer whether ARIN has any right to revoke such assignments/allocations, nor do we have anyone paying fees on such blocks which indicates at least a minimal interest in keeping them. >>They may ask for additional space in the >>future. I have no doubts that their space is efficiently utilized. > > And there be the problem. From the Internet's point of view, if a > company like MS gets a /19 allocated and puts it ENTIRELY > behind it's own firewalls, with no access in to those addresses > from the outside, then what use is that to the Internet? Not a > damn bit. That's within policy. They're encouraged to use private space, but if they claim they can't, they can get public space. If you don't like it, and don't agree that addressing uniqueness is a Good Thing(tm), then put up a policy proposal to eliminate that policy provision and see how many people agree. Also, don't think that "behind the firewalls" means that no other company sees it. I've worked with several customers that NAT to the public network, but their private connectivity to business partners uses the real (non-RFC1918) addresses. For a company the size of Microsoft, that's a significant possibility. > If a situation develops in 5 years where ARIN is telling people they > cannot allocate any IPv4 space, while at the same time you have > large organizations like Microsoft sitting on hundreds of > thousands of IPv4 numbers that are unreachable from a > traceroute on the public Internet, I forsee a huge political outcry > that will basically destroy ARIN's authority to allocate numbers. Hardly. Someone will float a policy that reflects the new reality, and it either gets accepted or not. If not, ARIN simply won't have any numbers to allocate regardless of its authority. I think that'll be sufficient motivation to get such a policy passed when that day arrives -- but I'm not holding my breath that it'll be done before collapse is truly imminent (and by that I mean 4-5 years from now). S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Mar 15 15:28:01 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:28:01 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004743BA@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <01c301c7673d$322ceee0$3b3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake >> Imagine a day in which a lot of the network outside of the ARIN >> region is IPv6 and only ARIN is still using IPv4. We'd have a >> network ripped in half (well, not 50/50) with our region falling >> behind the rest of the world (in IPvX). > > In my version of this thought experiment, the ARIN region quickly > realized that roughly 90% of their infrastructure was capable of > running IPv6 with only a software upgrade so they did upgrade. > Problem solved. Nice thought experiment, but 99.9999% of the routers in the ARIN region (you know, all those boxes consumers and SoHos are sitting behind) don't support IPv6 and the vendors have shown absolutely no interest in adding it. Not in their new products, and certainly not in the millions of old boxes out there. And, even if it were available, how do you plan on reaching out to millions of Joe Sixpacks and Grandmas and convince them to upgrade? An IPv6 core is irrelevant if none of the endpoints can reach it. Vista finally has v6 on by default, and maybe 20% of users will have upgraded by the end of this year, but they still won't be able to reach an IPv6 router even two hops away at their ISP. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From hostmaster at dssitech.com Thu Mar 15 16:24:23 2007 From: hostmaster at dssitech.com (Jim Barstow) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:24:23 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <01c301c7673d$322ceee0$3b3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <027f01c7673f$eba30b00$64470a0a@dssitech.dssitech.com> I think that the problems from IPv6 stem from opinions like this where network operators feel that there is no reason to deploy IPv6 because equipment doesn't support it. Its more of a chicken vs. egg question. We are well aware that our IPv6 deployment is likely to take 2 or more years, thusly we have been making the preparations to announce our IPv6 space, which we will announce when the last of our peering points adds support for it. We intend to dual-stack our network and continually monitor the usage of both v4 and v6 address space until such time as we can begin phasing out the v4 space from the edge inwards. Without ever taking the time or initiative to develop a migration plan so that people have some idea of how they will be moving forward over the next couple years. There will never be support build in to the SoHo routers until there is a network to support it, so it should be on the shoulders of us, the network operators, to build the system to support the solution to many of our problems. IMHO, if you aren't taking any initiative at all, you have no room to complain about lack of space, poor allocation policies, lack of reclamation policies, etc. Just my $0.02. ------------------------------------ SmartTel Communications Jim Barstow Sr. Telecom Engineer jimb at smarttelco.com PO Box 367 22645 Canal Road Suite E Orange Beach, AL 36561 tel: (251) 224-0868 fax: (251) 224-0830 mobile: (251) 747-4913 ------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:28 PM To: michael.dillon at bt.com Cc: ARIN PPML Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Thus spake >> Imagine a day in which a lot of the network outside of the ARIN >> region is IPv6 and only ARIN is still using IPv4. We'd have a >> network ripped in half (well, not 50/50) with our region falling >> behind the rest of the world (in IPvX). > > In my version of this thought experiment, the ARIN region quickly > realized that roughly 90% of their infrastructure was capable of > running IPv6 with only a software upgrade so they did upgrade. > Problem solved. Nice thought experiment, but 99.9999% of the routers in the ARIN region (you know, all those boxes consumers and SoHos are sitting behind) don't support IPv6 and the vendors have shown absolutely no interest in adding it. Not in their new products, and certainly not in the millions of old boxes out there. And, even if it were available, how do you plan on reaching out to millions of Joe Sixpacks and Grandmas and convince them to upgrade? An IPv6 core is irrelevant if none of the endpoints can reach it. Vista finally has v6 on by default, and maybe 20% of users will have upgraded by the end of this year, but they still won't be able to reach an IPv6 router even two hops away at their ISP. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From owen at delong.com Thu Mar 15 16:43:38 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:43:38 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <01c301c7673d$322ceee0$3b3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004743BA@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <01c301c7673d$322ceee0$3b3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: On Mar 15, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Thus spake >>> Imagine a day in which a lot of the network outside of the ARIN >>> region is IPv6 and only ARIN is still using IPv4. We'd have a >>> network ripped in half (well, not 50/50) with our region falling >>> behind the rest of the world (in IPvX). >> >> In my version of this thought experiment, the ARIN region quickly >> realized that roughly 90% of their infrastructure was capable of >> running IPv6 with only a software upgrade so they did upgrade. >> Problem solved. > > Nice thought experiment, but 99.9999% of the routers in the ARIN > region (you > know, all those boxes consumers and SoHos are sitting behind) don't > support > IPv6 and the vendors have shown absolutely no interest in adding > it. Not in > their new products, and certainly not in the millions of old boxes out > there. And, even if it were available, how do you plan on reaching > out to > millions of Joe Sixpacks and Grandmas and convince them to upgrade? > Frankly, you don't need to. Almost every one of those can be "converted" to IPv6 without the user even knowing it happened. Instead of upgrading the SOHO box, in most cases, the provider can simply 6to4 NAT them at the DSLAM. > An IPv6 core is irrelevant if none of the endpoints can reach it. > Vista > finally has v6 on by default, and maybe 20% of users will have > upgraded by > the end of this year, but they still won't be able to reach an IPv6 > router > even two hops away at their ISP. > Very true. However, an IPv6 core is one of the steps necessary to resolve that. While an IPv6 core provides no immediate benefit in the scenario you describe, it is even more true that an IPv6 edge will not be widely deployed until an IPv6 core is available to connect the edge endpoints. Nobody wanted to buy a telephone handset before they could get a connection to some level of telephone network. Owen From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Thu Mar 15 16:50:50 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:50:50 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <01c301c7673d$322ceee0$3b3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: That's the magic of transition mechanisms such as Teredo. Even if the NAT/CPEs are not IPv6 capable, more and more users will start using Vista and other OSs and applications that will prefer IPv6, especially peer to peer. It simply works. More and more IPv6 traffic is there. 99% of the time, IPv6 traffic measurements only count native IPv6. That's wrong and many people is not realizing that they are transporting IPv6 already, much more than what they could believe. Why IPv6 core is relevant then ? Because if you upgrade your access and core networks, even if you don't provide native IPv6 up to the CPE, but you provide some local transition mechanisms, then transition is used only from the host behind the CPE to your network, instead of being used to third party networks, which could even mean that you can even save some transit cost if peering with other ISPs with IPv6, etc. I've prepared a presentation about this ("The cost of NOT deploying IPv6") and I'm working in a paper with concrete measurements. I'm not saying that IPv6 must be deployed all across your network from day one, but as said before, doing it on your core is typically not a big trouble. What I'm suggesting is to add some transition boxes (a Linux or Windows 2003 box with 6to4 and Teredo relays can make it) or enable transition mechanisms in existing routers, example most of the routers support 6to4 relay). By the way, talking about residential customers, I think much more than 20% get upgraded to Vista in 12-18 months (I'm not saying necessarily with a legal license, but this is different issue). Regards, Jordi > De: Stephen Sprunk > Responder a: > Fecha: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:28:01 -0500 > Para: > CC: ARIN PPML > Asunto: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > Thus spake >>> Imagine a day in which a lot of the network outside of the ARIN >>> region is IPv6 and only ARIN is still using IPv4. We'd have a >>> network ripped in half (well, not 50/50) with our region falling >>> behind the rest of the world (in IPvX). >> >> In my version of this thought experiment, the ARIN region quickly >> realized that roughly 90% of their infrastructure was capable of >> running IPv6 with only a software upgrade so they did upgrade. >> Problem solved. > > Nice thought experiment, but 99.9999% of the routers in the ARIN region (you > know, all those boxes consumers and SoHos are sitting behind) don't support > IPv6 and the vendors have shown absolutely no interest in adding it. Not in > their new products, and certainly not in the millions of old boxes out > there. And, even if it were available, how do you plan on reaching out to > millions of Joe Sixpacks and Grandmas and convince them to upgrade? > > An IPv6 core is irrelevant if none of the endpoints can reach it. Vista > finally has v6 on by default, and maybe 20% of users will have upgraded by > the end of this year, but they still won't be able to reach an IPv6 router > even two hops away at their ISP. > > S > > Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything > CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." > K5SSS --Isaac Asimov > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 15 16:54:43 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:54:43 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D8F8B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > Nice thought experiment, but 99.9999% of the routers in the > ARIN region (you > know, all those boxes consumers and SoHos are sitting behind) > don't support > IPv6 and the vendors have shown absolutely no interest in > adding it. If the boxes are based on a CPU or SOC such as ARM, MIPS, PowerPC, then the software can usually be upgraded by flashing the box. It may be a bit tricky for consumers to do, but it is NOT a forklift upgrade. These days most such boxes are based on programmable hardware, and sometimes even FPGAs. > And, even if it were available, how do you plan on > reaching out to > millions of Joe Sixpacks and Grandmas and convince them to upgrade? Cost/benefit comes into play here. How many of these have a significant capital investment in their boxes? Very few. Most of the capital investment was hidden in monthly rates that lose money for the first 12 months with an 18 month lock-in, or they are called a "setup fee". A lot of these people will simply switch to the new IPv6 service with bundled IPv6 gateway when there is something they want on the IPv6 network. These millions are not the early adopters. They will tag along when the early adopters entice them into it. > An IPv6 core is irrelevant if none of the endpoints can reach > it. Somehow I think MPLS cores are the more likely endgame. > Vista > finally has v6 on by default, and maybe 20% of users will > have upgraded by > the end of this year, but they still won't be able to reach > an IPv6 router > even two hops away at their ISP. Once upon a time Vint Cerf and friends created something called IP even though there were other perfectly good protocols around such as X.25. Back then people scratched their heads and wondered why anyone would connect to an IP network when there was no content on it. I used the X.25 Telidon service in Canada back in the early 80s, and I remember surfing to various sites all over the country with weather reports, history of the telephone (with embedded photos), tourist info and chatrooms. All of this was graphical using NAPLPS over an underlying X.25 network. I remember when I first found the Internet in 1991 and how clunky it felt in comparison. But in the end, IP won, NAPLPS is mostly just history and X.25 is more likely to be found running on some obsolete switch in a corporate basement that nobody knows how to switch off. At that time nobody could predict how and why people would migrate to IP. There were plenty of people giving hundreds of reasons why IP and the Internet was inferior. Many of those reasons were 100% right but both IP and the Internet evolved, slowly and inexorable gathering mass and momentum. IPv6 has been doing this for years now. It's not just a quaint idea on the shelf. --Michael Dillon From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Mar 15 17:42:35 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:42:35 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D8F8B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <01f401c7674a$f809c860$3b3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake >> Nice thought experiment, but 99.9999% of the routers in the >> ARIN region (you know, all those boxes consumers and >> SoHos are sitting behind) don't support IPv6 and the vendors >> have shown absolutely no interest in adding it. > > If the boxes are based on a CPU or SOC such as ARM, MIPS, > PowerPC, then the software can usually be upgraded by flashing > the box. It may be a bit tricky for consumers to do, but it is NOT > a forklift upgrade. These days most such boxes are based on > programmable hardware, and sometimes even FPGAs. It usually _possible_, yes, but first of all the vendors would have to actually release firmware updates (for all products, not just the current ones) that include IPv6. No dice so far. Enthusiasts might download replacement firmware, e.g. OpenWRT or DD-WRT, with IPv6 support but (a) that's not acceptable for the general population, and (b) even that may not be good enough -- none I've found can fit IPv6 into my 54Gv5. Heck, I can't even pass IPinIP through the box to a nearby 6to4 relay... >> And, even if it were available, how do you plan on reaching out >> to millions of Joe Sixpacks and Grandmas and convince them >> to upgrade? > > Cost/benefit comes into play here. How many of these have a > significant capital investment in their boxes? Very few. Most of > the capital investment was hidden in monthly rates that lose > money for the first 12 months with an 18 month lock-in, or they > are called a "setup fee". Or they dropped $99 at Best Buy. If it's a matter of hiding the capex in monthly rates, what motivation do the telcos/MSOs have to hide a replacement box's cost and take a hit on their very narrow profits for _another_ year? If it's a setup fee or customer-purchased item, why would a consumer want to pay another $99 to replace the box they have that's working just fine? > A lot of these people will simply switch to the new IPv6 service > with bundled IPv6 gateway when there is something they want > on the IPv6 network. There is little to nothing people care about on the "IPv6 network" that isn't also accessible via IPv4, so who's going to pay extra for a "new IPv6 service" when it gets them nothing? You might get most people upgraded to v6-capable equipment simply through customer churn, but that still requires vendors to make v6 products, which will only happen if ISPs (and retailers) actually demand it. Why add a feature nobody is asking for? I've seen lots and lots of presentations, press releases, vendor spin, etc. on why IPv6 is great for network operators, but I have yet to see anything compelling why _end users_ should care even the tiniest bit. Unless that's going to magically change, ISPs need to figure out how to upgrade users without their knowledge. > ... both IP and the Internet evolved, slowly and inexorable gathering > mass and momentum. IPv6 has been doing this for years now. It's > not just a quaint idea on the shelf. Nope. It's not even on the shelf yet; it hasn't reached the "quaint" stage after more than a decade of advocacy and development. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 15 18:24:20 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:24:20 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <2F23B9FE-8AA9-4B78-854D-DC0F56FC55EE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >David Conrad >Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:56 PM >To: alh-ietf at tndh.net >Cc: Public Policy Mailing List >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > > >I suspect ISPs, when faced with the prospect of getting not >insignificant revenue from the address space they already 'have under >their control', will quickly see the advantages of renumbering their >infrastructure with IPv6, tunneling IPv4 through IPv6, or (possibly >augmented) RFC 1918 space and using their existing non-private IPv4 >for customer NAT box interconnects. > More likely they will create 2 tiers of pricing for customers. One tier will be RFC1918 - you get as much of that as you want for free, but your "public" IP number will belong to the ISP. That means no VPN's no servers, no kazza, no gnutella, no bittorent, nothing of that stuff. The other tier will be costly - you can get a public IP address, dynamically assigned of course - but it will be more expensive. > >I'm not sure I follow this. Services would lose eyeballs if they >were IPv6-only so any IPv6-only site will need to have some mechanism >to communicate with the vast majority of the Internet that only has >IPv4. Since IPv4 will not be available (thus breaking the base >assumption of the "dual stack" transition strategy), the only option >I see is NAT. Since you're already doing NAT, why bother deploying >IPv6? > >Given inertia and your observation of human nature, it would seem a >likely outcome of the impending IPv4 free pool runout will be a vast >swamp of IPv4 NAT end points, interconnecting and interconnected with >private networks (either IPv4 tunneled through IPv6 or RFC 1918 space). > I agree with this assessment. >Blech. > Hey, it is going to keep all of us employed, so don't knock it. From the users POV they don't give a rat's ass about IP addressing so they will always go the cheapest possible. It will be fugly from the network admin's POV, but the network admins that can't hack it will find something else to do, and the rest of us will be paid the big bucks to keep the mess going. It certainly isn't any worse than dealing with shooting down spammers. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 15 18:52:27 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:52:27 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <2d9301c7671f$1eb11f80$5c135e80$@net> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Tony Hain >Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:30 AM >To: 'David Conrad' >Cc: 'Public Policy Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >David Conrad wrote: >> Tony, >> >> On Mar 14, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Tony Hain wrote: >> > I was not suggesting IPv6-only service. >> ... >> > The model I didn't do a very good job of explaining is: >> > Pool exhausts >> ... >> > Customer >> ... >> > - chooses to opt out of IPv4 to reduce cost >> >> Doesn't this mean IPv6-only (which implies IPv6-to-IPv4 NAT for the >> foreseeable future)? > >It means it is 'customer choice' to go IPv6-only, which does not imply nat. >If they see sufficient value to retain the IPv4 connectivity they pay the >price. I suspect many of them will not, which will result in not connecting >to the IPv4-only sites. THAT is rediculous. Since the total # of IPv4 addresses is very much smaller than IPv6 it is simple to build a translator that IPv6 clients and networks can use to initiate connections to an IPv4 internet. I'm sure Linksys would have something like that available for $49.95 if there ever was a need. It will be very cheap for IPv6 sites to speak IPv4 to the world. The problem is going to be corporate and organizational networks that remain IPv4 if the world switches to IPv6. Internet sites that remain IPv4 will not have a problem being connected to by either new IPv6 networks or legacy IPv4 networks so just about all sever sites will want to be dual-numbered if it comes to that. The sites that use "customer choice" to remain IPv4 will be the ones with the expense to connect to the rest of the world. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 15 19:00:36 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:00:36 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Edward Lewis >Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:29 AM >To: alh-ietf at tndh.net >Cc: ppml at arin.net; 'Edward Lewis' >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > > >There was a time when a bunch of us felt that the price of gasoline >should reflect the cost of the pollution it engendered. If so, it >would discourage it's consumption and encourage mass transit or other >forms of transportation. The big problem is "what does pollution >cost" and if you did collect the money, who would be empowered to >spend it and how would they on big air scrubbers. > >Today though we have been making progress in fuel efficiency and >cleaning up the atmosphere. Not that we are done, etc., but, >something has bappened even though gas is still cheap, it is still >cheaper to drive into the city than take the metro. What has been >used is "regulation" - something that we don't use in the Internet. > >It's an ugly word and something we fight all the time, but maybe it >there is something that can be done to move us off the still >functioning IPv4 network to prevent any bifurcation of the network? > Regulation is what happens when a problem CANNOT be solved by enough people "doing the right thing". It is the end result of a failure. For example, we don't have laws that make it a felony to "take cuts" in the line at a movie theatre because the majority of people "do the right thing" and wait their turn. Thus, no need for regulation. But we do have regulation of the electric power industry in the US because when we tried deregulating it, assuming that people would "do the right thing" we found that they would not, and we got Enron. If ARIN and the other registries do NOT "do the right thing" and get agressive about "vetting" the IP allocations, but merely continue to act as "stewards" then we will have a failure, and regulation will result. Ted From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Thu Mar 15 20:02:17 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:02:17 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <45f9de89.3bf.fc0.8679@batelnet.bs> ----- Original Message ----- From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:50:50 +0100 > That's the magic of transition mechanisms such as Teredo. > > Even if the NAT/CPEs are not IPv6 capable, more and more > users will start using Vista and other OSs and > applications that will prefer IPv6, especially peer to > peer. It simply works. More and more IPv6 traffic is > there. > > 99% of the time, IPv6 traffic measurements only count > native IPv6. That's wrong and many people is not realizing > that they are transporting IPv6 already, much more than > what they could believe. > > Why IPv6 core is relevant then ? Because if you upgrade > your access and core networks, even if you don't provide > native IPv6 up to the CPE, but you provide some local > transition mechanisms, then transition is used only from > the host behind the CPE to your network, instead of being > used to third party networks, which could even mean that > you can even save some transit cost if peering with other > ISPs with IPv6, etc. > > I've prepared a presentation about this ("The cost of NOT > deploying IPv6") and I'm working in a paper with concrete > measurements. Jordi, do you support the policy that started this thread? From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Thu Mar 15 19:23:41 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:23:41 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <45f9de89.3bf.fc0.8679@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: Hi Martin, No, I'm not in favor of this policy. I think it is unfair if I look at it from different regions perspective. Even if I'm clearly strongly in favor of IPv6 adoption, and I will like to see it happening as fast as possible, I think artificial measures aren't good. I know this may be not the main motivation for this proposal, but may be perceived as such. I'm also very concerned about anti-trust implications (I've said this already about other policies, but this belongs to another thread :-)). We are not lawyers, but I feel that when we make policies, we need to look into that part if we don't want to endanger the policy process. With this policy proposal we are calling governments and regulators to come into the RIRs business, which I think is a very bad idea. Regards, Jordi > De: Martin Hannigan > Responder a: > Fecha: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:02:17 -0400 > Para: , > Asunto: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > To: > Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:50:50 +0100 > >> That's the magic of transition mechanisms such as Teredo. >> >> Even if the NAT/CPEs are not IPv6 capable, more and more >> users will start using Vista and other OSs and >> applications that will prefer IPv6, especially peer to >> peer. It simply works. More and more IPv6 traffic is >> there. >> >> 99% of the time, IPv6 traffic measurements only count >> native IPv6. That's wrong and many people is not realizing >> that they are transporting IPv6 already, much more than >> what they could believe. >> >> Why IPv6 core is relevant then ? Because if you upgrade >> your access and core networks, even if you don't provide >> native IPv6 up to the CPE, but you provide some local >> transition mechanisms, then transition is used only from >> the host behind the CPE to your network, instead of being >> used to third party networks, which could even mean that >> you can even save some transit cost if peering with other >> ISPs with IPv6, etc. >> >> I've prepared a presentation about this ("The cost of NOT >> deploying IPv6") and I'm working in a paper with concrete >> measurements. > > > Jordi, do you support the policy that started this thread? > > > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Mar 15 20:00:38 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:00:38 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <20070315002155.GB9701@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E00473A0B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > <20070315002155.GB9701@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: Leo - You are correct, in that individuals who wish to see a global resource policy should submit identical versions to each RIR. It would be nice if the NRO web page on policy made such a statement immediately after "Any individual may submit a global proposal." /John From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 15 20:04:16 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:04:16 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D8F8B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >michael.dillon at bt.com >Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:55 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >At that time nobody could predict how and why people would migrate to >IP. There were plenty of people giving hundreds of reasons why IP and >the Internet was inferior. Many of those reasons were 100% right but >both IP and the Internet evolved, slowly and inexorable gathering mass >and momentum. IPv6 has been doing this for years now. It's not just a >quaint idea on the shelf. > Actually the entire discussion of whether or not to switch to IPv6 is academic since there's nothing else out there, other than the idea of reclaiming IPv4 addresses and conserving IPv4 space. And both of those ideas, even though I am a proponent of them, are merely stopgaps. The only future is IPv6. Ted From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Mar 15 20:18:47 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:18:47 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 4:00 PM -0700 3/15/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >If ARIN and the other registries do NOT "do the right thing" and get >agressive about "vetting" the IP allocations, but merely continue to >act as "stewards" then we will have a failure, ... Ted - I suspect that ARIN will get as aggressive about "vetting" IP allocations (new, existing, or both) as ARIN's approved Internet resource policies allow. The cool thing is that you (collective) get to actual set the policies. The downside is that there has to be an actual policy proposal before there can be any new policy... What do you propose? ARIN ask for a third-party audits of IP address usage? Perhaps company officers should actually sign & attest to the accuracy of the applications? Should ARIN partner with equipment manufacturers to insert secret hidden remote monitoring options?? There is a very wide range of possible ways that RIR's can get more aggressive in vetting new (and existing) resource allocations, but you've got to be a little more specific so that a proposal can be: 1) Written, 2) Approved, and 3) Implemented by ARIN. /John From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Mar 15 20:31:08 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:31:08 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 6:48 PM -0700 3/14/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >If ARIN makes a public statement that it is looking for proposals >to stave off the day that IPv4 allocations will run out, then >I'll be right there. "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." In accordance with the above ARIN Mission Statement, ARIN seeks policy proposals consistent with responsible management of the IPv4 address space. You may find details on how to prepare your policy proposal at: Thank you, /John John Curran Chairman, ARIN Board of Trustees From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Mar 15 20:50:19 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:50:19 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004743BA@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004743BA@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net > Message-ID: At 8:37 AM +0000 3/15/07, wrote: (> From: Edward Lewis ) > > I agree that the proposal as written is far from perfect, to say the >> least. I want to get past that, > >You cannot get past that. If this is a global policy proposal then an >identical policy must be passed by each RIR. Therefore, you can't change >the wording of this proposal to fix it. It has to be bounced from the >table. This isn't quite accurate - Global policies are adopted first in each RIR based on that RIR community's requirements. i.e. if this particular one makes it back into play, then there is no reason it shouldn't be edited as determined by the public community of the ARIN region. Of course, this does mean that the first version of a policy which is intended to be global may not match among the RIR's, but that's just fine (for an example, review the history of http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2004_8.html) Eventually, informed debate among the RIR communities and at the ASO AC will bring policies that truly need to be global into a single version. /John From drc at virtualized.org Thu Mar 15 21:04:15 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:04:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Actually the entire discussion of whether or not to switch to IPv6 is > academic since there's nothing else out there, other than the idea of > reclaiming IPv4 addresses and conserving IPv4 space. http://nutss.gforge.cis.cornell.edu/pub/ieee-nutss.pdf Rgds, -drc From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 15 21:09:28 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:09:28 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] >Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:31 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >At 6:48 PM -0700 3/14/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>If ARIN makes a public statement that it is looking for proposals >>to stave off the day that IPv4 allocations will run out, then >>I'll be right there. > >"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." > >In accordance with the above ARIN Mission Statement, >ARIN seeks policy proposals consistent with responsible >management of the IPv4 address space. > OK, John, Then please state here, is it the official position of ARIN that the definition of "responsible management of the IPv4 space" EXPLICITLY implies the following: 1) That IPv4 space means "all routable IPv4 space on the Internet" including that which has not been assigned to a number registry? 2) That ARIN has the authority to revoke either complete or partial IPv4 address assignments for reasons other than failure to pay the bill for IP registration? 3) That address assignment criteria EXCLUDES organizations that have no need of the addresses for their own network operations, or for customers that are connected to their networks? My concern is that if condition #2 isn't acceptable, that any proposal that aims to extend the life of IPv4 on the Internet is going to be quashed. Because, implicit in the idea of "IPv4 conservation" is going to be the idea that some IPv4 addresses that have been assigned in the past under certain justifiction that was valid at the time the assignment was made, are no longer being used and the justification that was used to assign them is no longer valid. I would assume as a given that any organization that has a large assignment, or series of assignments, is going to find it easier to merely continue to pay the bill then to go to the trouble of inventorying what they really are using. Also, organizations might be uncomfortable with having a large contiguous allocation broken into smaller contiguous allocations, then having an allocation out of the "middle" of the contigious allocations reassigned to someone else. In other words, any attempt to "take back" assignments from organizations that are current on their bill is going to be met with resistance even if the organization willingly admits they aren't using the numbers themselves. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 15 21:18:54 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:18:54 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] >Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:19 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting > > >At 4:00 PM -0700 3/15/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>If ARIN and the other registries do NOT "do the right thing" and get >>agressive about "vetting" the IP allocations, but merely continue to >>act as "stewards" then we will have a failure, ... > >Ted - > > I suspect that ARIN will get as aggressive about "vetting" > IP allocations (new, existing, or both) as ARIN's approved > Internet resource policies allow. The cool thing is that > you (collective) get to actual set the policies. The downside > is that there has to be an actual policy proposal before > there can be any new policy... > > What do you propose? ARIN ask for a third-party audits > of IP address usage? Perhaps company officers should > actually sign & attest to the accuracy of the applications? > Should ARIN partner with equipment manufacturers to > insert secret hidden remote monitoring options?? There > is a very wide range of possible ways that RIR's can get > more aggressive in vetting new (and existing) resource > allocations, but you've got to be a little more specific > so that a proposal can be: 1) Written, 2) Approved, and > 3) Implemented by ARIN. > I think that this should go in stages, you see. There is going to have to be a lot of work in bringing space under registry control first, obviously. But, eventually your going to have to confront the idea of how to audit. In the United States the IRS does tax audits based on a secret algorithm they use when looking at tax returns. It seems to me that such a computer program could be designed for ARIN that would read through all assignments and cough up a list of likely audit candidates. For example, if an organization has not changed a SWIP in over 5 years, that might increase it's chances of getting an IP audit. An IP audit could consist of nothing more than ARIN sending a letter to the administrative contact requesting a signed statement from the contact that the allocation is still being used. My guess is that doing some very simple things like this would likely uncover a large amount of unused space. Ted From dave at pon.net Thu Mar 15 21:22:34 2007 From: dave at pon.net (Dave) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:22:34 -0700 Subject: [ppml] REMOVE Message-ID: <293b896603794d56a27bf32d2e3ffa53.dave@pon.net> ------- Original Message ------- >From : Ted Mittelstaedt[mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] Sent : 3/15/2007 6:18:54 PM To : jcurran at istaff.org Cc : ppml at arin.net Subject : RE: Re: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting >-----Original Message----- >From: John Curran [ mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] >Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:19 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting > > >At 4:00 PM -0700 3/15/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>If ARIN and the other registries do NOT "do the right thing" and get >>agressive about "vetting" the IP allocations, but merely continue to >>act as "stewards" then we will have a failure, ... > >Ted - > > I suspect that ARIN will get as aggressive about "vetting" > IP allocations (new, existing, or both) as ARIN's approved > Internet resource policies allow. The cool thing is that > you (collective) get to actual set the policies. The downside > is that there has to be an actual policy proposal before > there can be any new policy... > > What do you propose? ARIN ask for a third-party audits > of IP address usage? Perhaps company officers should > actually sign & attest to the accuracy of the applications? > Should ARIN partner with equipment manufacturers to > insert secret hidden remote monitoring options?? There > is a very wide range of possible ways that RIR's can get > more aggressive in vetting new (and existing) resource > allocations, but you've got to be a little more specific > so that a proposal can be: 1) Written, 2) Approved, and > 3) Implemented by ARIN. > I think that this should go in stages, you see. There is going to have to be a lot of work in bringing space under registry control first, obviously. But, eventually your going to have to confront the idea of how to audit. In the United States the IRS does tax audits based on a secret algorithm they use when looking at tax returns. It seems to me that such a computer program could be designed for ARIN that would read through all assignments and cough up a list of likely audit candidates. For example, if an organization has not changed a SWIP in over 5 years, that might increase it's chances of getting an IP audit. An IP audit could consist of nothing more than ARIN sending a letter to the administrative contact requesting a signed statement from the contact that the allocation is still being used. My guess is that doing some very simple things like this would likely uncover a large amount of unused space. Ted _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 15 21:24:41 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:24:41 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] >Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 6:04 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: michael.dillon at bt.com; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> Actually the entire discussion of whether or not to switch to IPv6 is >> academic since there's nothing else out there, other than the idea of >> reclaiming IPv4 addresses and conserving IPv4 space. > >http://nutss.gforge.cis.cornell.edu/pub/ieee-nutss.pdf > You probably would not believe how much of my living comes from dealing with NAT technologies at our customer sites. I myself put one of my former employers on a FreeBSD-based NAT in 1997, before Cisco had released it in IOS. It's a great technology, but I think it should be limited to the border between "The Internet" and "the production network of an organization" Ted From jeff.knecht at springs.com Thu Mar 15 21:28:37 2007 From: jeff.knecht at springs.com (jeff.knecht at springs.com) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:28:37 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Jeff Knecht/csc/NSPRINGS is out of the office. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 03/15/2007 and will not return until 03/19/2007. If you need immediate assistance, contact Bill Fileds 803-547-1550 (bill.fields at springs.com) or Springs Support Center 803-286-3075 From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Mar 15 21:49:59 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:49:59 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 6:09 PM -0700 3/15/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > Then please state here, is it the official position of ARIN >that the definition of "responsible management of the IPv4 space" >EXPLICITLY implies the following: Getting an official position of ARIN whether a particular phrase implies your statements would require a slightly more formal process. I've opted instead to answer based on my own understanding of ARIN's mission for sake of timeliness (but feel free to contact the Board at if you need us to formally pursue the questions as asked...) >1) That IPv4 space means "all routable IPv4 space on the Internet" >including that which has not been assigned to a number registry? Yes. "Internet Protocol resources" include all IPv4 space, including that which is: - Routed on the Internet, - Not Routed on the Internet, - Routed privately - Not Routed privately - Assigned to an RIR - Not Assigned to an RIR Mind you, policies for management of IPv4 address space not yet assigned to an RIR are likely to be global in nature and hence require global policy adoption. Start with a proposal in one RIR, and repeat as necessary... >2) That ARIN has the authority to revoke either complete or partial >IPv4 address assignments for reasons other than failure to pay the >bill for IP registration? That one's easy... Yes. (ARIN RSA, section #8. ) >3) That address assignment criteria EXCLUDES organizations that >have no need of the addresses for their own network operations, >or for customers that are connected to their networks? Address assignment criteria are set by Internet Resource Policies, which in turn are set by the community. Feel free to propose a policy which matches your definition above. /John From owen at delong.com Thu Mar 15 21:52:16 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:52:16 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23629749-D1C6-416F-B4E3-AA4C1F8F238A@delong.com> > > OK, John, > > Then please state here, is it the official position of ARIN > that the definition of "responsible management of the IPv4 space" > EXPLICITLY implies the following: > ARIN's official position is that "responsible management of the IPv4 space" is whatever it is determined to be through the ARIN public policy process. This process is well documented on the website. It's also a process which can be modified if necessary. In fact, it has been modified at least once in the time I have been an active participant in ARIN. Current official policy is documented in the Number Resource Policy Manual, also available on the ARIN web site. If you don't like current policy, then, the process for requesting a change in policy is well documented as stated above. Follow it, and, propose a different policy. It will then be debated according to the process and, if there is community consensus, it will move forward and eventually become policy. > 1) That IPv4 space means "all routable IPv4 space on the Internet" > including that which has not been assigned to a number registry? > IPv4 space means the collection of 32 bit integers (when used as IP addresses). However, the portion of the IPv4 space over which ARIN provides stewardship is limited to that which has been delegated to ARIN by IANA. > 2) That ARIN has the authority to revoke either complete or partial > IPv4 address assignments for reasons other than failure to pay the > bill for IP registration? > There is no direct simple answer to that question because of the multiple categories of addresses under current ARIN stewardship. In the case of addresses issued under an ARIN Registration Services Agreement, generally, yes, there is the authority to revoke an assignment or allocation. However, this ability has never been put to a legal test and it is unclear whether ARIN could prevail in such a suit. In the case of legacy assignments and allocations, originally issued prior to the existence of ARIN, it is even less clear that ARIN has any ability to revoke them. > 3) That address assignment criteria EXCLUDES organizations that > have no need of the addresses for their own network operations, > or for customers that are connected to their networks? > The address assignment and allocation criteria do not exclude any organization. They do limit assignments and allocations to situations of documented need, as specified in the NRPM. > > > My concern is that if condition #2 isn't acceptable, that any proposal > that aims to extend the life of IPv4 on the Internet is going to be > quashed. Because, implicit in the idea of "IPv4 conservation" is > going > to be the idea that some IPv4 addresses that have been assigned in the > past under certain justifiction that was valid at the time the > assignment > was made, are no longer being used and the justification that was used > to assign them is no longer valid. > If the community comes to consensus around a policy providing for #2, then, it will be acceptable at least until such time as the courts determine otherwise. OTOH, if the community does not come to such a consensus, then, there is no policy to support such action. Currently, there is no policy to support such action. > I would assume as a given that any organization that has a large > assignment, or series of assignments, is going to find it easier to > merely continue to pay the bill then to go to the trouble of > inventorying > what they really are using. Also, organizations might be > uncomfortable > with having a large contiguous allocation broken into smaller > contiguous allocations, then having an allocation out of the "middle" > of the contigious allocations reassigned to someone else. In other > words, any attempt to "take back" assignments from organizations > that are current on their bill is going to be met with resistance > even if the organization willingly admits they aren't using the > numbers > themselves. > I would say that the number of organizations who have returned portions of very large blocks over the last 15 years would constitute empirical evidence that while your first statement may be true, it is not necessarily true that organizations always choose what is easy over what is right. I will virtually guarantee you that any attempt to take back significant legacy holdings will be met with resistance. Likely, any attempt to take back significant holdings will also be met with resistance, but, at least in that case, there is some level of plausibility that a contract exists which supports the action. Owen From maem at nic.ad.jp Thu Mar 15 23:22:21 2007 From: maem at nic.ad.jp (MAEMURA Akinori) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:22:21 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <01c201c7673d$31cd90d0$3b3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <01c201c7673d$31cd90d0$3b3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <200703161222.CBJ69765.NNBF@nic.ad.jp> Stephen and all, | > Perhaps one part of a "address reclamation" proposal might be | > that the number registries are required to contact the address | > holders once a year and get a new justification. | | Similar things have been proposed in the past, but it never seems to go | anywhere since it's assumed most of the waste is in the pre-ARIN space and | there's still no definitive answer whether ARIN has any right to revoke such | assignments/allocations, nor do we have anyone paying fees on such blocks | which indicates at least a minimal interest in keeping them. | That is one of our anticipation. If reclamation is easy enough and the amount of the IPv4 space to be reclamed could be estimated, we might have been proposed a reclamation policy first. Frankly speaking I have no idea how easy or difficult the reclamation process would be, and we were just very pessimistic. Again I want to emphasis that setting termination date is neither for unnecessary artificial stop of IPv4 address circulation but to clarify until when IP Carriers can count on the current pace of IPv4 address supply from their registry, nor assuming only IPv6 for the alternative solution but we suppose IP Carriers might choose NATed Internet as well as going to IPv6, since they are the players who are responsible for technical implementation to construct and run the Internet backbone networks. Regards, Akinori In message <01c201c7673d$31cd90d0$3b3816ac at atlanta.polycom.com> "Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown" ""Stephen Sprunk" " wrote: | Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" | >>Microsoft peers with lots of networks (especially via 8075). | >>They do appear to use 3356 transit for certain prefixes but | >>that may not be out of necessity, and even those prefixes are seen | >>by many peers directly. | >> | >>They also have much more than just a single /16. | > | > Yes, I know. | > | >>Much of it is assignments made by ARIN under modern policies | >>(including justification requirements). | > | > Ah, yes. Now, please explain how exactly ARIN continues to make | > sure that these requirements are met? | > | > We got space allocated from ARIN a number of years ago. | > Never once since then have we ever gotten a phone call from | > ARIN asking to re-up our justification. Nor has anyone that I have | > ever heard with space allocated. As long as you pay your bill | > every year they don't talk to you. | | They verify the requirements are met before another assignment is made. | There is an unstated assumption that nobody's requirements will ever go down | substantially. That's obviously wrong, but one must balance the cost of | fixing it vs the cost of not fixing it. | | > Perhaps one part of a "address reclamation" proposal might be | > that the number registries are required to contact the address | > holders once a year and get a new justification. | | Similar things have been proposed in the past, but it never seems to go | anywhere since it's assumed most of the waste is in the pre-ARIN space and | there's still no definitive answer whether ARIN has any right to revoke such | assignments/allocations, nor do we have anyone paying fees on such blocks | which indicates at least a minimal interest in keeping them. | | >>They may ask for additional space in the | >>future. I have no doubts that their space is efficiently utilized. | > | > And there be the problem. From the Internet's point of view, if a | > company like MS gets a /19 allocated and puts it ENTIRELY | > behind it's own firewalls, with no access in to those addresses | > from the outside, then what use is that to the Internet? Not a | > damn bit. | | That's within policy. They're encouraged to use private space, but if they | claim they can't, they can get public space. If you don't like it, and | don't agree that addressing uniqueness is a Good Thing(tm), then put up a | policy proposal to eliminate that policy provision and see how many people | agree. | | Also, don't think that "behind the firewalls" means that no other company | sees it. I've worked with several customers that NAT to the public network, | but their private connectivity to business partners uses the real | (non-RFC1918) addresses. For a company the size of Microsoft, that's a | significant possibility. | | > If a situation develops in 5 years where ARIN is telling people they | > cannot allocate any IPv4 space, while at the same time you have | > large organizations like Microsoft sitting on hundreds of | > thousands of IPv4 numbers that are unreachable from a | > traceroute on the public Internet, I forsee a huge political outcry | > that will basically destroy ARIN's authority to allocate numbers. | | Hardly. Someone will float a policy that reflects the new reality, and it | either gets accepted or not. If not, ARIN simply won't have any numbers to | allocate regardless of its authority. I think that'll be sufficient | motivation to get such a policy passed when that day arrives -- but I'm not | holding my breath that it'll be done before collapse is truly imminent (and | by that I mean 4-5 years from now). | | S | | Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything | CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." | K5SSS --Isaac Asimov | | | _______________________________________________ | PPML mailing list | PPML at arin.net | http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml | | From kloch at kl.net Fri Mar 16 00:44:03 2007 From: kloch at kl.net (Kevin Loch) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:44:03 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FA2093.9070000@kl.net> David Conrad wrote: > http://nutss.gforge.cis.cornell.edu/pub/ieee-nutss.pdf This suggests that automatic tunneling technologies and associated id/locator isolation would make IPv6 adoption unnecessary. I don't know about that but it does have the potential to improve routing scalability regardless of the type of address space used. Of all the routing scalability ideas that have been explored this seems the most promising to me, though not necessarily the methods outlined in that paper. It could also be sold as a feature upgrade to replace NAT, even with ordinary IPv4 space. That alone makes it worth pursuing. But if you're going to tunnel anything it might as well be v6 for the extended addressing. You could also tunnel a "2nd" fresh ipv4 space that is only valid within the tunneling system. That would sill be too limited for future needs and would also be very confusing. - Kevin From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Mar 16 06:33:11 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:33:11 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D9208@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > I would assume as a given that any organization that has a large > assignment, or series of assignments, is going to find it easier to > merely continue to pay the bill then to go to the trouble of > inventorying > what they really are using. I would assume as a given that any org with a large allocation is going to be using one of the many commercial IP Address Management systems or one of the many open-source IP Address Management systems or some home-grown application to INVENTORY the addresses that they are using. Anyone who has ever filed an application for an additional ISP allocation knows one reason why these inventory systems exist. Of course the other reason is that operators need to keep track, not only of high level allocations, but also PoP level, customer level, and device level allocations in the network. I need to know that switch X in PoP Y has 32 addresses assigned so that my capacity management systems can report when we may need to assign more addresses to it to allow adding additional edge routers to the PoP. Most network operators have to apply roughly the same processes to managing spare addresses as they apply to managing spare router slots, unused router interface cards, spare switch ports, unused patch cables, spare bandwidth on intercity circuits, spare bandwidth on corporate customer access lines, and many other things. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Mar 16 06:50:41 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:50:41 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D9261@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > My guess is that doing some very simple things like this would > likely uncover a large amount of unused space. It's easy to be suspicious and it's easy to assume the worst in other people. It's easy to guess. But it's not easy to come to consensus on public policies. When the atmosphere is poisoned with ungrounded suspicions, and unsubstantiated guesses it is even harder. The fact is that the network *IS* growing. Everybody's network is growing except for a few cases where companies are sliding towards bankruptcy. The fact of growth means more addresses are being used. This also means that if any company has some fat internally, address-wise, because of the telecom collapse, they are likely using it up as we speak. No amount of auditing will change that basic fact of growth which drives IPv4 towards exhaustion. Even the best estimates of idle addresses tucked away here and there, only suggest enough to provide a few more months growth. It is not ARIN's job to solve the IPv4 exhaustion problem. ARIN has addresses and it hands them out to people who will *USE* them. ARIN has IPv4 addresses which are becoming in short supply, and it has IPv6 addresses which are plentiful. Ask for what you want, and if ARIN has them in stock, you will get them. If ARIN's supply of IPv4 dries up, that is not an ARIN problem. However, there is one aspect of IPv4 exhaustion which does fall into ARIN's lap. That is education. ARIN could do more to publicise the fact that IPv4 supply is running low while at the same time IPv6 uptake is slow. What percentage of ARIN allocees (orgs that have a direct allocation) have also received an IPv6 direct allocation. What percentage of assignees have received an IPv6 direct assignment. ARIN can't force people to use IPv6 but it can provide more information about IPv6 uptake which will help educate people to the situation. In fact, such IPv6 uptake stats should be released by ARIN in the form of press-releases to the technology press, things like Information Week and CIO magazine. --Michael Dillon From Robert.Swain at osfhealthcare.org Fri Mar 16 09:48:43 2007 From: Robert.Swain at osfhealthcare.org (Swain, Rob E.) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:48:43 -0500 Subject: [ppml] REMOVE Message-ID: <5ADBEE0485AECC418740D922B3A18B8702721F62@pmc-pia-mx01.intranet.osfnet.org> Rob Swain Network Communications OSF Healthcare System office: 309-655-4847 email: robert.swain at osfhealthcare.org -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:19 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting At 4:00 PM -0700 3/15/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >If ARIN and the other registries do NOT "do the right thing" and get >agressive about "vetting" the IP allocations, but merely continue to >act as "stewards" then we will have a failure, ... Ted - I suspect that ARIN will get as aggressive about "vetting" IP allocations (new, existing, or both) as ARIN's approved Internet resource policies allow. The cool thing is that you (collective) get to actual set the policies. The downside is that there has to be an actual policy proposal before there can be any new policy... What do you propose? ARIN ask for a third-party audits of IP address usage? Perhaps company officers should actually sign & attest to the accuracy of the applications? Should ARIN partner with equipment manufacturers to insert secret hidden remote monitoring options?? There is a very wide range of possible ways that RIR's can get more aggressive in vetting new (and existing) resource allocations, but you've got to be a little more specific so that a proposal can be: 1) Written, 2) Approved, and 3) Implemented by ARIN. /John _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml ============================================================================== The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. Access to this message by anyone other than the addressee is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, or an agent of the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original e-mail, attachment(s), and any copies. ============================================================================== From hannigan at world.std.com Fri Mar 16 13:06:49 2007 From: hannigan at world.std.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:06:49 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D9208@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D9208@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <2d106eb50703161006h688c2d78n390b955d14479df@mail.gmail.com> On 3/16/07, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > I would assume as a given that any organization that has a large > > assignment, or series of assignments, is going to find it easier to > > merely continue to pay the bill then to go to the trouble of > > inventorying > > what they really are using. > > I would assume as a given that any org with a large allocation is going > to be using one of the many commercial IP Address Management systems or > one of the many open-source IP Address Management systems or some > home-grown application to INVENTORY the addresses It's called Excel in many cases. -M< From kkargel at polartel.com Fri Mar 16 13:58:32 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:58:32 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <45F99994.40608@psg.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706CF6@mail> First I feel I need to jump in and say we are all underestimating the resourcefulness of the internet user. OK, I admit I'm an old fart and that when I started in the internet you had to solder your own modem and beg or bribe a professor or a scientist for dial-up access at 128 baud. At that time there was no IANA, no ARIN, not even any concept like DNS but people figured out how to communicate, even if they had to type the routing tables in by hand every time they turned the computer on. The internet is hard and fastly integrated in to most peoples way of life. Society needs it. The internet is not going away, no matter what. People WILL find a way to have internet. I agree there will undoubtedly be "a jillion v4 nats".. but people will learn to deal with it. Routing tables will be huge.. people will find a way to pay for the hardware to handle it.. Re-sale of IPV4 space will happen, unless ARIN see's fit to break things down to /28 or smaller allocations.. I don't see that happening. The centralized admin overhead would be enormous. Regardless, when IPV4 routing becomes a valuable commodity people will find a way to profit by it. IPV6 only networks will be able to connect to the internet. Some enterprising company will figure out a way to offer a commercial IPv6-IPv4 gateway to non-IPv4 networks and make a profit from it. As with all times of crisis someone will figure out how to solve the problem and make a profit from it. Kevin $s/worry/happy,g > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Randy Bush > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:08 PM > To: Edward Lewis > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > > I don't have a plan, I don't even care to see IPv6 come into being. > > But I am concerned that the global Internet, one well-connected and > > global data communications system, is about to hit a wall > because of > > the shortage of addresses in IPv4. The question is what is > the proper > > way to get IPv4 retired and something (IPv6 seems convenient) in to > > replace it. > > not exactly. by your own view, the problem is how to keep > the users of one well-connected and global internet happy > moving their data. and what is gonna happen is simple > o because v6-only will not let folk connect to the internet > o there will be a formal market in v4 space, which will get > subdivided > into smaller and smaller chunks in order to meet the need that > o there will be a jillion v4 nats > > we may or may not like it. but there is currently no viable > alternative path. > > randy > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 16 15:33:14 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:33:14 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <23629749-D1C6-416F-B4E3-AA4C1F8F238A@delong.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 6:52 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: John Curran; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > >> 1) That IPv4 space means "all routable IPv4 space on the Internet" >> including that which has not been assigned to a number registry? >> >IPv4 space means the collection of 32 bit integers (when used as >IP addresses). However, the portion of the IPv4 space over which >ARIN provides stewardship is limited to that which has been delegated >to ARIN by IANA. Well, Owen, it looks like you and John have differing ideas about that. Check his response out to this question. >> 2) That ARIN has the authority to revoke either complete or partial >> IPv4 address assignments for reasons other than failure to pay the >> bill for IP registration? >> >There is no direct simple answer to that question because of the >multiple >categories of addresses under current ARIN stewardship. In the case >of addresses issued under an ARIN Registration Services Agreement, >generally, yes, there is the authority to revoke an assignment or >allocation. However, this ability has never been put to a legal test >and it is unclear whether ARIN could prevail in such a suit. Once more you and John differ. I would tend to side with John here anyway, because to get assigned addresses the organization must agree to a contract. Thus it is a simple contract violation, courts have been dealing with these for years. > In the >case >of legacy assignments and allocations, originally issued prior to the >existence of ARIN, it is even less clear that ARIN has any ability to >revoke them. If ARIN's charter is responsible stewardship of IPv4 space and IPv4 space is defined to be all space even that not assigned to an RIR then it seems to me that there is an issue there. But, this is the heart of the issue of IPv4 conservation - unless IPv4 space issued prior to the RIR's is brought under control of an RIR then there is no way to fairly allocate IPv4 space, once it becomes constricted. >> >> >> My concern is that if condition #2 isn't acceptable, that any proposal >> that aims to extend the life of IPv4 on the Internet is going to be >> quashed. Because, implicit in the idea of "IPv4 conservation" is >> going >> to be the idea that some IPv4 addresses that have been assigned in the >> past under certain justifiction that was valid at the time the >> assignment >> was made, are no longer being used and the justification that was used >> to assign them is no longer valid. >> >If the community comes to consensus around a policy providing for >#2, then, it will be acceptable at least until such time as the courts >determine otherwise. OTOH, if the community does not come to such >a consensus, then, there is no policy to support such action. > >Currently, there is no policy to support such action. > Exactly, and this issue must be faced squarely or we are just wasting our time on the whole issue of extending the life of IPv4 on the Internet. >> I would assume as a given that any organization that has a large >> assignment, or series of assignments, is going to find it easier to >> merely continue to pay the bill then to go to the trouble of >> inventorying >> what they really are using. Also, organizations might be >> uncomfortable >> with having a large contiguous allocation broken into smaller >> contiguous allocations, then having an allocation out of the "middle" >> of the contigious allocations reassigned to someone else. In other >> words, any attempt to "take back" assignments from organizations >> that are current on their bill is going to be met with resistance >> even if the organization willingly admits they aren't using the >> numbers >> themselves. >> >I would say that the number of organizations who have returned >portions of very large blocks over the last 15 years would constitute >empirical evidence that while your first statement may be true, it >is not necessarily true that organizations always choose what is >easy over what is right. > >I will virtually guarantee you that any attempt to take back significant >legacy holdings will be met with resistance. Likely, any attempt to >take back significant holdings will also be met with resistance, but, >at least in that case, there is some level of plausibility that a >contract >exists which supports the action. > This is also an issue that must be faced squarely. Any plan to extend use of IPv4 past the actual end of allocatable blocks of numbers must deal with the mechanism of finding and obtaining previously-allocated blocks that are now unused. Because there isn't going to be anywhere else to get the IP space from. The central issue is this: Are we going to allow it to become a free market with blocks of unused space being traded, and the RIR's merely presiding over a hog auction? Or do we say that with a constricted resource that is an abstract idea, that it is unfair for some organizations to be making profits off blocks of numbers that they have no use for? It seems to me that the current allocation scheme is fundamentally based on the concept of need of addresses for your own use. That is, if I need addresses for my network, and I can demonstrate this need, then I will get them. It is not based on the idea that I need a chunk of addresses so I can turn around and make a lot of money selling them to someone who really does need them. ISP's for example, when they assign an IP address to a customer, if the customer quits service, the IP address stays with the ISP. This is a morality question of sorts. In the history of human endeavor the idea has always existed that abstract ideas belong to humanity as a whole, while it is OK for concrete resources that people need to belong to a single individual who then can get money for their foresight in acquiring and developing the concrete resource. For example a drug company makes up a new drug formula that saves lives. That is an abstract idea. The patent system exists to allow the company to make a profit for a resonable period of time. But once that patent time has expired then the abstract idea, the new knowledge of how to make the drug, now belongs to humanity as a whole. Or for another example, a singer writes a song. The recording of the song is once more an abstract idea. After a reasonable copyright period the abstract idea now belongs to the world. By contrast, someone discovers oil on their property. No law exists that says they have to give up this concrete resource to humanity after any amount of time. IP addresses are abstractions. In my view, the concept of IP addressing was first defined in BSD UNIX many years ago. It is long, long, long since any patent period would have expired. Thus, these are abstractions that belong to humanity as a whole. Thus the idea is that fundamentally, any idea of creating a free market of IP addresses being bought and sold, is tanasmount to patenting the Christian idea of "do unto others" or it is tansamount to issuing a copyright on "the happy birthday song" Some others may argue that IP addressing is a concrete resource and it is permitted for it to be bought and sold. I'd like to see arguments for that idea. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 16 15:55:42 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:55:42 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706CF6@mail> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Kevin Kargel >Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:59 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >First I feel I need to jump in and say we are all underestimating the >resourcefulness of the internet user. OK, I admit I'm an old fart and >that when I started in the internet you had to solder your own modem and >beg or bribe a professor or a scientist for dial-up access at 128 baud. >At that time there was no IANA, no ARIN, not even any concept like DNS >but people figured out how to communicate, even if they had to type the >routing tables in by hand every time they turned the computer on. > >The internet is hard and fastly integrated in to most peoples way of >life. Society needs it. The internet is not going away, no matter >what. People WILL find a way to have internet. > >I agree there will undoubtedly be "a jillion v4 nats".. but people will >learn to deal with it. >Routing tables will be huge.. people will find a way to pay for the >hardware to handle it.. > >Re-sale of IPV4 space will happen, unless ARIN see's fit to break things >down to /28 or smaller allocations.. I don't see that happening. The >centralized admin overhead would be enormous. Regardless, when IPV4 >routing becomes a valuable commodity people will find a way to profit by >it. > >IPV6 only networks will be able to connect to the internet. Some >enterprising company will figure out a way to offer a commercial >IPv6-IPv4 gateway to non-IPv4 networks and make a profit from it. > >As with all times of crisis someone will figure out how to solve the >problem and make a profit from it. > You are correct that if NO planning is done that people will use their resources to find a way around the problem. When gasoline prices went up a lot of people in US cities started riding mopeds and scooters to work. The question though is that do we really want to live with the kind of ad-hoc bandaids that will be created by people's own resourcefulness, or do we want to take easy steps now so that we can avoid a lot of these bandaids later? In the US we still do not know now if the increase in scooter riding has greatly increased the number of fatal accidents and so on. It may very well be that when you look at increased motorcycle and scooter riding, particularly by casual riders who are only doing it to save money on gasoline, that the costs to society for dealing with the afteraffects of increased fatalities exceed the individual fuel savings. Particularly as it has been shown that when the cost of gas drops people simply drive more miles, thus the savings they get are cancelled out by the increased number of gallons they buy. If we have a plan going forward we can do some work in advance to avoid problems. If we do nothing going forward we do not know what will result, and thus it is simply impossible to know if a particular decision (such as selling NAT technologies) will have bad side effects later on or not. I invite you to look at the mess in Southern California to see what the effects of not doing land use planning in advance will produce. The majority of people living there today wish that land use planning had gone into effect 60 years ago. But today it's too late since everything is all built up, and introducing land planning today will create far more problems than it would solve, and you would not see any benefits for a century. Ted From lsc at prgmr.com Fri Mar 16 15:56:10 2007 From: lsc at prgmr.com (Luke S. Crawford) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:56:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706CF6@mail> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706CF6@mail> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Kevin Kargel wrote: > First I feel I need to jump in and say we are all underestimating the > resourcefulness of the internet user. OK, I admit I'm an old fart and > that when I started in the internet you had to solder your own modem and > beg or bribe a professor or a scientist for dial-up access at 128 baud. > At that time there was no IANA, no ARIN, not even any concept like DNS > but people figured out how to communicate, even if they had to type the > routing tables in by hand every time they turned the computer on. I don't think anyone is saying that the Internet is going to go away. Even if we go to "nat hell" the Internet will still mostly work. We will find a way, even if it involves duct tape, bondo and bailing wire. The discussion here is not "how do we keep the Internet from going away?" but "what do we want the Internet to look like 5 years from now?" More and more we are moving towards a 2 tier system where 'servers' are on the real Internet (with routable IPv4 addresses) and 'clients' are on the nat Internet, where they can make [some] outgoing connections, but they can not serve content with any degree of reliability. Also I believe 'nat hell' will prove much more expensive, in the long term (though cheaper in the short term) than a switch to IPv6, as there is significant ongoing complexity cost. Being as I'm positioned to keep (and rent out) [virtual] servers on public IPv4 space, and as I'm also in a position to get paid to maintain the expensive and more complex "nat hell" I'm not complaining too loudly about the way things are going. Long-term, the status quo will likely make me more money than a simpler, more flat IPv6 Internet. And really, I think even from a "Internet health" perspective, keeping vulnerable windows boxes on a 'second class Internet' might be good for all involved. This IPv6 push, I think, is mostly run by far-sighted individuals that would prefer the flatter, more egalitarian Internet where everyone has a publically accessible IP address; where clients can be servers. This is Internet gives me warm fuzzies, and it allows for simple design of some interesting distributed applications. I think most of us agree it is better than 'nat hell' that we are currently headed towards. As for the proposal at hand, I think a "dead date" without price increases is a bad idea. If I wanted to spend another $400/month on power, I could drag the servers in my bedroom down to the datacenter, and sell an entire /22 worth of 40Mb virtual private servers. My point is that the temptation to homestead would be overwhelming, even for those of us trying to be responsible Internet citizens. a solution that would avoid homesteading could be to set up a parabolic increase in price. Say, double the price of IPv4 allocations every 6 months. I imagine my provider would start charging me immediately for my [currently free] ip addresses. Of course, I would pass those costs on to my customers, and maybe even offer free IPv6 addresses, such that a customer could get a significant discount by using a IPv6-only VPS. I imagine those would sell poorly at first, but after a year or two of price increases, IPv6 with tunnels to the IPv4 world would start to look pretty good. From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 16 16:12:22 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:12:22 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D9261@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >michael.dillon at bt.com >Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 3:51 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting > > > >> My guess is that doing some very simple things like this would >> likely uncover a large amount of unused space. > >It's easy to be suspicious and it's easy to assume the worst in other >people. It's easy to guess. But it's not easy to come to consensus on >public policies. > It's easy to be optimistic and it's easy to assume the best in other people. It's easy to guess. But I agree it's not easy to come to consensus on public policies. >When the atmosphere is poisoned with ungrounded suspicions, and >unsubstantiated guesses it is even harder. > One bad apple will spoil a barrel. If you have a group of 100 people, 99 of whom are law abiding citizens, and 1 of whom is a criminal, that single criminal can do more monetary damage by theft in a year than the other 99 can make in an honest salary in a year. People that make arguments like you are doing here are using an old trick, you don't like a policy so you act like the instigation of the policy is somehow a personal insult to everyone, or somehow means the policymaker assumes everyone is a criminal. Then you use that straw man to argue the policy should never be put into place. Bullshit on that. >The fact is that the network *IS* growing. Everybody's network is >growing except for a few cases where companies are sliding towards >bankruptcy. The fact of growth means more addresses are being used. This >also means that if any company has some fat internally, address-wise, >because of the telecom collapse, they are likely using it up as we >speak. > >No amount of auditing will change that basic fact of growth which drives >IPv4 towards exhaustion. WRONG! What drives IPv4 towards exhaustion is UTILIZATION of routable numbers, NOT GROWTH. These are two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. If I add 10,000 users to the Internet behind a proxy server I have NOT increased IP utilization on the Internet by 10,000 numbers. >Even the best estimates of idle addresses >tucked away here and there, only suggest enough to provide a few more >months growth. > estimates are baloney until you take some action to try to prove them out. >It is not ARIN's job to solve the IPv4 exhaustion problem. If it is within ARIN's power to alleviate IPv4 exhaustion then I think it is an abrogation of their stewardship if they do nothing. >ARIN has >addresses and it hands them out to people who will *USE* them. ARIN has >IPv4 addresses which are becoming in short supply, and it has IPv6 >addresses which are plentiful. Ask for what you want, and if ARIN has >them in stock, you will get them. If ARIN's supply of IPv4 dries up, >that is not an ARIN problem. > Yes it is if the drying up happens faster due to ARIN's actions. >However, there is one aspect of IPv4 exhaustion which does fall into >ARIN's lap. That is education. ARIN could do more to publicise the fact >that IPv4 supply is running low while at the same time IPv6 uptake is >slow. The very first operating system that Microsoft released with a SUPPORTED IPv6 stack in it was Windows Vista. This is probably the biggest single reason for the slowness of IPv6 adoption. The IPv6 stacks available for XP and 2000 were experimental, which means if you had any kind of networking problem on your production network, you had to uninstall them before getting any MS support. That kind of puts a damper on things. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 16 16:17:44 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:17:44 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Luke S. Crawford >Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:56 PM >To: Kevin Kargel >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > > >a solution that would avoid homesteading could be to set up a parabolic >increase in price. Say, double the price of IPv4 allocations every 6 >months. I imagine my provider would start charging me immediately for >my [currently free] ip addresses. Of course, I would pass those costs on >to my customers, and maybe even offer free IPv6 addresses, such that a >customer could get a significant discount by using a IPv6-only VPS. I >imagine those would sell poorly at first, but after a year or two of >price increases, IPv6 with tunnels to the IPv4 world would start to look >pretty good. The problem with this is that any of your competitors who have large blocks of unused space, are simply going to field those cheaper addresses and put you out of business. Or if they are a lot bigger than you they are going to subsidize the newer more expensive IP numbers they get, and still undercut you. Then once your bankrupt, they will jack prices up. This is what the cable companies did to a lot of smaller DSL providers. If the Internet turns into a place where only the enormous deep pockets can play, it will kill all the innovation on it and eventually the customers will not be attracted to anything on it and will leave. Is that what you want? It isn't what I want. Ted From stephen at sprunk.org Fri Mar 16 16:21:54 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:21:54 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown References: Message-ID: <011301c76808$ff90df60$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" >>IPv4 space means the collection of 32 bit integers (when used >>as IP addresses). However, the portion of the IPv4 space over >>which ARIN provides stewardship is limited to that which has >>been delegated to ARIN by IANA. > > Well, Owen, it looks like you and John have differing ideas about > that. Check his response out to this question. I see no disagreement. You are quibbling, I think, over some assignments/allocations made directly by IANA or InterNIC, which have since been handed over to ARIN to maintain. ARIN does provide stewardship for that space, though the terms it's done on are a bit different. >>There is no direct simple answer to that question because of the >>multiplecategories of addresses under current ARIN stewardship. >>In the case of addresses issued under an ARIN Registration >>Services Agreement, generally, yes, there is the authority to >>revoke an assignment or allocation. However, this ability has >>never been put to a legal test and it is unclear whether ARIN >> could prevail in such a suit. > > Once more you and John differ. I would tend to side with John here > anyway, because to get assigned addresses the organization must > agree to a contract. Thus it is a simple contract violation, courts > have been dealing with these for years. Nothing is simple when lawyers get involved, and this sort of contract is novel in a variety of ways, so until it's been tested in court, we really don't know how enforceable it is. Courts throw out contracts all the time for various reasons; anti-trust issues in particular are of serious concern to RIRs. Unfortunately, for now ARIN is in a much better position using the carrot than the stick. >>In the case of legacy assignments and allocations, originally >>issued prior to the existence of ARIN, it is even less clear that >>ARIN has any ability to revoke them. > > If ARIN's charter is responsible stewardship of IPv4 space and IPv4 > space is defined to be all space even that not assigned to an RIR > then it seems to me that there is an issue there. But, this is the > heart of the issue of IPv4 conservation - unless IPv4 space issued > prior to the RIR's is brought under control of an RIR then there is > no way to fairly allocate IPv4 space, once it becomes constricted. All of the address space is either reserved or assigned to an RIR. The issue is that legacy assignees/allocees(?) are not bound by any contract with their respective RIR that dictates the terms of that relationship. In theory, since there's no contract ARIN has no legal obligation to maintain those registrations, but the community has, to date, felt that there is a moral obligation to maintain them at no cost. Again, if you disagree, submit a policy proposal and we'll see if things have changed. I doubt it, though. >>Currently, there is no policy to support such action. > > Exactly, and this issue must be faced squarely or we are just wasting > our time on the whole issue of extending the life of IPv4 on the > Internet. Then quit arguing about it and submit a policy proposal. > This is also an issue that must be faced squarely. Any plan to > extend use of IPv4 past the actual end of allocatable blocks of > numbers must deal with the mechanism of finding and obtaining > previously-allocated blocks that are now unused. Because there > isn't going to be anywhere else to get the IP space from. Do note that the projections for how long address-reclamation efforts will extend the exhaustion are on the order of six months. That means it'll take us longer to reach consensus and implement the changes than the period of time we'll buy by doing so, meaning we're better off _not_ doing it and instead spending our time figuring out how to get people on IPv6. > IP addresses are abstractions. In my view, the concept of IP > addressing was first defined in BSD UNIX many years ago. ... Hardly. You really need to read your history... S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Mar 16 16:27:10 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:27:10 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:12 PM -0700 3/16/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >Yes it is if the drying up happens faster due to ARIN's actions. *You* are ARIN, so please take action. (Policy Proposals welcome) /John From lsc at prgmr.com Fri Mar 16 16:29:51 2007 From: lsc at prgmr.com (Luke S. Crawford) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > The problem with this is that any of your competitors who have large > blocks of unused space, are simply going to field those cheaper addresses > and put you out of business. Or if they are a lot bigger than you they are > going to subsidize the newer more expensive IP numbers they get, and still > undercut you. Then once your bankrupt, they will jack prices up. This > is what the cable companies did to a lot of smaller DSL providers. I was proposing that the price would be jacked up on all renewals as well as all new allocations. Otherwise, you are correct, the proposal helps not at all. (It is possible that ARIN's contracts prevent jacking up the price on renewals... in which case, my proposal was badly-researched and unworkable.) From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 16 16:38:42 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:38:42 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <011301c76808$ff90df60$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org] >Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:22 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Owen DeLong >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >Nothing is simple when lawyers get involved, and this sort of contract is >novel in a variety of ways, so until it's been tested in court, we really >don't know how enforceable it is. OK so according to this logic since no contract is really valid until it's tested in a court, there is no point for businesses to bother to sign contracts with each other because none of those contracts have been tested in court and so are bogus anyway. Or better yet, businesses should sign contracts then immediately break them so they can go to court and have the court rule if the contract is valid or not so they can know if it's OK to break it. You have been watching too much LA Law on television. > Courts throw out contracts all the time >for various reasons; anti-trust issues in particular are of >serious concern >to RIRs. Unfortunately, for now ARIN is in a much better position >using the >carrot than the stick. > You must have never trained a puppy, the carrot is far more effective if accompanied by the stick as well. >>>In the case of legacy assignments and allocations, originally >>>issued prior to the existence of ARIN, it is even less clear that >>>ARIN has any ability to revoke them. >> >> If ARIN's charter is responsible stewardship of IPv4 space and IPv4 >> space is defined to be all space even that not assigned to an RIR >> then it seems to me that there is an issue there. But, this is the >> heart of the issue of IPv4 conservation - unless IPv4 space issued >> prior to the RIR's is brought under control of an RIR then there is >> no way to fairly allocate IPv4 space, once it becomes constricted. > >All of the address space is either reserved or assigned to an RIR. The >issue is that legacy assignees/allocees(?) are not bound by any contract >with their respective RIR that dictates the terms of that relationship. > >In theory, since there's no contract ARIN has no legal obligation to >maintain those registrations, but the community has, to date, felt that >there is a moral obligation to maintain them at no cost. What exactly do you think "maintaining" something means? OK, I'll capitulate. I agree with you that ARIN should initiate processes to reclaim IP addresses from non-contracted address space because to not do this would mean that they are failing in their duties to maintain such space. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, I am sorry to say. >> >> Exactly, and this issue must be faced squarely or we are just wasting >> our time on the whole issue of extending the life of IPv4 on the >> Internet. > >Then quit arguing about it and submit a policy proposal. > Someone was complaining a few days ago about policies written wth no input. Now your wanting policies written with no input. I guess there is no satisfying people. >> This is also an issue that must be faced squarely. Any plan to >> extend use of IPv4 past the actual end of allocatable blocks of >> numbers must deal with the mechanism of finding and obtaining >> previously-allocated blocks that are now unused. Because there >> isn't going to be anywhere else to get the IP space from. > >Do note that the projections for how long address-reclamation efforts will >extend the exhaustion are on the order of six months. That means >it'll take >us longer to reach consensus and implement the changes than the period of >time we'll buy by doing so, meaning we're better off _not_ doing it and >instead spending our time figuring out how to get people on IPv6. > Ah, now the truth comes out. You want IPv6 and are happy to see reclamation efforts on IPv4 fail so it hastens the day for IPv6. So you will be happy to continue to throw up silly objections to keep the pot boiling. Interesting how the proponents of IPv6 say 6 months. Do you think there's a connection? Nahhhhh! Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 16 16:40:05 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:40:05 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] >Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:27 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting > > >At 1:12 PM -0700 3/16/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >>Yes it is if the drying up happens faster due to ARIN's actions. > >*You* are ARIN, so please take action. > >(Policy Proposals welcome) > Let's have just a bit of discussion first, shall we? Or is the aim of this to get a half-baked policy submitted so it can be rejected? Ted From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Mar 16 16:55:25 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:55:25 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:40 PM -0700 3/16/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > >(Policy Proposals welcome) > >Let's have just a bit of discussion first, shall we? Or is the >aim of this to get a half-baked policy submitted so it can be >rejected? Feel free to have as much discussion as possible... I just note that a specific proposal can really focus discussion. /John From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 16 17:05:15 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:05:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Luke S. Crawford [mailto:lsc at prgmr.com] >Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:30 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> The problem with this is that any of your competitors who have large >> blocks of unused space, are simply going to field those cheaper addresses >> and put you out of business. Or if they are a lot bigger than >you they are >> going to subsidize the newer more expensive IP numbers they get, >and still >> undercut you. Then once your bankrupt, they will jack prices up. This >> is what the cable companies did to a lot of smaller DSL providers. > >I was proposing that the price would be jacked up on all renewals as well >as all new allocations. Otherwise, you are correct, the proposal helps >not at all. (It is possible that ARIN's contracts prevent jacking up the >price on renewals... in which case, my proposal was badly-researched and >unworkable.) ARIN's contracts do not prevent jacking up the fees. The problem is that so far ARIN's policies say that the fees cover the cost of maintaining allocation information. This assumes that ARIN cannot use fees as a tool to modify address consumption - although the fact that ARIN has maintained a wavier of IPv6 fees is basically an attempt to use fees as a tool to modify address consumption. Since ARIN is a non-profit, if it raises fees in order to modify how organizations consume addresses, you then have a situation where ARIN is now a profit-making organization. (or you have to find something to spend all the additional money on) If it's a profit-making company you then cannot disallow other profit-making companies from selling IP addresses. Basically the end result of all of this is that it is difficult to make lots of ARIN fee changes in order to attempt to enforce policy. It's not impossible, but it is difficult. And certainly, the fee changes that you can make will not be significant enough to modify the behavior of most organizations with large allocations. The best way to approach fees is to make other policy changes then let ARIN decide what to do about the fees. For example if we all voted to have ARIN become more agressive about retiring abandonded IPv4 blocks then ARIN would have to hire more people to do this which would increase their costs, they could then thus raise IPv4 fees. Whether they would actually raise just IPv4 fees or raise all fees is anyone's guess. Ted From johnf at packetworks.net Fri Mar 16 17:27:22 2007 From: johnf at packetworks.net (johnf at packetworks.net) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:27:22 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Remove In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:25 PM To: David Conrad Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown >-----Original Message----- >From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] >Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 6:04 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: michael.dillon at bt.com; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> Actually the entire discussion of whether or not to switch to IPv6 is >> academic since there's nothing else out there, other than the idea of >> reclaiming IPv4 addresses and conserving IPv4 space. > >http://nutss.gforge.cis.cornell.edu/pub/ieee-nutss.pdf > You probably would not believe how much of my living comes from dealing with NAT technologies at our customer sites. I myself put one of my former employers on a FreeBSD-based NAT in 1997, before Cisco had released it in IOS. It's a great technology, but I think it should be limited to the border between "The Internet" and "the production network of an organization" Ted _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From randy at psg.com Fri Mar 16 17:16:54 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:16:54 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Remove In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FB0946.1050202@psg.com> >> http://nutss.gforge.cis.cornell.edu/pub/ieee-nutss.pdf > You probably would not believe how much of my living comes from > dealing with NAT technologies at our customer sites. I myself > put one of my former employers on a FreeBSD-based NAT in 1997, > before Cisco had released it in IOS. It's a great technology, but > I think it should be limited to the border between "The Internet" > and "the production network of an organization" i believe that is what paul was proposing. think of a world where the bgp routing table is all /32s and each one is an end site. randy From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Mar 16 17:20:36 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:20:36 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D98D0@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > In the US we still do not know now if the increase in scooter > riding has > greatly increased the number of fatal accidents and so on. It has here in London. One type is the scooter or bike rider who slams into a lorry turning left in front of him. Translated, that means a scooter or motorcycle rider who slams into a truck turning right in front of them. Another type is the pedestrian who crosses the street in slow traffic and doesn't look right before stepping PAST the car to their right. Translated, pedestrian who crosses in slow traffic and before stepping PAST the car to their left they don't check for a fast scooter and get hit. And then there are the scooter purse/bag snatchers. When they started charging 5 quid a day (now up to 8 pounds a day) to drive a car in Central London, nobody predicted these effects. They also didn't predict that people would go to France, steal someone's licence plates, come back home and use these foreign plates to avoid paying the 8 pound fees. However, all these urban issues are different from what we face with IPv4 wind-down. Any US city that cares to can look at London's experience and learn from it. Urban issues tend to be like that, i.e. a few pioneers and many followers and adapters. But IPv4 wind-down is a global issue. There is only one chance to do the right thing and no chance to correct mistakes. Fortunately, IPv6 exists as a sort of plan B in case of any screw-ups with IPv4. Most people don't understand IP addressing very well. There is too much talking and thinking as if these addresses are substantial things that you can buy, own, sell, etc. In fact, they are so unsubstantial that you can manufacture them as needed using tools such as NAPT. A single IP address on the NAPT gateway can thus serve many manufactured IP addresses on your network. Although it is customary to use 10/8 for the manufactured addresses, you can generally get away with selecting them at random. There is nothing to stop you from using addresses that are registered to other companies in ARIN's database. A few years ago I worked for a company that built a global IP network using addresses ranging from 1/8 to 7/8. They didn't even bother supporting CIDR on this network and nobody ever tried to stop them from doing this. More recently they started using 126/8 addresses. Recently this /8 was allocated to a Japanese company but since the folks who "borrowed" 126/8 don't need to talk to customers of this Japanese broadband provider, they will continue to use 126/8. That's just my own personal and rather limited experience. I'm sure that others, especially those whose work involves consulting for many other companies, are aware of many more such situations. Another area where IETF technology supports IP address manufacturing is MPLS VPNs. Have a look at RFC 2547 section 4.1. Maybe I should say that manufacturing IPv4 addresses leveraging tools like NAPT and RFC 2547 VPNs is plan B, and IPv6 is plan C. And then there is the Application Layer Gateway. Back in 1995 when I hooked my home up to my first 24/7 Internet connection, it was a FreeBSD server running the TIS firewalls toolkit. This was an application layer gateway which means that for each application wanting to communicate there was a proxy which would actually pass the data through. For instance it would emulate a web server when talking to my browser and manage its own connection to the real web server as an emulated client. In effect, the IP addresses of my home network were not used at all on the Internet. This concept can also be used to allow hosts on an IPv6 network to communicate with an IPv4 network. For that matter, if you care to program it, this technique could also allow Apple Localtalk connected hosts to communicate with the Internet. I remember setting up something like this on that gateway many years ago. So in reality, NAPT and MPLS VPNs are the plan B, ALGs are the plan C and pure IPv6 is actually only plan D. With so many safety valves, what is the point in doing anything different while the IPv4 address space winds down? --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Mar 16 17:22:30 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:22:30 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D98D2@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > Sent: 16 March 2007 20:18 > To: Luke S. Crawford; Kevin Kargel > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On > Behalf Of > >Luke S. Crawford > >Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:56 PM > >To: Kevin Kargel > >Cc: ppml at arin.net > >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > > > > > > >a solution that would avoid homesteading could be to set up > a parabolic > >increase in price. Say, double the price of IPv4 > allocations every 6 > >months. I imagine my provider would start charging me > immediately for > >my [currently free] ip addresses. Of course, I would pass > those costs on > >to my customers, and maybe even offer free IPv6 addresses, > such that a > >customer could get a significant discount by using a > IPv6-only VPS. I > >imagine those would sell poorly at first, but after a year or two of > >price increases, IPv6 with tunnels to the IPv4 world would > start to look > >pretty good. > > The problem with this is that any of your competitors who have large > blocks of unused space, are simply going to field those > cheaper addresses > and put you out of business. Or if they are a lot bigger > than you they are > going to subsidize the newer more expensive IP numbers they > get, and still > undercut you. Then once your bankrupt, they will jack prices > up. This > is what the cable companies did to a lot of smaller DSL providers. > > If the Internet turns into a place where only the enormous > deep pockets > can play, it will kill all the innovation on it and > eventually the customers > will not be attracted to anything on it and will leave. Is > that what you > want? It isn't what I want. > > Ted > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Mar 16 17:25:24 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:25:24 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D98D3@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > The problem with this is that any of your competitors who have large > blocks of unused space, are simply going to field those > cheaper addresses > and put you out of business. That's why it will be hard to find anyone willing to pay a high enough price for IPv4 addresses to make it worthwhile for the seller to bother putting the addresses on the market. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Mar 16 17:44:37 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:44:37 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D98DB@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > Feel free to have as much discussion as possible... > I just note that a specific proposal can really focus > discussion. For example, I did this a few years back: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2004-February/002569.html http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2004-February/002571.html Click on [thread] above the messages if you want to follow the whole thread, but essentially, we discussed this proposal for several days and I adjusted the wording based on that. I also was able to write a better Rationale section because I had a better understanding of what people found confusing. This is a common process in business. In Japanese it is called nemawashi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemawashi but I have heard this called "socialization" in English. Before presenting an idea to management, you socialize it informally to test the waters. You get an idea whether there is support for such a thing, whether people understand what you are talking about. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Mar 16 17:56:51 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:56:51 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D98DE@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > People that make arguments like you are doing here are using an old > trick, you don't like a policy so you act like the instigation of > the policy is somehow a personal insult to everyone, or somehow > means the policymaker assumes everyone is a criminal. Then you > use that straw man to argue the policy should never be put into > place. What policy? Did someone propose a policy? All I have seen is a lot of rambling discussion. > What drives IPv4 towards exhaustion is UTILIZATION of > routable numbers, > NOT GROWTH. These are two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. Minor details. The network is growing which leads to growing utilization of addresses. We still won't get anywhere by auditing folks to find their secret hordes of addresses. Those hordes won't be big enough to stave off exhaustion, because the growth continues. > >Even the best estimates of idle addresses > >tucked away here and there, only suggest enough to provide a few more > >months growth. > estimates are baloney until you take some action to try to prove them > out. But when the action is very costly, a prudent steward will opt for alternate approaches that cost less. > >It is not ARIN's job to solve the IPv4 exhaustion problem. > > If it is within ARIN's power to alleviate IPv4 exhaustion then I > think it is an abrogation of their stewardship if they do nothing. Nope! It simply is not ARIN's job to do this. It isn't allowed by ARIN's charter and under the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Deleware, the ARIN Trustees have a fiduciary duty to ensure that ARIN does not overstep its charter. In addition, IPv4 exhaustion is a global issue that should be addressed in international fora such as the IETF or ICANN. --Michael Dillon From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 16 18:16:18 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:16:18 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D98DE@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >michael.dillon at bt.com >Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:57 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting > > >> People that make arguments like you are doing here are using an old >> trick, you don't like a policy so you act like the instigation of >> the policy is somehow a personal insult to everyone, or somehow >> means the policymaker assumes everyone is a criminal. Then you >> use that straw man to argue the policy should never be put into >> place. > >What policy? Did someone propose a policy? > >All I have seen is a lot of rambling discussion. > >> What drives IPv4 towards exhaustion is UTILIZATION of >> routable numbers, >> NOT GROWTH. These are two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. > >Minor details. The network is growing which leads to growing utilization >of addresses. We still won't get anywhere by auditing folks to find >their secret hordes of addresses. Those hordes won't be big enough to >stave off exhaustion, because the growth continues. > You don't know that. And why are you so opposed to the idea of trying? So what? Maybe you are right and there isn't enough unused IPv4 space out there. How exactly does it affect you then if some people try to reclaim the unused space and come up empty handed? At least if someone tries, and fails, we will KNOW that there's not enough available unused space. That is much better than off-the-cuff guesses. >> >Even the best estimates of idle addresses >> >tucked away here and there, only suggest enough to provide a few more >> >months growth. > >> estimates are baloney until you take some action to try to prove them >> out. > >But when the action is very costly, a prudent steward will opt for >alternate approaches that cost less. > It is going to be costly no matter what you do. Switching to IPv6 is going to be costly. Reclaiming IPv4 is going to be costly. Doing nothing is going to be costly. The question is where and when. We simply do not have enough installed devices that are IPv6 compliant at the current time to easily/cheaply switch the Internet over to IPv6 3-4 years from now. Too much still will have to be replaced. If an attempt is made to reclaim IPv4 and after easy/reasonable/cheap efforts to do so fail, then at least you or I or anyone can go to our customers and say we know the party is over and your going to have to renumber, or put some kind of proxy/translator into place, and when they ask how do you know, we can hand them some results, not some armchair smoke-puffing and hand-waving. If it succeeds and gets us another 5-10 years of numbers, by then we will be much more ready. And more importantly, the groundwork will be laid for the RIR's to enforce adherence to the RIR's for allocation of IP numbers. >> >It is not ARIN's job to solve the IPv4 exhaustion problem. >> >> If it is within ARIN's power to alleviate IPv4 exhaustion then I >> think it is an abrogation of their stewardship if they do nothing. > >Nope! It simply is not ARIN's job to do this. It isn't allowed by ARIN's >charter and under the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of >Deleware, the ARIN Trustees have a fiduciary duty to ensure that ARIN >does not overstep its charter. In addition, IPv4 exhaustion is a global >issue that should be addressed in international fora such as the IETF or >ICANN. > As John said, "policies for management of IPv4 address space not yet assigned to an RIR are likely to be global in nature and hence require global policy adoption. Start with a proposal in one RIR, and repeat as necessary..." Catch-22. ICANN isn't going to accept a proposal until a RIR adopts it, and according to you, an RIR cannot adopt a global proposal. In other words, your making a convenient excuse for doing nothing. Fortunately, others have seen through this kind of logic, which is why John said what he said. Why don't you respond to John's direct statement that ARIN can adopt this kind of policy, posted to the list yesterday, instead of my saying "if" about it. What's a matter, afraid you will get shot down? Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 16 18:22:31 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:22:31 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D98DB@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: michael.dillon at bt.com [mailto:michael.dillon at bt.com] >Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:45 PM >To: jcurran at istaff.org; tedm at ipinc.net >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting > > >> Feel free to have as much discussion as possible... >> I just note that a specific proposal can really focus >> discussion. > >For example, I did this a few years back: > >http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2004-February/002569.html >http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2004-February/002571.html > >Click on [thread] above the messages if you want to follow the whole >thread, but essentially, we discussed this proposal for several days and >I adjusted the wording based on that. I also was able to write a better >Rationale section because I had a better understanding of what people >found confusing. > >This is a common process in business. In Japanese it is called nemawashi >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemawashi but I have heard this called >"socialization" in English. Before presenting an idea to management, you >socialize it informally to test the waters. You get an idea whether >there is support for such a thing, whether people understand what you >are talking about. > Exactly. Which is why it is very important to attempt to tear as many holes in a proposal as possible, even if you agree with it. If it cannot withstand scrutiny from people that generally support it, it certainly won't from people that don't. Ted From owen at delong.com Fri Mar 16 18:42:29 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:42:29 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting In-Reply-To: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D98DB@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D98DB@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: On Mar 16, 2007, at 2:44 PM, wrote: >> Feel free to have as much discussion as possible... >> I just note that a specific proposal can really focus >> discussion. > > For example, I did this a few years back: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2004-February/002569.html > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2004-February/002571.html As another example, I submitted 2005-1 as a thought experiment to focus discussion on the need for IPv6 PI space to exist, and, as an effort to discount the idea of ULA (which I still think is not a great idea). Though I intended it merely as an effort to get the debate and discussion going, it did result in useful policy at the end. The policy that resulted was significantly different from the original policy proposal, but, it was adopted as policy after only three meeting cycles. Owen From dperkin at smud.org Fri Mar 16 19:12:15 2007 From: dperkin at smud.org (Deirdre Perkins-Moore) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:12:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Remove References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D98DB@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <81AE91C04C07C84D824ADB9159CB90640C21B2D6@sn26682> -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 3:42 PM To: michael.dillon at bt.com Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting On Mar 16, 2007, at 2:44 PM, wrote: >> Feel free to have as much discussion as possible... >> I just note that a specific proposal can really focus >> discussion. > > For example, I did this a few years back: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2004-February/002569.html > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2004-February/002571.html As another example, I submitted 2005-1 as a thought experiment to focus discussion on the need for IPv6 PI space to exist, and, as an effort to discount the idea of ULA (which I still think is not a great idea). Though I intended it merely as an effort to get the debate and discussion going, it did result in useful policy at the end. The policy that resulted was significantly different from the original policy proposal, but, it was adopted as policy after only three meeting cycles. Owen _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From reid at mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Fri Mar 16 19:33:20 2007 From: reid at mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:33:20 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Remove In-Reply-To: <81AE91C04C07C84D824ADB9159CB90640C21B2D6@sn26682> References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D98DB@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> <81AE91C04C07C84D824ADB9159CB90640C21B2D6@sn26682> Message-ID: <7EB7DD2DF143C6E4C5610EE2@scarborough.isc.org> I just Removed, as you commanded. It didn't hurt at all. From arringto at cobaltgroup.com Fri Mar 16 20:59:27 2007 From: arringto at cobaltgroup.com (Arrington, Alan) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:59:27 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Remove In-Reply-To: <7EB7DD2DF143C6E4C5610EE2@scarborough.isc.org> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Reid Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:33 PM To: Deirdre Perkins-Moore Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Remove I just Removed, as you commanded. It didn't hurt at all. _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From stephen at sprunk.org Fri Mar 16 22:46:50 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:46:50 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown References: Message-ID: <01c301c76840$025e7950$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" >>Nothing is simple when lawyers get involved, and this sort of >>contract is novel in a variety of ways, so until it's been tested in >>court, we really don't know how enforceable it is. > > OK so according to this logic since no contract is really valid until > it's tested in a court, there is no point for businesses to bother to > sign contracts with each other because none of those contracts > have been tested in court and so are bogus anyway. Ah, good ol' reductio ad absurdum... New contracts are generally based on prior contracts and case law so one has a basis to determine how courts will view them. While I'm sure ARIN's counsel has done their best with the RSA, it is unique enough we're really not sure what the courts will think of it. ARIN is still in court over their first lawsuit (well, I haven't seen any discussion of a conclusion to the case yet) regarding the RSA, so we don't really know what its status is. The result could be anything from 100% enforceability to anti-trust or restraint-of-trade actions against ARIN. > Or better yet, businesses should sign contracts then immediately > break them so they can go to court and have the court rule if the > contract is valid or not so they can know if it's OK to break it. > > You have been watching too much LA Law on television. Never saw it. This is based on discussions with my own attorney regarding drawing up personal contracts, negotiating contracts with partners and customers at my employer, discussions on this very list regarding the RSA, etc. >>All of the address space is either reserved or assigned to an >>RIR. The issue is that legacy assignees/allocees(?) are not >>bound by any contract with their respective RIR that dictates >>the terms of that relationship. >> >>In theory, since there's no contract ARIN has no legal obligation >>to maintain those registrations, but the community has, to date, >>felt that there is a moral obligation to maintain them at no cost. > > What exactly do you think "maintaining" something means? > OK, I'll capitulate. I agree with you that ARIN should initiate > processes to reclaim IP addresses from non-contracted address > space because to not do this would mean that they are failing > in their duties to maintain such space. > > You cannot have your cake and eat it too, I am sorry to say. You can't agree with me, because I said nothing of the sort. ARIN is maintaining registrations for legacy space (and for most IPv6 space, for that matter) without fees. They're actively providing a service (if nothing more than rDNS in many cases) at no charge because that's what the community has told it to do. Part of the reason the community has made that decision is because we're unsure if we have an alternative, but that's not the only reason. I would support a policy proposal that directed ARIN to actively try to reclaim address space that was no longer in use, regardless of what terms it was assigned/allocated under. I would _not_ at this time support a proposal to revoke registrations for space that _was_ being used simply because there is currently no fee attached, or to impose a fee on registrations that currently do not require one. Side note: if ARIN _were_ to start charging for services that are currently free (including, but not limited to, maintenance of legacy blocks), we would need to either lower fees across the board, accelerating consumption*, or find new expenses (that didn't violate ARIN's charter!) to offset the additional revenue. Both of these results seem to be of dubious value to the community. >>Then quit arguing about it and submit a policy proposal. > > Someone was complaining a few days ago about policies written > wth no input. Now your wanting policies written with no input. > I guess there is no satisfying people. Float a draft of _actual changes_ to the NRPM and see what people want you to modify in order to gain their support. Waving your hands saying "the end is near! we need a policy!" is not constructive. >>Do note that the projections for how long address-reclamation >>efforts will extend the exhaustion are on the order of six months. >>That means it'll take us longer to reach consensus and >>implement the changes than the period of time we'll buy by >>doing so, meaning we're better off _not_ doing it and instead >>spending our time figuring out how to get people on IPv6. > > Ah, now the truth comes out. You want IPv6 and are happy to see > reclamation efforts on IPv4 fail so it hastens the day for IPv6. We do not have a choice. The IPv4 address space _will_ be exhausted, and it'll happen in about four years if we do nothing. The best projections, by people who are quite authoritative on the matter, is that reclamation will buy us six more months. If you want to claim, as you did in another message, that it'll really buy us 5-10 years, you need to come up with better studies and data than we already have. And we'll be in the same boat again after that much time anyways, so we might as well save the effort and convert now before we buy/deploy _another_ hundred million routers and PCs. I don't buy the "all the studies show I'm wrong, but let's try it anyways and find out while wasting millions of dollars and putting off our only remaining viable option" argument. But that's just me; float an _actual proposal_ and see what others think. S * If one asserts that higher fees would discourage consumption, one must also accept that lower fees would encourage consumption. Either consumption is linked to price or it isn't. Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From william at elan.net Sat Mar 17 00:57:04 2007 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:57:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <01c301c76840$025e7950$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <01c301c76840$025e7950$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > We do not have a choice. The IPv4 address space _will_ be exhausted, and > it'll happen in about four years if we do nothing. 4-5 years are projections when IANA may not be able to fulfil request by RIR for new /8 which I personally think would be closer to 6. Most RIRs request space in advance and have some space in reserve up to 2 years and there is also space unfilled from legacy class-b blocks that RIR at that point will most likely start to use all together. Real end of available space will depend on RIR and likely to be 2014-2017. Of course estimates vary based on who you ask and some people do have interest in making numbers appear lower then they are too. > The best projections, by people who are quite authoritative on the > matter, is that reclamation will buy us six more months. It will "buy" more time - closer to 3-4 years probably. If you're looking for numbers, currently 65% of Class-A,B,C (1.0.0.0-223.255.255.255) is allocated and of that 45% is routed leaving 20% as not routed (which has some amount in use internally but I'd be surprised if its even 1/4th of that) which means potentially equivalent of 46 /8 blocks could be reclaimed right now (and those numbers will grow too). But if we want do do reclamation such decision better be made soon and process start as well. For reference where I calculate the numbers, see http://www.completewhois.com/statistics/ip_statistics.htm > claim, as you did in another message, that it'll really buy us 5-10 definitely not 10 years but 5 is in theory possible if more currently used blocks go dark as well as if reclamation effort includes not only "dark" blocks but also blocks that are lit but that are not seriously in use (but that I mean asking large companies, universities and military that early on got /8s and smaller companies that still hold /16 but are now like most others use NAT to renumber and return most of the /8 or /16). > years, you need to come up with better studies and data than we already > have. And we'll be in the same boat again after that much time anyways, > so we might as well save the effort and convert now before we buy/deploy > _another_ hundred million routers and PCs. The real question is would we have situation 7 years from now that most enterprises and PCs are capable of handling IPv6 and that we can start just assigning IPv6 to all in addition to IPv4. I think that it will happen even though that last few years would be rather for painful those in IT (although for consultants it can be rather good time...) when everyone who cares and wants to be on the internet has to enable it. Another guess is that there would be software option on the routers & firewalls to do NAT-like translation to IPv4 for those only on IPv6 and the other way around and that it would be done on the routers and firewall of devices that currently do NAT translation at many enterprises (NAT is actually quite popular at the edge despite efforts by many to say that its bad...) - I'm guessing that multitude of those NAT router vendors that consumers and small businesses buy would actually use end of IPv4 as way to encorage consumers to buy such new device. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Thu Mar 15 17:17:55 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:17:55 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <45f9b803.380.bfd.7647@batelnet.bs> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Sprunk" To: Cc: ARIN PPML Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:28:01 -0500 > Thus spake > >> Imagine a day in which a lot of the network outside of > the ARIN >> region is IPv6 and only ARIN is still using > IPv4. We'd have a >> network ripped in half (well, not > 50/50) with our region falling >> behind the rest of the > world (in IPvX). > > > In my version of this thought experiment, the ARIN > > region quickly realized that roughly 90% of their > > infrastructure was capable of running IPv6 with only a > > software upgrade so they did upgrade. Problem solved. > > Nice thought experiment, but 99.9999% of the routers in > the ARIN region (you know, all those boxes consumers and > SoHos are sitting behind) don't support IPv6 and the > vendors have shown absolutely no interest in adding it. Which is a good reason to oppose this countdown policy. Putting this squeeze on commerce is not a priority for me, and I hope not for our region. If the "vendors" want to start EOL'ing V4, they should go ahead and do that. Instead, they want us to do it for them by making policy forcing the issue. No thanks. -M< From tedm at ipinc.net Sat Mar 17 00:59:46 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:59:46 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <01c301c76840$025e7950$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org] >Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 7:47 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Owen DeLong >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" >>>Nothing is simple when lawyers get involved, and this sort of >>>contract is novel in a variety of ways, so until it's been tested in >>>court, we really don't know how enforceable it is. >> >> OK so according to this logic since no contract is really valid until >> it's tested in a court, there is no point for businesses to bother to >> sign contracts with each other because none of those contracts >> have been tested in court and so are bogus anyway. > >Ah, good ol' reductio ad absurdum... > Hey, you started it. >New contracts are generally based on prior contracts and case law >so one has >a basis to determine how courts will view them. While I'm sure ARIN's >counsel has done their best with the RSA, it is unique enough we're really >not sure what the courts will think of it. ARIN is still in court over >their first lawsuit (well, I haven't seen any discussion of a >conclusion to >the case yet) regarding the RSA, so we don't really know what its >status is. >The result could be anything from 100% enforceability to anti-trust or >restraint-of-trade actions against ARIN. > Interesting hand waving. So I guess then that nobody can write a contract over any new idea, product, or service until it is court-tested. Yah, right. Well, the lawsuit your referring to - Kremen VS Arin, available here: www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf has enough huge flaws o drive a truck through. For starters Kremen claims to have a judgement against all assets of Cohen. Kremen claims Cohen has assigned numbers out of his block to Mexican ISPs and is getting money from this. However if Kremen has an actual judgement against Cohen that imposes a trust on Cohen's assets, (as the lawsuit claims) then any money that Cohen would get from this alleged unnamed Mexican ISP would go immediately into Kremem's bank account. So I do not see how exactly that Kremen can claim any harm here since by court order Cohen's income is his, and further, Cohen is in a US prison. Secondly, Kremen claims that not having IP numbers is detrimental to his business. However, if he wants IP addresses all he needs to do is go to ARIN and request assignment through the usual means. Cohen's addresses - that Kremen owns the revenue from - cannot be used to deduct from the total number of addresses that Kremen is entitled to, assuming he proves usage. What the entire lawsuit boils down to is Kremen is suing ARIN because as part of ARIN's requirements Kremen must agree to disclose what he is doing with the IP addresses and who is using them, and Kremen does not want to do this. That is unsurprising since Kremen is a spammer. I fail to see how Kremen can prove in a court how disclosure of what he is doing with the IP addresses is harmful to his business - unless that is he intends on doing something illegal like violating the federal CAN-SPAM act - and that is the central basis that Kremen is resisting simply requesting the allocation from ARIN. ARIN has in fact said they would give Kremen the allocation - assuming he signs the appropriate paperwork which requires him to disclose what he's doing with the IP addresses and demonstrates appropriate need. The other big flaw is the complaint assumes ARIN is a monopoly and thus illegal under Sherman Anti-trust act. What this conveniently ignores is the fact that just because an organization is declared a legal monopoly does not mean that it's actions are illegal. If ARIN is in fact found by the court to be a legal monopoly then it is a huge stretch to assume it will have to be broken up. What has happened recently with technology companies that have been shown to be monopolies is the courts have favored regulation over divestiture, as a remedy. That is what happened with Microsoft, and Intel, recently. (in fact the Intel complaint didn't even make it to a court, it stayed with the FTC) You see, what the Sherman Anti-trust act assumes is that monopolies always harm the consumer, thus it is best to break them up. What was shown with the breakup of the Bell Telephone company in the 80's is that divestiture only helped long distance customers, it was in fact harmful to local dialtone consumers and did not lower prices of local dialtone. That is why courts are very leery of breaking up technology monopolies these days, and are favoring regulatory relief instead. Since ARIN is already subject to regulation by ICANN I do not see how much would change if in fact the court did declare ARIN a monopoly. In fact all that would likely happen is the court would sit down and review the rules regulating ARIN and would almost certainly uphold all of them, as a result Kremen would be in worse shape because now he would have a court upholding ARIN's right to make him sign a contract to get his netblock. >> Or better yet, businesses should sign contracts then immediately >> break them so they can go to court and have the court rule if the >> contract is valid or not so they can know if it's OK to break it. >> >> You have been watching too much LA Law on television. > >Never saw it. This is based on discussions with my own attorney regarding >drawing up personal contracts, negotiating contracts with partners and >customers at my employer, discussions on this very list regarding the RSA, >etc. > My attorney says your attorney is full of baloney. >>>All of the address space is either reserved or assigned to an >>>RIR. The issue is that legacy assignees/allocees(?) are not >>>bound by any contract with their respective RIR that dictates >>>the terms of that relationship. >>> >>>In theory, since there's no contract ARIN has no legal obligation >>>to maintain those registrations, but the community has, to date, >>>felt that there is a moral obligation to maintain them at no cost. >> >> What exactly do you think "maintaining" something means? >> OK, I'll capitulate. I agree with you that ARIN should initiate >> processes to reclaim IP addresses from non-contracted address >> space because to not do this would mean that they are failing >> in their duties to maintain such space. >> >> You cannot have your cake and eat it too, I am sorry to say. > >You can't agree with me, because I said nothing of the sort. ARIN is >maintaining registrations for legacy space (and for most IPv6 space, for >that matter) without fees. They're actively providing a service >(if nothing >more than rDNS in many cases) at no charge because that's what the >community >has told it to do. Part of the reason the community has made that >decision >is because we're unsure if we have an alternative, but that's not the only >reason. > >I would support a policy proposal that directed ARIN to actively try to >reclaim address space that was no longer in use, regardless of >what terms it >was assigned/allocated under. Well, good because that is what I am in favor of as well. > I would _not_ at this time support >a proposal >to revoke registrations for space that _was_ being used simply >because there >is currently no fee attached, or to impose a fee on registrations that >currently do not require one. > Neither would I. Rather, I would base revocation on a number of other factors. For example, is the netblock in question being advertised via BGP anywhere on the public Internet? Can I sit at my Internet-connected PC and run a traceroute command with a destination of an IP in a netblock and have it actually go somewhere other than to my default gateway where it then fails due to network unreachable? >Side note: if ARIN _were_ to start charging for services that are >currently >free (including, but not limited to, maintenance of legacy >blocks), we would >need to either lower fees across the board, accelerating consumption*, or >find new expenses (that didn't violate ARIN's charter!) to offset the >additional revenue. Both of these results seem to be of dubious value to >the community. > >>>Then quit arguing about it and submit a policy proposal. >> >> Someone was complaining a few days ago about policies written >> wth no input. Now your wanting policies written with no input. >> I guess there is no satisfying people. > >Float a draft of _actual changes_ to the NRPM and see what people want you >to modify in order to gain their support. Waving your hands >saying "the end >is near! we need a policy!" is not constructive. > Now see here, -I- didn't start doing that. I merely pointed out to the originator of this discussion that attempting to artifically end IPv4 assignments early was an unworkable idea for a variety of political reasons. >>>Do note that the projections for how long address-reclamation >>>efforts will extend the exhaustion are on the order of six months. >>>That means it'll take us longer to reach consensus and >>>implement the changes than the period of time we'll buy by >>>doing so, meaning we're better off _not_ doing it and instead >>>spending our time figuring out how to get people on IPv6. >> >> Ah, now the truth comes out. You want IPv6 and are happy to see >> reclamation efforts on IPv4 fail so it hastens the day for IPv6. > >We do not have a choice. The IPv4 address space _will_ be exhausted, and >it'll happen in about four years if we do nothing. The best >projections, by >people who are quite authoritative on the matter, is that reclamation will >buy us six more months. If you want to claim, as you did in another >message, that it'll really buy us 5-10 years, I claimed the possibility existed that it might buy another 5-10 years. > you need to come up with >better studies and data than we already have. I don't see how anyone including myself can come up with any studies worth a damn that will predict how reclamation turns out. Nobody really knows how much of the allocated address space out there is really being used according to the justifications submitted when it was allocated (years earlier in many cases) and a lot of assumptions are sheer speculation. Such as the assumption by another poster on this list that growth of nodes on the Internet automatically means consumption of IP addresses rises. Technologies such as NAT and virtual hosting throw a wrench in that kind of assumption. You have to simply make a decision, are we going to try reclamation or not? If we are, then the next decision is are we going to try reclamation based on monetary adjustments, (changing fees) or by setting policy? if we are not going to try reclamation then the best thing would be, now, to set a date for converting the Internet backbone to IPv6 that is well within the most pessimistic assumptions out there for the end of IPv4 allocations. That would completely avoid all "run up" of IPv4 by speculators, it would also pull the rug out from under ill-conceived lawsuits like this Kremen vs ARIN thing, it would give all the ISPs a clear date for budgeting hardware upgrades, and it would make the transition as smooth as possible. It would also prevent ISP customers from endless chasing after "the lowest bidder" ISP, it would discourage hoarding and other contactural violations and in general be kinder to animals and plants. Naturally you would assume that a lot of people might simply buy proxy servers instead of renumbering. This is how the Great Renaming worked for DNS. >And we'll be in the >same boat >again after that much time anyways, so we might as well save the >effort and >convert now before we buy/deploy _another_ hundred million routers and PCs. > Well, that's the argument against reclamation. But, what are YOUR arguements FOR any alternative? I have read a lot of posts on the lists bitching against reclamation efforts, but none of the bellyachers have submitted any kind of alternative other than "let's just do nothing until the last minute then -I- will switch over to IPv6 and laugh at the rest of the dummies who are runnning around trying to preserve their IPv4 networks" >I don't buy the "all the studies show I'm wrong, but let's try it anyways >and find out while wasting millions of dollars and putting off our only >remaining viable option" argument. But that's just me; float an _actual >proposal_ and see what others think. > Your building a house of assumptions there, not the least of which is that reclamation efforts will cost millions of dollars. >S > >* If one asserts that higher fees would discourage consumption, one must >also accept that lower fees would encourage consumption. Either >consumption >is linked to price or it isn't. > Of course it is but the problem is that it is not directly linked, there is some elasticity there. A 10% jump in fees will probably not result in a 10% increase in IPv4 being returned. If anything, it will probably cause people to dig in their heels and hold on to what they have and start viewing it as an "investment" with the expectation that the price will be run up by the market and they will be able to make a killing. I do not favor setting fees as a tool for changing IPv4 allocations. I am much more in favor of setting policy then if people violate the policy, suing the pants off of them. This does have a requirement that the organization be run by someone with balls. Unfortunately, I am in a minority because most people subscribe to the belief that all we have to do is adjust pricing and people will do what we want - like magic! As a result if a reclamation policy does get passed, it most likely will be a limp-handed politically correct poofball that will make all kinds of naieve assumptions that organizations will fall all over themselves to return unused space just because they think it might cost a bit more money to hold on to it. Ted From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Sat Mar 17 09:58:33 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:58:33 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <01c301c76840$025e7950$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B86A@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:47 PM > ARIN is maintaining registrations for legacy space (and for > most IPv6 space, for that matter) without fees. They're > actively providing a service (if nothing more than rDNS in > many cases) at no charge because that's what the community > has told it to do. Part of the reason the community has made > that decision is because we're unsure if we have an > alternative, but that's not the only reason. Board minutes from 3/22/04: The ARIN Board of Trustees adopts annual maintenance fees for legacy assignments that is consistent with the current miantenance fee; and, that this feee commence with the first request for change of information by the legacy holder after the policy goes into effect; and, a suitable period of public notice has elapsed." http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/bot/bot2004_0322.html A few months later, 8/3/04, the Treausrer noted that [implementation of] this resolution has been deferred until billing integration within ARIN takes place. http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/bot/bot2004_0803.html This was presented at the Fall 2004 Members Meeting. http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIII/PDF/Tuesday/Maint_Howard. pdf > I would support a policy proposal that directed ARIN to > actively try to reclaim address space that was no longer in > use, regardless of what terms it was assigned/allocated > under. I would _not_ at this time support a proposal to > revoke registrations for space that _was_ being used simply > because there is currently no fee attached, or to impose a > fee on registrations that currently do not require one. > > Side note: if ARIN _were_ to start charging for services that > are currently free (including, but not limited to, > maintenance of legacy blocks), we would need to either lower > fees across the board, accelerating consumption*, or find new > expenses (that didn't violate ARIN's charter!) to offset the > additional revenue. Both of these results seem to be of > dubious value to the community. Applications for address space have not increased appreciably in the past due to fee changes. Lee From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Sat Mar 17 10:11:58 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:11:58 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B86B@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of william(at)elan.net > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 12:57 AM > To: Stephen Sprunk > Cc: ARIN PPML > Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > > On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > > We do not have a choice. The IPv4 address space _will_ be > exhausted, > > and it'll happen in about four years if we do nothing. > > 4-5 years are projections when IANA may not be able to fulfil > request by RIR for new /8 which I personally think would be > closer to 6. Most RIRs request space in advance and have some > space in reserve up to 2 years and there is also space > unfilled from legacy class-b blocks that RIR at that point > will most likely start to use all together. It all depends on how you define "run out." "Who" runs out of "what"? IANA is unable to allocate a /8 block in the 0-223 range in response to an RIR request One RIR is unable to allocate a /13 in response to a request. One RIR is unable to allocate a /(some number between 14 and 24) in response to a request. No RIR is able to make allocations or assignments in response to requests. > > The best projections, by people who are quite authoritative on the > > matter, is that reclamation will buy us six more months. > > It will "buy" more time - closer to 3-4 years probably. If > you're looking for numbers, currently 65% of Class-A,B,C > (1.0.0.0-223.255.255.255) is allocated and of that 45% is > routed leaving 20% as not routed (which has some amount in > use internally but I'd be surprised if its even 1/4th of > that) which means potentially equivalent of 46 /8 blocks > could be reclaimed right now (and those numbers will grow > too). But if we want do do reclamation such decision better > be made soon and process start as well. > > For reference where I calculate the numbers, see > http://www.completewhois.com/statistics/ip_statistics.htm A useful analysis, thank you. See also http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html http://www.arin.net/statistics/historical.html http://www.arin.net/statistics/jointstats.pdf You can draw your own curve and decide what you think the burn rate is. Note that in the last document above, the "IPv4 Allocations: RIRs to LIRs/ISPs" chart is YTD September 2006. There will be an update in Puerto Rice, I'm sure. Lee From owen at delong.com Sat Mar 17 10:30:49 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 07:30:49 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <01c301c76840$025e7950$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <01c301c76840$025e7950$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <7767A1AA-ABE9-4D92-922C-C6E8D9EB7C37@delong.com> On Mar 16, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" >>> Nothing is simple when lawyers get involved, and this sort of >>> contract is novel in a variety of ways, so until it's been tested in >>> court, we really don't know how enforceable it is. >> >> OK so according to this logic since no contract is really valid until >> it's tested in a court, there is no point for businesses to bother to >> sign contracts with each other because none of those contracts >> have been tested in court and so are bogus anyway. > > Ah, good ol' reductio ad absurdum... > > New contracts are generally based on prior contracts and case law > so one has a basis to determine how courts will view them. While > I'm sure ARIN's counsel has done their best with the RSA, it is > unique enough we're really not sure what the courts will think of > it. ARIN is still in court over their first lawsuit (well, I > haven't seen any discussion of a conclusion to the case yet) > regarding the RSA, so we don't really know what its status is. The > result could be anything from 100% enforceability to anti-trust or > restraint-of-trade actions against ARIN. > The first case in question won't settle the issue of the RSA enforceability, since he's suing to try and avoid actually signing the RSA. I believe from what I observed at the last hearing I attended that the judge is going to rule (if he hasn't already) almost completely in favor of ARIN. He made it very clear that it was not his intent to allow the person to circumvent the normal registration process. Owen From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Sat Mar 17 10:32:34 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:32:34 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B86C@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > Well, the lawsuit your referring to - Kremen VS Arin, available > here: www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf has enough > huge flaws o drive a truck through. http://www.arin.net/media/releases/dismissal-release.pdf The Court recognized ARIN's authority in the stewardship of IP numbering resources, and found that everyone should play by the same rules. > >I would support a policy proposal that directed ARIN to > actively try to > >reclaim address space that was no longer in use, regardless of what > >terms it was assigned/allocated under. > > Well, good because that is what I am in favor of as well. Excellent. Will one of you please write such a proposal? > > you need to come up with > >better studies and data than we already have. > > I don't see how anyone including myself can come up with any > studies worth a damn that will predict how reclamation turns > out. Nobody really knows how much of the allocated address > space out there is really being used according to the > justifications submitted when it was allocated (years earlier > in many cases) True, nobody really knows. It is possible to ask contacts at a variety of organizations (public policy meetings are one great venue, but IETF is another good one) how much allocated-but-unused space they have. You can get a rough order of magnitude. > You have to simply make a decision, are we going to try > reclamation or not? It's not deciding time until there's a proposal. This is discussion time. > If we are, then the next decision is are we going to try > reclamation based on monetary adjustments, (changing fees) or > by setting policy? Minor note: policies are set by the public, fees are set by the members. > I do not favor setting fees as a tool for changing IPv4 > allocations. I am much more in favor of setting policy then > if people violate the policy, suing the pants off of them. > This does have a requirement that the organization be run by > someone with balls. Unfortunately, I am in a minority > because most people subscribe to the belief that all we have > to do is adjust pricing and people will do what we want - > like magic! As a result if a reclamation policy does get > passed, it most likely will be a limp-handed politically > correct poofball that will make all kinds of naieve > assumptions that organizations will fall all over themselves > to return unused space just because they think it might cost > a bit more money to hold on to it. This paragraph might contain some content, but it's hard to tell. I think it says: You would support a (as yet unsubmitted) policy of aggressive auditing and reclamation of IPv4 address space, enforced by legal action. You suspect, however, that the majority of the public would not support such a policy. Please correct me if I misunderstand your position. Lee From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Sat Mar 17 10:50:48 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B86D@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:05 PM > The problem is that so far ARIN's policies say that the fees > cover the cost of maintaining allocation information. This > assumes that ARIN cannot use fees as a tool to modify address > consumption - although the fact that ARIN has maintained a > wavier of IPv6 fees is basically an attempt to use fees as a > tool to modify address consumption. ARIN's membership directed the Board to set fees at a level to recover expenses. If the members would like to set a different goal, the Board they elected will listen. > Since ARIN is a non-profit, if it raises fees in order to > modify how organizations consume addresses, you then have a > situation where ARIN is now a profit-making organization. > (or you have to find something to spend all the additional > money on) If it's a profit-making company you then cannot > disallow other profit-making companies from selling IP addresses. Not exactly. ARIN's status as a non-profit does not preclude it from having revenues be higher than expenses. The IRS does prohibit certain kinds of activity, including what can be done any surplus. ARIN is classified as a 501c6 by the IRS. http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=96107,00.html > Basically the end result of all of this is that it is > difficult to make lots of ARIN fee changes in order to > attempt to enforce policy. It's not impossible, but it is > difficult. And certainly, the fee changes that you can make > will not be significant enough to modify the behavior of most > organizations with large allocations. > > The best way to approach fees is to make other policy changes > then let ARIN decide what to do about the fees. For example When you say, "Let ARIN decide," do you mean the public, the members, the Board, or the staff? In the case of fees, it's the members (who establish principled) and the Board (who set specific fees within those principles). I believe there's a formal suggestion process, but I can't lay my hands on it right now. I have seen two specific fee suggestions on PPML in the past week, and have added them to the agenda for a future FinCom meeting. Lee From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Sat Mar 17 11:16:03 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:16:03 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B86E@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > >If the community comes to consensus around a policy > providing for #2, > >then, it will be acceptable at least until such time as the courts > >determine otherwise. OTOH, if the community does not come to such a > >consensus, then, there is no policy to support such action. > > > >Currently, there is no policy to support such action. > > Exactly, and this issue must be faced squarely or we are just > wasting our time on the whole issue of extending the life of > IPv4 on the Internet. Without a proposal, we can only face this issue obliquely. There are two tools ARIN has: policy, and fees. I beg and plead with you to propose something. > It seems to me that the current allocation scheme is > fundamentally based on the concept of need of addresses for > your own use. That is, if I need addresses for my network, > and I can demonstrate this need, then I will get them. It is > not based on the idea that I need a chunk of addresses so I > can turn around and make a lot of money selling them to > someone who really does need them. ISP's for example, when > they assign an IP address to a customer, if the customer > quits service, the IP address stays with the ISP. > > This is a morality question of sorts. Would you propose that we abolish the allocation system, and only assign to end user organizations? > In the history of human endeavor [. . .] > Thus the idea is that fundamentally, any idea of creating a > free market of IP addresses being bought and sold, is > tanasmount to patenting the Christian idea of "do unto > others" or it is tansamount to issuing a copyright on "the > happy birthday song" That song is (probably) protected by copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You Lee From cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com Sat Mar 17 11:34:12 2007 From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff Bedore) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Legacy and other IPV4 recovery Message-ID: <200703171534.l2HFYCsK005048@cjbsys.bdb.com> Having just been invited to join this discussion group as one of the "legacy" Class C net owners, I've been reading a lot of messages lately about recovering unused IP addresses. I have several comments/questions about the effectiveness of doing this. I don't have the long history of this group so forgive me if I state something covered before. First, given that ISP's who have been allocated addresses by ARIN are more likely to be using/have some justification for retaining their address allocations, it would seem that most successful recovery would come from the legacy allocations that went to companies who for some reason no longer use their addresses. It also seems to me that the larger allocations from the "legacy" period would be more likely to still be active and most of the recovery would be from the early Class C allocations. It would also seem likely that it would be difficult to recover contiguous blocks of Class C address space. Given all those assumptions to be true and understanding that routing to non-contiguous Class C addresses can clog router address tables, would the recovery of all these addresses and subsequent re-issue in fact cause more harm than good because the router table growth? Also from a personal curiousity point of view, in reading this group, it seems that all legacy numbers were assigned to ARIN. Is this true and if not, how does one find out where all the individual Class C addresses are physically located? If some are, in fact. located outside ARIN's domain, how would they (ARIN) be able to do any recovery if such addresses were found? Without the long (to me at least) history of the group, I don't know if this has been discussed but am curious about the validity of my assumptions above and what would be the impact on recovery effectiveness if they are true? For some background, my Class C was issued in 1990 and for a while was not connected but has been since 1992-3 or so connected via dialup and then DSL via a series of ISPs. Therefore I don't have any routing complexity myself and am covered by my ISPs ASN. Cliff -- Cliff Bedore 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740 cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/ From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Sat Mar 17 12:26:22 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:26:22 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B87D@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Wow, this post got very long. I apologize to everyone; I'm trying to trim as I go, without losing context. I'm not sure how many more ways I can say the following: 1. Send a proposal. 2. IP numbering policies are determined on this list, and informed by public policy meetings. 3. ARIN is us. 4. Please send a policy proposal. I will continue correcting factually faulty assertions about the ARIN organization (community, Advisory Council, Board, staff), process, and fees. I will try to refrain from further posting about style, conspiracies, or the intent of industries or other organizations. The AC should continue extruding clear policy proposals from the email threads. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:48 PM > To: Howard, W. Lee; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > >Ted, I can't tell from your tone whether you're trying to > rant or make > >constructive contributions. > > > > Well, I honestly consider the issue of IPv4 runout to be a > lost cause, since as I already mentioned, too many deep > pockets have a vested interest in making the transition as > uncomfortable as possible. In short, "they" want to switch > the Internet over to > IPv6 and are simply not interested in any proposals that will > extend IPv4. "Rant" then? > I personally believe that with effort on the number > registries part, we could extend the use of IPv4 on the > backbone until long after everyone on the list here has > retired. But I see no real interest in doing this among any > of the major players. Instead all "they" care about is > making everyone buy new hardware and renumbering. Who are these "major players?" Telcos? Cable companies? Router manufacturers? All of the above? Since you say "buy new hardware" I'll assume you mean router manufacturers, but we've heard loud concern from a major ISP that the router people aren't provided boxes to scale for five years. > But, I do think it is facinating to > watch someone try to change the status quo. Sometimes, they > even succeed in doing it. This is frequently the case at ARIN. > >I would love to see a policy proposal on this. > >ARIN does reclaim "abandoned" space if you mean, "Space assigned/ > >allocated to organizations who no longer exist or who no longer want > >that space." Non-payment of renewals starts staff looking > for any live > >contact; that's part of the reason for renewal fees. > > > > I'm not talking about space where the owners have stopped > paying the bill. That's a non-issue. I'm talking about > space where the owners ARE paying the bill but clearly they > aren't using it. How do we determine that? > Or, space assigned pre-ARIN that isn't being used. How do we determine that? Send a proposal. Also, to inform discussion on reclamation, there was a roundtable at ARIN XVI, including expiration projections from Tony Hain and Geoff Huston, and analyses from kc claffy and Thomas Narten. http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XVI/ppm.html http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XVI/PDF/wednesday/claffy_ipv4_ roundtable.pdf > When MCI pulled out of North America in 2003 every ISP in > ARIN's territory that had IP allocations from MCI had to get > new allocations. There were many many ISPs. > You cannot possibly make any believable argument that MCI had > any further need for those IP allocations. They had pulled out!! > ALL of the numbers in those blocks were available! My recollection is that MCI divested InternetMCI to allow the merger of WorldCom and MCI. Cable and Wireless bought InternetMCI, and later (2003 sounds right) announced that they would stop operating in the U.S. > Yet, did ARIN go to MCI and say "Hey, you announced in the > newspapers your turning off your network. So, since you > don't need the allocations in that network anymore, we are > taking them back" > > HELL NO! They let MCI keep them. When the entire network > that was used in North America for those numbers WAS TURNED > OFF. Then, to add insult to injury, A YEAR LATER when SAVVIS > bought MCI, THEY GOT ALL THOSE NUMBER BLOCKS AS PART OF THE > SALE and ARIN let them take them over!!! Your use of capitalization and exclamation points weakens your argument. > In short, SAVVIS buys a network with NO CUSTOMERS ON IT and > that has been TURNED OFF, and CLAIMS IT NEEDS IP ADDRESSES FOR IT???? > When they ALREADY HAD THEIR OWN!!! > > Yeahhh - RIIGGHHTT! I believe that! Sure, sure. Damn hoarder! Did you see the transfer request? Did you see any subsequent applications for additional address space? > >> The second would be one to define additional requirements for > >> justification submittal. One of the biggest and most > obvious would > >> be that if an IPv4 allocation holder was to be acquired by another > >> IPv4 allocation holder - regardless of whether both allocation > >> holders were in the same number registry or not - that the > acquiring > >> party would have to submit justification for holding the acquired > >> block. > > > >http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight > >8.1 Transfers > >ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of IP space only upon > >receipt of evidence that the new entity has acquired the > assets which > >had, as of the date of the acquisition or proposed reorganization, > >justified the current entity's use of the IP space. > > > > Once more that doesen't address the issue. The issue is > where an entity that has plenty of numbering buys another > entity that has numbering, and continues to maintain it as > for example a wholly owned subsidiary. In those cases since > the subsidiary is wholly owned, I believe the subsidiary > should automatically lose the right to obtain and use > allocations from the registry, that they must instead go > through their parent that owns them for allocations. Propose a policy that says that. Here, let me show you how. Send the following text to any of the email addresses on http://www.arin.net/about_us/ac.html How would I propose the following? When an organization with an existing allocation acquires another organization with an existing allocation, the acquired company shall have nine months to renumber into space allocated to the acquiring company, and return the unused allocation to ARIN. The acquiring organization may apply for additional address space, as needed, under existing policies. They'll reply back with helpful information about how to use the proposal template and help you get it to the right place, and they'll offer to help write clearer words, and to respond to comments received from the list, meetings, staff, and counsel, as you (the author) see fit. > But, in reality, since the subsidiary is a separate > corporation, even if only on paper, the parent can merely > continue to use the subsidiary's old name when dealing with > ARIN and thus avoid any existing rules such as 8.1 Transfers > that you cited above. A separate corporation "only on paper" is a separate corporation. I don't know how else to define it. > >Examples follow in the NRPM. I read this to mean that if you buy a > >network, the need for address space for that network does not change. > > But that does not follow since in the majority of ISP > acquisitions that have happened, the acquiring ISP merely > moves the aquired ISP's customers to their own existing > infrastructure and then decommissions the acquired ISP's > network hardware. My experience is that acquired networks are decomissioned over a period of years, if at all, and the addresses numbering them are either used, reused or returned. > And, it is also a fact that there's always customer loss when > an ISP acquires another ISP and so therefore the need is > going to go down. > > Think about it - why would a network be for sale anyway? > Because it does not have enough customers to make a profit, > that is why. And if it doesen't have enough customers then > who is using all it's allocations? Nobody. There are many reasons. Maybe somebody offered the owners a lot of money. Maybe (as with MCI) a proposed merger is contingent on divestiture. > > Please, though, send a proposal. > > I would if I thought that the numbering authorities were > truly interested in extending the use of IPv4 on the Internet > past the point at which allocations run out. I just don't > believe they are. I don't know who these "authorities" are, if not the people who submit and discuss proposals on this list. > >> The third would be one to define a mechanism that IANA > could offer a > >> "bounty" for proof of deliberate criminal contract > violations that is > >> similar to what the SPA and BSA offer for reporting > software piracy. > >> In other words if an admin at a network was ordered to "hoard" > >> assignments he could rat out the network and trigger an IP number > >> audit. > > > >That's an interesting idea. It might be easier to limit it to ARIN, > >rather than IANA. Could you make this a proposal? > > > >> You just do not > >> understand how many people right now have a vested interest in > >> allowing the train wreck to happen. Honestly, they WANT it to > >> happen. > > > >I don't understand. Who? > > > > Cisco for one. That is why they have been so late at introducing > IPv6 support for their "legacy" routers. Oh sure, they have > IPv6 in IOS 12.4 service provider now. You just can't run it > on anything other than a brand new router because the IOS > package it is in is so big. In 3 years when IPv4 allocations > run out it will be virtually impossible to upgrade your older > routers to handle BGP by simply updating IOS, you will have > to buy hardware. Perhaps someone from Cisco would care to comment. I know they have claimed IPv6 support for several versions now (later revs of 12.2). > >> If you think about it you might begin to understand one of the > >> reasons that the large orgs are rather diffident about > >> IPv6 switchover, and are very lackadasical about turning in unused > >> allocations. They aren't stupid, even boneheads know that if they > >> have something that is constrained, it is worth money to someone. > > > >I don't know any large orgs that are diffident about IPv6. They all > >seem concerned, to various degrees, and most are active. > > If they were concerned then they would be getting rid of > their large allocations and slimming down, to make more IPv4 > addreeses available. In other words, they would be putting > money into paying employees to renumber. Not simply making > concerned noises in various public statements. Come to a meeting, meet the IP Analysts for the large ISPs, and ask them why they don't renumber. Look at the list of attendees, and ask them (you'll have to find their contact information another way). Ask the Whois Technical POCs. > >I > >don't know anyone who is hoarding in hopes of selling. > > People aren't exactly going to advertise that they are doing > that since it's kind of a violation of the ARIN regs, you know. People running production networks have better things to do with their time. There may be some people sitting on unused space, but (you'd have to ask them) to the extent that they're hoarding, they're hoarding for their own future use. > But once the IPv4 allocations run out, unless the Internet is > immediately switched over to IPv6 you are going to find out > who has been hoarding pretty quick. Probably. I missed your proposed solution. > >> If the Internet Registries do nothing of course they will be > >> criticized. But if they do anything then they are going > to also be > >> criticized. Thus, why bother since your going to be > screwed either > >> way? Better to hold on to what you have now and hope when > the storm > >> hits that you can hang on. > > > >The Internet Registries is us. Send proposals. > > > > If ARIN makes a public statement that it is looking for > proposals to stave off the day that IPv4 allocations will run > out, then I'll be right there. You saw John's response. I'll add mine to the many other times I have asked you to submit a policy proposal: ARIN requests policy proposals. If you submit a policy proposal to stave off the day that IPv4 allocations will run out, it's up to the community to decide whether ARIN should do it. It is not up to the Board or staff to decide what proposals are needed. > >> Ask yourself this. What do you think that IANA in it's heart of > >> hearts wants to be doing in 2012? Do you think they want to be > >> fighting a hundred lawsuits by organizations that they are telling > >> that they are going to take away allocations from and give > to someone > >> else? Or do you think they would rather be sitting back mediating > >> between organizations that want to make lawful monetary > transactions > >> with each other - I have/you buy. > > > >The IANA doesn't get a vote. People on this list decide. > > All registries are going to have to work in unison on this issue. People on this list decide for ARIN. If they agree with the communities in other regions, the RIRs work together. > >This is the part I don't understand. > >People are not adopting IPv6, because they want to create a > market for > >IPv4 addresses, so that they can say, "I told you to adopt > IPv6." If > >this is important to the policy process, could you clarify? > > > > People are not adopting IPv6 because it is very expensive to > renumber and there are side effects that can last years. Let > me ask you have you ever renumbered a nameserver that has had > a large number of domains on it and an even larger number of > people using it as their nameserver? Most IPv6 adopters are dual-stacked. The incremental cost of adding an IPv6 address to a name server is relatively low. I do not dispute that there are costs to implementing IPv6. I, personally, have not renumbered a name server that was authoritative for many domains and was also a resolver for many people. > Also there is another reason that not many people have > switched to IPv6 and that is, since it is costly and disrupts > customers, if an ISP devotes resources to doing it, the ISP's > customers that are affected are going to wonder why they > simply don't just go to a competitor ISP that isn't requiring > them to do all this IPv6 stuff. In short it is a competitive > advantage to NOT change your network and disrupt your > customers, yet have everyone else change their network and > disrupt their customers. This creates a condition where all > of the ISPs facing this would much rather have everything > disrupted at one time. > > If for example IANA announced that on January 1st 2012 that > there would be no more IPv4 traffic allowed on the global BGP > network, IANA does not control the "global BGP network". Do you propose that we should somehow delegate some kind of authority for routing to IANA, so that they can declare a flag day? > But the way it is now, it's a giant game of chicken. Since > there is no drop-dead date that everyone has to renumber, no > ISP is going to stick out it's neck and be the first into the > boat, because if they start telling their customers that they > have to spend money, the customers will simply move to some > other ISP that isn't telling them they have to spend money. > So now do you understand when I say a lot of people have a > vested interest in having the IPv4 allocations running out be > a big train wreck? I'm not sure. You assert: - Router vendors will only support IPv6 in OS versions that require more flash/memory than recent chassis can hold, to force upgrades. - ISPs won't implement IPv6 until forced to do so, so they can delay the expenses as long as possible. You conclude: - None of the above are interested in proposals which would delay the exhaustion of IPv4. I will counter-assert that router vendors and large ISPs do not control the public policy process. They can send email and speak at the meetings only as much as anyone else. The only argument I recall seeing against some proposal you continue not making is that reclamation wouldn't be worth the effort. Really, send a proposal. It may not be adopted, but it definitely won't be if you don't send it. Lee From drc at virtualized.org Sat Mar 17 14:40:42 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:40:42 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B86C@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B86C@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: <91F3EEDF-79B3-4AD3-854B-F9DAEE63E9E6@virtualized.org> Lee, On Mar 17, 2007, at 7:32 AM, Howard, W. Lee wrote: >> Well, the lawsuit your referring to - Kremen VS Arin, available >> here: www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf has enough >> huge flaws o drive a truck through. > > http://www.arin.net/media/releases/dismissal-release.pdf > The Court recognized ARIN's authority in the stewardship of IP > numbering resources, and found that everyone should play by the > same rules. Just for clarification, I thought the court ruled that Kremen filed his lawsuit too late and in fact said essentially nothing about address stewardship/ownership unless that address space is allocated by ARIN "pursuant to terms of a service agreement" (that is, if the addresses are allocated according to the RSA, you have to abide by the RSA). Rgds, -drc From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Mar 17 15:08:58 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:08:58 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <91F3EEDF-79B3-4AD3-854B-F9DAEE63E9E6@virtualized.org> References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B86C@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> <91F3EEDF-79B3-4AD3-854B-F9DAEE63E9E6@virtualized.org> Message-ID: At 11:40 AM -0700 3/17/07, David Conrad wrote: > > > http://www.arin.net/media/releases/dismissal-release.pdf >> The Court recognized ARIN's authority in the stewardship of IP >> numbering resources, and found that everyone should play by the >> same rules. > >Just for clarification, I thought the court ruled that Kremen filed >his lawsuit too late and in fact said essentially nothing about >address stewardship/ownership unless that address space is allocated >by ARIN "pursuant to terms of a service agreement" (that is, if the >addresses are allocated according to the RSA, you have to abide by >the RSA). The court did several things, including dismissing the lawsuit due to statute of limitations issues, but more importantly was the modifying the outstanding order per ARIN's request, after reviewing ARIN's role in the administration of IP resources. I'll leave it to lawyers to determine the applicability of these decisions in other situations, but it is fair to say that some aspects of ARIN's policies and agreements have had their day in court and were not found lacking... /John From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Sat Mar 17 16:02:39 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:02:39 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <91F3EEDF-79B3-4AD3-854B-F9DAEE63E9E6@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B890@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 2:41 PM > To: Howard, W. Lee > Cc: Public Policy Mailing List > Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > On Mar 17, 2007, at 7:32 AM, Howard, W. Lee wrote: > > > > http://www.arin.net/media/releases/dismissal-release.pdf > > The Court recognized ARIN's authority in the stewardship of IP > > numbering resources, and found that everyone should play by > the same > > rules. > > Just for clarification, I thought the court ruled that Kremen > filed his lawsuit too late and in fact said essentially > nothing about address stewardship/ownership unless that > address space is allocated > by ARIN "pursuant to terms of a service agreement" > (that is, if the > addresses are allocated according to the RSA, you have to > abide by the RSA). > > Rgds, > -drc I have been known to be imprecise. I don't think your description and mine are far apart, but in any case I didn't mean to start a thread on law. Those who need IP resources need to play by the community's rules. Lee From drc at virtualized.org Sat Mar 17 18:03:46 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:03:46 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B890@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B890@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: Lee, On Mar 17, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Howard, W. Lee wrote: > Those who need IP resources need to play by the community's rules. My question was whether or not this had been established in the Kremen case. My understanding was that it hadn't been (ARIN's press release not withstanding). However, I'm probably hopelessly confused as always. Rgds, -drc From jay at handynetworks.com Sat Mar 17 20:24:44 2007 From: jay at handynetworks.com (Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:24:44 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <01c301c76840$025e7950$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <01c301c76840$025e7950$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B1701C78@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> >From a practical matter, I think it might be better to consider address-reclamation as something that should have been occurring since "the beginning of time" and not as a policy designed to stave off the inevitable depletion of IPv4 space. If an organization needs to demonstrate a need (as defined by ARIN policies) to obtain an IP allocation from ARIN, is it not logical that they must continue to have such a need in order to keep their IP allocation? If an organization no longer needs the IP allocation, ARIN should reclaim the allocation as a matter of normal operations. I am new to the list, and so please forgive me if my view is too simplistic. -Jay Sudowski -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:47 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Owen DeLong Cc: ARIN PPML Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown >>Do note that the projections for how long address-reclamation >>efforts will extend the exhaustion are on the order of six months. >>That means it'll take us longer to reach consensus and >>implement the changes than the period of time we'll buy by >>doing so, meaning we're better off _not_ doing it and instead >>spending our time figuring out how to get people on IPv6. > > Ah, now the truth comes out. You want IPv6 and are happy to see > reclamation efforts on IPv4 fail so it hastens the day for IPv6. We do not have a choice. The IPv4 address space _will_ be exhausted, and it'll happen in about four years if we do nothing. The best projections, by people who are quite authoritative on the matter, is that reclamation will buy us six more months. If you want to claim, as you did in another message, that it'll really buy us 5-10 years, you need to come up with better studies and data than we already have. And we'll be in the same boat again after that much time anyways, so we might as well save the effort and convert now before we buy/deploy _another_ hundred million routers and PCs. I don't buy the "all the studies show I'm wrong, but let's try it anyways and find out while wasting millions of dollars and putting off our only remaining viable option" argument. But that's just me; float an _actual proposal_ and see what others think. S * If one asserts that higher fees would discourage consumption, one must also accept that lower fees would encourage consumption. Either consumption is linked to price or it isn't. Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Mar 17 21:16:48 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:16:48 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B890@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: At 3:03 PM -0700 3/17/07, David Conrad wrote: >On Mar 17, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Howard, W. Lee wrote: > > Those who need IP resources need to play by the community's rules. > >My question was whether or not this had been established in the >Kremen case. In this particular case, the modified court order specifies that Kremen must agree to an ARIN registration services agreement, and hence be bound by the community's policies. To see if this establishes a legal precedent, one should ask a lawyer, but it definitely upholds the theory that "Those who need *ARIN-allocated* IP resources need to play by the community's rules." /John From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Sun Mar 18 05:28:56 2007 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 04:28:56 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B890@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: One hopes that is and will be the facts, yet I continue to hear ringing in my head...advice from long ago.. "it is neither legal nor illegal until the LAST judge says so"... -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of John Curran Sent: Sat 3/17/2007 8:16 PM To: David Conrad Cc: Public Policy Mailing List Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown At 3:03 PM -0700 3/17/07, David Conrad wrote: >On Mar 17, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Howard, W. Lee wrote: > > Those who need IP resources need to play by the community's rules. > >My question was whether or not this had been established in the >Kremen case. In this particular case, the modified court order specifies that Kremen must agree to an ARIN registration services agreement, and hence be bound by the community's policies. To see if this establishes a legal precedent, one should ask a lawyer, but it definitely upholds the theory that "Those who need *ARIN-allocated* IP resources need to play by the community's rules." /John _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ppml at rs.seastrom.com Sun Mar 18 09:04:12 2007 From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:04:12 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting In-Reply-To: (Ted Mittelstaedt's message of "Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:40:05 -0700") References: Message-ID: <86abya66ur.fsf@seastrom.com> "Ted Mittelstaedt" writes: >>From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] >> >>*You* are ARIN, so please take action. >> >>(Policy Proposals welcome) >> > > Let's have just a bit of discussion first, shall we? Or is the > aim of this to get a half-baked policy submitted so it can be > rejected? We're well past the deadline for proposals to be submitted for the April meeting. An actual proposal (yes, actually write it up in proposal format, using the template which you can download from http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep_template.html ) will have plenty of time to be discussed between now and the cutoff for the October meeting. Hint here: the more concise and easily understood a proposal is, the better its chances. People tend to not support things that they feel they don't completely understand. I'll be happy to give you a hand offline if you wish. ---rob From michael.dillon at bt.com Sun Mar 18 12:41:11 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:41:11 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D9963@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> > >Just for clarification, I thought the court ruled that Kremen filed > >his lawsuit too late and in fact said essentially nothing about > >address stewardship/ownership unless that address space is allocated > >by ARIN "pursuant to terms of a service agreement" > (that is, if the > >addresses are allocated according to the RSA, you have to abide by > >the RSA). > > The court did several things, including dismissing the lawsuit > due to statute of limitations issues, but more importantly was > the modifying the outstanding order per ARIN's request, after > reviewing ARIN's role in the administration of IP resources. To really get a sense of what happened, you need to read BOTH the petition submitted by ARIN and the judge's ruling. And although a large part of the ruling dismisses stuff because of time issues, the judges orders to Kremen and ARIN implicitly show support for ARIN. For instance, the judge said nothing about the legality of the RSA, but he did order Kremen to sign the RSA. Without the greater context, it is easy to miss these subtleties. --Michael Dillon From plzak at arin.net Sun Mar 18 13:55:27 2007 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:55:27 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting In-Reply-To: <86abya66ur.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <86abya66ur.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: Don't forget that this could be put on the agenda for the Open Policy Hour on Sunday. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Robert E. Seastrom > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 9:04 AM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting > > > "Ted Mittelstaedt" writes: > > >>From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] > >> > >>*You* are ARIN, so please take action. > >> > >>(Policy Proposals welcome) > >> > > > > Let's have just a bit of discussion first, shall we? Or is the > > aim of this to get a half-baked policy submitted so it can be > > rejected? > > We're well past the deadline for proposals to be submitted for the > April meeting. An actual proposal (yes, actually write it up in > proposal format, using the template which you can download from > http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep_template.html ) will have plenty of > time to be discussed between now and the cutoff for the October > meeting. Hint here: the more concise and easily understood a proposal > is, the better its chances. People tend to not support things that > they feel they don't completely understand. > > I'll be happy to give you a hand offline if you wish. > > ---rob > > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From stephen at sprunk.org Sun Mar 18 15:59:14 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:59:14 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown References: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D9963@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <00bb01c76998$0ca1e330$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake > To really get a sense of what happened, you need to read BOTH > the petition submitted by ARIN and the judge's ruling. And > although a large part of the ruling dismisses stuff because of > time issues, the judges orders to Kremen and ARIN implicitly > show support for ARIN. For instance, the judge said nothing > about the legality of the RSA, but he did order Kremen to sign > the RSA. Without the greater context, it is easy to miss these > subtleties. I'll save some googling for those who want to read: http://eplaw.us/kremen/mot-modify-order.pdf http://www.arin.net/media/clarification-granted.pdf http://www.arin.net/media/dismissal-granted.pdf One can read the decisions several ways. Things are looking up for ARIN, but both of the issues above were settled via procedural technicalities, not an actual assessment of the RSA or ARIN's practices or authority in general. While I'm glad that ARIN's counsel won them by the cheapest means possible, and this does set a (very) weak precedent, we still don't have a definitive case. I do note that the court, in the dismissal order, notes that anti-trust actions can be taken against even non-profit orgs. It doesn't affect the outcome in this case, so one must wonder why the court included that superfluous point in an otherwise-succinct order. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Mar 19 05:54:21 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:54:21 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit Message-ID: It is not easy to understand a lawsuit and its outcome, not even for lawyers. There is usually a flurry of documents, none of which provides a "management summary" of the case. You have to read through several documents, often wading through repetitive statements that are subsidiary to the heart of the case. Now I am not a lawyer, but I did trouble to hunt down some of the court filings and see whether ARIN came out on top or not. Earlier today I posted a message advising people to read certain documents and that advice was not terribly accurate and it certainly wasn't easy to follow. However, this is what I think captures the heart of the matter: ARIN's motion to dismiss: http://eplaw.us/kremen/mot-dismiss.pdf This document is the closest to a summary of the issues in the case. Order granting motion for clarification http://www.arin.net/media/clarification-granted.pdf It is the conclusion of this document that shows how the judge basically supports ARIN's policy and processes. There isn't any hint that ARIN is somehow illegitimate or acting improperly in its activities. It begins by requiring Kremen to file a transfer application which seems to me to imply that the judge is telling Kremen that he could have saved a lot of headache by just following ARIN's rules in the first place. The judgement http://www.arin.net/media/judgement.pdf Of course this doesn't say much but it says with some finality, that ARIN won the case. Now I am not a lawyer and the law courses that I did take were on Canadian law, not US law, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. I also do not represent ARIN in any way. On this mailing list I'm just an individual participating in the open public policy process. It's odd that ARIN's motions are not on its website here http://www.arin.net/media/index.html but a lawyer who took some interest in the case has posted a news item on his site http://eplaw.us/news/2006/10/25 with links to many of the filings. A google search for "arin kremen site:eplaw.us" will get you to these. Of course, any discussion of this probably belongs on a law blog or legal mailing list somewhere. ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Dillon Capacity Management, 66 Prescot St., London, E1 8HG, UK Mobile: +44 7900 823 672 Internet: michael.dillon at bt.com Phone: +44 20 7650 9493 Fax: +44 20 7650 9030 http://www.btradianz.com One Community One Connection One Focus From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Mar 19 07:42:50 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:42:50 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 9:54 +0000 3/19/07, wrote: >Now I am not a lawyer No offense to Michael, but I would request that we get a summary of the legal action from ARIN's legal council at the next meeting, whether Public Policy or Member. Something akin to what Mr. Ryan provided at the meeting in St. Louis. It would be good to hear about legal matters from someone that doesn't have to begin with "I am not..." ;) I too am curious about the lack of a public statement coming from ARIN (staff), but thinking this over, perhaps the lack is due to the fairness principle. A statement on a particular registrant's situation could be seen as breaking from the confidential nature of ARIN's operations. It's awfully hard to operate openly in the public interest when you have to manage confidential information. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Mar 19 08:28:24 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:28:24 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:42 PM +0100 3/19/07, Edward Lewis wrote: >I too am curious about the lack of a public statement coming from >ARIN (staff), but thinking this over, perhaps the lack is due to the >fairness principle. The press release is likely the closest your going to see a formal statement, since (as one list member implied), no case is final until the last judge has ruled. /John From info at arin.net Mon Mar 19 09:36:48 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:36:48 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Community Consultation Extended - Removal of WHOIS Query Result Limit Message-ID: <45FE91F0.7010503@arin.net> The call for discussion on consult at arin.net is extended to Noon ET, Monday, 26 March. ARIN is soliciting input from the community on a request to remove the ARIN WHOIS query limit of 256 results. Rather than raise the limit to an arbitrary number, ARIN requests that you provide your specific feedback as to what the query results limit should be. ARIN asks for feedback based on your experiences with using ARIN's WHOIS directory service. It would be of particular interest to ARIN to receive input from larger organizations with many registered resources or sub-delegations regarding an appropriate result limit. The call for consultation and discussion to date is archived at: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/consult/ Subscribe to consult at arin.net and participate in the discussion and the subsequent community polling: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/consult A poll on the topic will be conducted beginning Tuesday, 27 March. Subscribers on the consult at arin.net list when discussion ends will be eligible to participate. Poll results will be publicly available and will be used by the ARIN President to help determine what course of action, if any, ARIN should take regarding the suggestion. We welcome community-wide participation. Please address any process questions to info at arin.net. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From dcorbe at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 11:18:40 2007 From: dcorbe at gmail.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:18:40 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> What exactly brought the lawsuit on to begin with? What did ARIN deny Kreman from doing that Kreman thought it appropriate to take legal action? On Mar 19, 2007, at 8:28 AM, John Curran wrote: > At 12:42 PM +0100 3/19/07, Edward Lewis wrote: >> I too am curious about the lack of a public statement coming from >> ARIN (staff), but thinking this over, perhaps the lack is due to the >> fairness principle. > > The press release is likely the closest your going to see > a formal statement, since (as one list member implied), > no case is final until the last judge has ruled. > > /John > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Mar 19 11:22:18 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:22:18 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> References: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> Message-ID: Long story, it's best to read the suit itself for background. /John At 11:18 AM -0400 3/19/07, Daniel Corbe wrote: >What exactly brought the lawsuit on to begin with? What did ARIN deny Kreman from doing that Kreman thought it appropriate to take legal action? From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Mar 19 11:30:11 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:30:11 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> References: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> Message-ID: I was going to point to the recording of what was said ARIN's legal council at the meeting last October, but I don't see a link to any recording of it on this page: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XVIII/ppm.html I drink my share of beer, but I could have sworn that there was a pretty informative and entertaining discussion of all this during the Public Policy meeting in St. Louis. I don't see anything under the Member Meeting minutes. Maybe I am looking in the wrong place. At 11:18 -0400 3/19/07, Daniel Corbe wrote: >What exactly brought the lawsuit on to begin with? What did ARIN >deny Kreman from doing that Kreman thought it appropriate to take >legal action? > >On Mar 19, 2007, at 8:28 AM, John Curran wrote: > >> At 12:42 PM +0100 3/19/07, Edward Lewis wrote: >>> I too am curious about the lack of a public statement coming from >>> ARIN (staff), but thinking this over, perhaps the lack is due to the >>> fairness principle. >> >> The press release is likely the closest your going to see >> a formal statement, since (as one list member implied), >> no case is final until the last judge has ruled. >> >> /John >> _______________________________________________ >> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List >> (PPML at arin.net). >> Manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From kkargel at polartel.com Mon Mar 19 11:51:25 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:51:25 -0500 Subject: [ppml] *Spam?* Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B87D@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D06@mail> > > Who are these "major players?" > Telcos? Cable companies? Router manufacturers? All of the > above? > Since you say "buy new hardware" I'll assume you mean router > manufacturers, but we've heard loud concern from a major ISP > that the router people aren't provided boxes to scale for > five years. > Hey, I am a rural Telco with a /18.. are you calling me a "Major Player"? gee thanks.. now stand back and watch my head swell.. By the way, all my edge and core routers are IPv6 ready, and most of my core and internal switches are IPv6 capable, even though many hosts are not and when I checked last week neither of my two 'tier two' nor my one 'tier three' upstreams are ready to provide me with IPv6 routing. As a small ISP in rural America I can only assume that the larger and metro ISP's are in at least as good of shape as we are for the transition. Best regards, Kevin $s/worry/happy,g From dmblumenthal at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 12:48:56 2007 From: dmblumenthal at gmail.com (Don Blumenthal) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:48:56 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: References: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/19/07, Edward Lewis wrote: > I drink my share of beer, but I could have sworn that there was a > pretty informative and entertaining discussion of all this during the > Public Policy meeting in St. Louis. I don't see anything under the > Member Meeting minutes. You're not hallucinating. Steve Ryan did talk about the lawsuit, but it wasn't a formal part of the agenda. I can't remember what prompted Ray to ask him for comments. Don -- Don M. Blumenthal Technology, Law, and Policy dmblumenthal at gmail.com www.donblumenthal.com 734-997-0764 202-431-0874 (c) From AHersh at Ocalafl.org Mon Mar 19 13:02:31 2007 From: AHersh at Ocalafl.org (Arnie Hersh) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:02:31 -0400 Subject: [ppml] cancel mailing Message-ID: <6A8516F0D4EF4C47AF58EDDE0D9DA9E302443014@mail.Ocalafl.org> Please cancel mailing. I have logged in and canceled but still receiving. ARNIE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mharmon at mepcom.army.mil Mon Mar 19 13:12:01 2007 From: mharmon at mepcom.army.mil (Harmon, Mark (Chief, MIT-Network Support Division)) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:12:01 -0500 Subject: [ppml] cancel mailing Message-ID: Please cancel mailing. I have logged in and canceled but still receiving. Mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thys at Zinpro.com Mon Mar 19 13:15:14 2007 From: Thys at Zinpro.com (COETZEE, Thys) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:15:14 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D06@mail> References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B87D@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D06@mail> Message-ID: <<<< Hey, I am a rural Telco with a /18.. are you calling me a "Major Player"? gee thanks.. now stand back and watch my head swell.. By the way, all my edge and core routers are IPv6 ready, and most of my core and internal switches are IPv6 capable, even though many hosts are not and when I checked last week neither of my two 'tier two' nor my one 'tier three' upstreams are ready to provide me with IPv6 routing. As a small ISP in rural America I can only assume that the larger and metro ISP's are in at least as good of shape as we are for the transition. Best regards, Kevin >>>> Kevin and his people deserve a round of applause. _________________________________________________________________ Thys Coetzee Director of Information Technology email: thys at zinpro.com Zinpro Performance Minerals???????? tel : 952-983-4000 10400 Viking Drive, Ste 240,??????? help: 952-983-3911 Eden Prairie,? MN? 55344? USA?????? www.zinpro.com _________________________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:51 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] *Spam?* Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > Who are these "major players?" > Telcos? Cable companies? Router manufacturers? All of the > above? > Since you say "buy new hardware" I'll assume you mean router > manufacturers, but we've heard loud concern from a major ISP > that the router people aren't provided boxes to scale for > five years. > Hey, I am a rural Telco with a /18.. are you calling me a "Major Player"? gee thanks.. now stand back and watch my head swell.. By the way, all my edge and core routers are IPv6 ready, and most of my core and internal switches are IPv6 capable, even though many hosts are not and when I checked last week neither of my two 'tier two' nor my one 'tier three' upstreams are ready to provide me with IPv6 routing. As a small ISP in rural America I can only assume that the larger and metro ISP's are in at least as good of shape as we are for the transition. Best regards, Kevin $s/worry/happy,g _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From bmanning at karoshi.com Mon Mar 19 13:17:59 2007 From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:17:59 +0000 Subject: [ppml] cancel mailing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070319171759.GA19903@vacation.karoshi.com.> > Please cancel mailing. I have logged in and canceled but still receiving. > hello folks... this is SMTP... not MSN mail or USENET. email, once sent, can not be recalled/canceled. one might think twice before hitting send. --bill From brad.jacobson at eds.com Mon Mar 19 13:20:38 2007 From: brad.jacobson at eds.com (Jacobson, Brad) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:20:38 -0400 Subject: [ppml] FW: cancel mailing Message-ID: <0FBE6A8817108F458D22F0AF6C8FEDD9AA25B1@usahm209.amer.corp.eds.com> Please cancel mailing for me as well......I too have replied with s cancel and continue to receive these emails. Thanks-you ________________________________ From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Arnie Hersh Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:03 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] cancel mailing Please cancel mailing. I have logged in and canceled but still receiving. ARNIE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Mar 19 13:34:32 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:34:32 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >John Curran >Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:22 AM >To: Daniel Corbe >Cc: ppml at arin.net; Edward Lewis >Subject: Re: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit > > >Long story, it's best to read the suit itself for background. >/John > >At 11:18 AM -0400 3/19/07, Daniel Corbe wrote: >>What exactly brought the lawsuit on to begin with? What did ARIN >deny Kreman from doing that Kreman thought it appropriate to take >legal action? Cohen obtained a large block of IP addresses pre-ARIN Kremen won a lawsuit against Cohen which basically gave him all Cohen's assets Kremen then went to ARIN and asked ARIN to change the name on Cohen's IP addresses to himself, based on his lawsuit against Cohen. ARIN said no problem, just go through the usual procedure which means submitting justification of need for IP addresses. Kremen didn't want to do that because submitting justification would require him to reveal his downstream customers. He sued ARIN based on ARIN not giving him Cohen's allocation. The basis of his suit was that Cohen's IP addresses were property, thus assets that Kremen had title to per the earlier lawsuit. I'm glad that Michael posted his links because when I looked this mess up last week I wasn't able to find followup on it. No doubt an appeal will be filed so it will be some years before there is final resolution on this. It may also be made moot if the Internet switches over to IPv6 before it is finally resolved. Ted From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Mar 19 13:48:45 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:48:45 -0000 Subject: [ppml] FW: cancel mailing In-Reply-To: <0FBE6A8817108F458D22F0AF6C8FEDD9AA25B1@usahm209.amer.corp.eds.com> Message-ID: >Please cancel mailing for me as well......I too have replied with s cancel and continue to receive these emails. Thanks-you What on earth is s cancel? Did any of you try going to this page: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml where you can unsubscribe without bothering the list membership? Or this page labelled CONTACT US on the main ARIN page http://www.arin.net/about_us/contact_us.html where you can find useful email addresses such as info at arin.net ? From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Mar 19 14:17:09 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:17:09 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B86C@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com] >Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 7:33 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: RE: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >> Well, the lawsuit your referring to - Kremen VS Arin, available >> here: www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf has enough >> huge flaws o drive a truck through. > >http://www.arin.net/media/releases/dismissal-release.pdf >The Court recognized ARIN's authority in the stewardship of IP >numbering resources, and found that everyone should play by the >same rules. > >> >I would support a policy proposal that directed ARIN to >> actively try to >> >reclaim address space that was no longer in use, regardless of what >> >terms it was assigned/allocated under. >> >> Well, good because that is what I am in favor of as well. > >Excellent. Will one of you please write such a proposal? > Question, you said in 8/3/04 that implementation of the annual maintainence fees for legacy assignments that was adopted in 3/22/04 had been deferred until billing integration within ARIN has taken place. Has this integration taken place or not? If not, what else needs to be done before it will take place? If it has taken place then how many of the legacy assignments that were billed annual fees have not yet paid? > >> You have to simply make a decision, are we going to try >> reclamation or not? > >It's not deciding time until there's a proposal. This is discussion >time. > I know, that was a rhetorical question. >> If we are, then the next decision is are we going to try >> reclamation based on monetary adjustments, (changing fees) or >> by setting policy? > >Minor note: policies are set by the public, fees are set by the >members. > >> I do not favor setting fees as a tool for changing IPv4 >> allocations. I am much more in favor of setting policy then >> if people violate the policy, suing the pants off of them. >> This does have a requirement that the organization be run by >> someone with balls. Unfortunately, I am in a minority >> because most people subscribe to the belief that all we have >> to do is adjust pricing and people will do what we want - >> like magic! As a result if a reclamation policy does get >> passed, it most likely will be a limp-handed politically >> correct poofball that will make all kinds of naieve >> assumptions that organizations will fall all over themselves >> to return unused space just because they think it might cost >> a bit more money to hold on to it. > >This paragraph might contain some content, but it's hard to tell. > >I think it says: >You would support a (as yet unsubmitted) policy of aggressive >auditing and reclamation of IPv4 address space, enforced by legal >action. You suspect, however, that the majority of the public >would not support such a policy. > That is correct. I have big doubts that a more agressive auditing and reclamation of IPv4 space policy would be supported by ARIN members until such time that ARIN would be unable to supply allocations on request, (ie: IPv4 runout) particularly after responses on this list. The one thing that I have come even more firmly into belief though after reading all of this discussion is that it will be a huge mistake if IPv6 adoption by the Internet core is not done before IPv4 address runout, but instead was done months or years after IPv4 runout as a result of political/economic pressure. In other words, we can have it the easy way or the hard way. The easy way would be to get agressive about IPv4 reclamation now, which would push back the deadline for IPv4 runout. Then after a year or so of more agressive reclamation, then set a IPv4 end-date that all RIR's agree would be the actual end of addresses (with the understanding that this is nothing more than a best-guess). Then set a conversion date that would be 6 months before that date, of conversion of the global BGP table to IPv6. The hard way would be to do nothing until the actual end of IPv4 allocations, then see if the free market will step in and do some sort of IPv4 brokering thing, then let the Internet's global BGP table sort of morph/evolve into an IPv4/IPv6 table then eventually become all IPv6. In the absense of political will or agreement for the former the latter is what is going to happen by default. The sad thing is that it seems like a lot of people WANT the latter to happen. TEd From t.lynch at impsat.com Mon Mar 19 14:36:01 2007 From: t.lynch at impsat.com (ARGCRP-LYNCH, TOMAS) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:36:01 -0400 Subject: [ppml] FW: cancel mailing In-Reply-To: <0FBE6A8817108F458D22F0AF6C8FEDD9AA25B1@usahm209.amer.corp.eds.com> Message-ID: <929EE64373BA2D4592F9985C09E1A287FF9F83@usa-ex2k.impsat.com> I am starting to believe in a world-wide conspiracy against common sense. TL > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Jacobson, Brad > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:21 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] FW: cancel mailing > > Please cancel mailing for me as well......I too have replied with > s cancel and continue to receive these emails. Thanks-you > > > > ________________________________ > > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Arnie Hersh > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:03 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] cancel mailing > > > > Please cancel mailing. I have logged in and canceled but > still receiving. ARNIE > > From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Mar 19 14:38:26 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:38:26 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B86D@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Howard, W. Lee >Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 7:51 AM >To: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt >> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:05 PM >> The problem is that so far ARIN's policies say that the fees >> cover the cost of maintaining allocation information. This >> assumes that ARIN cannot use fees as a tool to modify address >> consumption - although the fact that ARIN has maintained a >> wavier of IPv6 fees is basically an attempt to use fees as a >> tool to modify address consumption. > >ARIN's membership directed the Board to set fees at a level to >recover expenses. If the members would like to set a different >goal, the Board they elected will listen. > > >> Since ARIN is a non-profit, if it raises fees in order to >> modify how organizations consume addresses, you then have a >> situation where ARIN is now a profit-making organization. >> (or you have to find something to spend all the additional >> money on) If it's a profit-making company you then cannot >> disallow other profit-making companies from selling IP addresses. > >Not exactly. ARIN's status as a non-profit does not preclude >it from having revenues be higher than expenses. The IRS does >prohibit certain kinds of activity, including what can be done >any surplus. > >ARIN is classified as a 501c6 by the IRS. >http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=96107,00.html > > >> Basically the end result of all of this is that it is >> difficult to make lots of ARIN fee changes in order to >> attempt to enforce policy. It's not impossible, but it is >> difficult. And certainly, the fee changes that you can make >> will not be significant enough to modify the behavior of most >> organizations with large allocations. >> >> The best way to approach fees is to make other policy changes >> then let ARIN decide what to do about the fees. For example > >When you say, "Let ARIN decide," do you mean the public, the >members, the Board, or the staff? I mean ARIN. You have a formula you use to arrive at the fee dollar amount that sets the fee equal to recover expenses. Presumably you review this periodically to see if the fee structure is still generating enough money to cover your expenses. If you have to do more work to reclaim addresses then your expenses go up and you raise fees. If you recover more IPv4 then there are more people paying fees and thus economies of scale should cause fees to drop. I would presume that at the beginning of an agressive IPv4 reclamation project that a lot of unused IPv4 would come back with little effort, so when it gets reallocated, more money in fees would come back than was spent on labor recovering IPv4. Whereas at the end of an agressive IPv4 reclamation project a lot of labor would be required to get very little reclaimed IPv4 (law of diminishing returns) back, so less money would come in on fees for reallocated reclaimed space than labor to get the reclaimed space. Presumably those would balance out and the net effect would be little change in fees. Ted From steve at blighty.com Mon Mar 19 14:51:35 2007 From: steve at blighty.com (Steve Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:51:35 -0700 Subject: [ppml] FW: cancel mailing In-Reply-To: <929EE64373BA2D4592F9985C09E1A287FF9F83@usa-ex2k.impsat.com> References: <929EE64373BA2D4592F9985C09E1A287FF9F83@usa-ex2k.impsat.com> Message-ID: On Mar 19, 2007, at 11:36 AM, ARGCRP-LYNCH, TOMAS wrote: > I am starting to believe in a world-wide conspiracy against common > sense. A lot of people being subscribed to a mailing list without much information as to content, or subscription of role addresses that forward to their main mail addresses combined with broken, partly-broken or just plain confusing unsubscription handling would be a more plausible explanation. Cheers, Steve From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Mar 19 14:53:46 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:53:46 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B86E@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com] >Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 8:16 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Owen DeLong >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > > >> >If the community comes to consensus around a policy >> providing for #2, >> >then, it will be acceptable at least until such time as the courts >> >determine otherwise. OTOH, if the community does not come to such a >> >consensus, then, there is no policy to support such action. >> > >> >Currently, there is no policy to support such action. >> >> Exactly, and this issue must be faced squarely or we are just >> wasting our time on the whole issue of extending the life of >> IPv4 on the Internet. > >Without a proposal, we can only face this issue obliquely. >There are two tools ARIN has: policy, and fees. I beg and plead >with you to propose something. > I will, soon. >> It seems to me that the current allocation scheme is >> fundamentally based on the concept of need of addresses for >> your own use. That is, if I need addresses for my network, >> and I can demonstrate this need, then I will get them. It is >> not based on the idea that I need a chunk of addresses so I >> can turn around and make a lot of money selling them to >> someone who really does need them. ISP's for example, when >> they assign an IP address to a customer, if the customer >> quits service, the IP address stays with the ISP. >> >> This is a morality question of sorts. > >Would you propose that we abolish the allocation system, and >only assign to end user organizations? > If we end up in "IP NAT hell" as someone called it which means at some point in the future where all large allocations are tied up, and we start seriously contemplating BGP IPv4 advertisements of /25 or less, then I don't see that ARIN is going to have much choice in the matter, with micro-micro allocations of that small size, ARIN will effectively be allocating to end-users. > >> In the history of human endeavor >[. . .] >> Thus the idea is that fundamentally, any idea of creating a >> free market of IP addresses being bought and sold, is >> tanasmount to patenting the Christian idea of "do unto >> others" or it is tansamount to issuing a copyright on "the >> happy birthday song" > >That song is (probably) protected by copyright. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You > I knew about that which is why I used that example. Great example of corporate immorality. Ted From randy at psg.com Mon Mar 19 15:16:28 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:16:28 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> References: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <45FEE18C.2000809@psg.com> Daniel Corbe wrote: > What exactly brought the lawsuit on to begin with? What did ARIN > deny Kreman from doing that Kreman thought it appropriate to take > legal action? and what requirements does folk's not keeping up with old news place on arin policy? randy From kkargel at polartel.com Mon Mar 19 15:55:45 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:55:45 -0500 Subject: [ppml] FW: cancel mailing In-Reply-To: <929EE64373BA2D4592F9985C09E1A287FF9F83@usa-ex2k.impsat.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D0E@mail> > I am starting to believe in a world-wide conspiracy against > common sense. > > TL > That belief is only viable if you first accept the concept of worldwide common sense to conspire against.. Kevin $s/worry/happy,g From info at arin.net Mon Mar 19 16:33:00 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:33:00 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: References: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <45FEF37C.5050505@arin.net> Ed, Go to: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XVIII/ppm.html and then click on Transcript under Meeting Called to Order. Steve Ryan's remarks follow the opening announcements so you need to scroll down a bit: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XVIII/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_1 Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Edward Lewis wrote: > I was going to point to the recording of what was said ARIN's legal > council at the meeting last October, but I don't see a link to any > recording of it on this page: > > http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XVIII/ppm.html > > I drink my share of beer, but I could have sworn that there was a > pretty informative and entertaining discussion of all this during the > Public Policy meeting in St. Louis. I don't see anything under the > Member Meeting minutes. > > Maybe I am looking in the wrong place. > > At 11:18 -0400 3/19/07, Daniel Corbe wrote: > >>What exactly brought the lawsuit on to begin with? What did ARIN >>deny Kreman from doing that Kreman thought it appropriate to take >>legal action? >> >>On Mar 19, 2007, at 8:28 AM, John Curran wrote: >> >> >>> At 12:42 PM +0100 3/19/07, Edward Lewis wrote: >>> >>>> I too am curious about the lack of a public statement coming from >>>> ARIN (staff), but thinking this over, perhaps the lack is due to the >>>> fairness principle. >>> >>> The press release is likely the closest your going to see >>> a formal statement, since (as one list member implied), >>> no case is final until the last judge has ruled. >>> >>> /John >>> _______________________________________________ >>> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List >>> (PPML at arin.net). >>> Manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Mar 19 17:38:39 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:38:39 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40537B87D@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com] >Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:26 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >Wow, this post got very long. I apologize to everyone; I'm >trying to trim as I go, without losing context. > >I'm not sure how many more ways I can say the following: >1. Send a proposal. >2. IP numbering policies are determined on this list, and >informed by public policy meetings. >3. ARIN is us. >4. Please send a policy proposal. > >I will continue correcting factually faulty assertions about >the ARIN organization (community, Advisory Council, Board, >staff), process, and fees. I will try to refrain from further >posting about style, conspiracies, or the intent of industries >or other organizations. The AC should continue extruding >clear policy proposals from the email threads. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:48 PM >> To: Howard, W. Lee; ppml at arin.net >> Subject: RE: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > >> >Ted, I can't tell from your tone whether you're trying to >> rant or make >> >constructive contributions. >> > >> >> Well, I honestly consider the issue of IPv4 runout to be a >> lost cause, since as I already mentioned, too many deep >> pockets have a vested interest in making the transition as >> uncomfortable as possible. In short, "they" want to switch >> the Internet over to >> IPv6 and are simply not interested in any proposals that will >> extend IPv4. > >"Rant" then? > >> I personally believe that with effort on the number >> registries part, we could extend the use of IPv4 on the >> backbone until long after everyone on the list here has >> retired. But I see no real interest in doing this among any >> of the major players. Instead all "they" care about is >> making everyone buy new hardware and renumbering. > >Who are these "major players?" >Telcos? Cable companies? Router manufacturers? All of the >above? >Since you say "buy new hardware" I'll assume you mean router >manufacturers, but we've heard loud concern from a major ISP >that the router people aren't provided boxes to scale for >five years. > There was just recently a long annoyed thread on the Cisco mailing list about this topic. Many older 7206VXR's have NPE300s in them and Cisco just stopped supporting that CPU card, right BEFORE correcting a long running bug in Service feature set that prevents people from running IPv6. So ISP's who don't upgrade and who run IPv6 on this platform are left in the proverbial cold if a problem happens. People were angry since Cisco had promised IPv6 support for many years and the bug that was fixed had been open for many years previous to end of support. That is just a simple example. More apt is the many ISP's who gave routers for free or "rented" routers like Cisco 2500's, 1600's and 1700's to T1 customers, a few years ago that was a fad I think, (at least around here it was) and now those devices need hardware ram and/or flash as well as service updates to run IPv6 As far as scaling that is a different issue and I think depends much on how the switchover from IPv4 to IPv6 is managed on the Internet. Right now a full BGP table with 2 views consumes around 170-200K of ram in a Cisco, there are a lot of Ciscos out there with NPE cards that are maxed at 256MB of ram, so if your talking doubling the BGP route table with IPv6 or with many /24 advertisements then people will have to upgrade. These are all end-node AS sites, as I would presume that a large network would be running a Juniper or a much larger Cisco that would have different scaling issues. >> But, I do think it is facinating to >> watch someone try to change the status quo. Sometimes, they >> even succeed in doing it. > >This is frequently the case at ARIN. > > >Did you see the transfer request? > >Did you see any subsequent applications for additional address space? > We were an old MCI customer and yes, all our old numbers went from MCI to SAVVIS about 9 months after MCI disconnected from us. We did ask ARIN to be assigned those, we were told the entire MCI thing was a mess and nobody knew what was going to happen. So we got a fresh allocation. In the long run renumbering helped us and ARIN was definitely kind to us and didn't jack us around, so I have no complaints there. But from a theoretical standpoint SAVVIS could have got the block we were allocated instead of the MCI numbers, and then we wouldn't have had to renumber. That is why I used that example, as I had first hand knowledge of the events. It might have been a special case for ARIN. >> But, in reality, since the subsidiary is a separate >> corporation, even if only on paper, the parent can merely >> continue to use the subsidiary's old name when dealing with >> ARIN and thus avoid any existing rules such as 8.1 Transfers >> that you cited above. > >A separate corporation "only on paper" is a separate corporation. >I don't know how else to define it. > Exactly my point. I don't know of any way to make policy around this problem, either, other than to give a reclamation staff more authority to shift things around. > >Come to a meeting, meet the IP Analysts for the large ISPs, and ask >them why they don't renumber. Look at the list of attendees, and >ask them (you'll have to find their contact information another >way). Ask the Whois Technical POCs. > I know why they don't renumber, it costs money and is disruptive. You have to take it as a given that very few -want- to renumber. There are many more reasons for not renumbering than for renumbering. > >> Also there is another reason that not many people have >> switched to IPv6 and that is, since it is costly and disrupts >> customers, if an ISP devotes resources to doing it, the ISP's >> customers that are affected are going to wonder why they >> simply don't just go to a competitor ISP that isn't requiring >> them to do all this IPv6 stuff. In short it is a competitive >> advantage to NOT change your network and disrupt your >> customers, yet have everyone else change their network and >> disrupt their customers. This creates a condition where all >> of the ISPs facing this would much rather have everything >> disrupted at one time. >> >> If for example IANA announced that on January 1st 2012 that >> there would be no more IPv4 traffic allowed on the global BGP >> network, > >IANA does not control the "global BGP network". I disagree. Let's assume that over the next 15 years more and more networks switch over to IPv6. let's assume that America Online announces that in 2015 they will no longer accept e-mail from IPv4 networks. I know that would cause many ISPs to convert even if they were fighting it because their customers would insist on them doing it. By 2019, there are so few IPv4-only networks that the costs of keeping track of IPv4 exceed the minor amount of money the RIR's are still getting from IPv4-only registrations. Let's assume that the RIR's announce that due to this they will no longer track IPv4 allocations as of 2020. People could still advertise them if they wanted, but they wouldn't be tracked, so nothing would prevent someone from just using any old IPV4 numbers they wanted. I think this would be the effective end of IPv4 in the so-called "global BGP network" In other words, if IANA were to decide 2010 was "flag day" they could merely announce that all IPv4 allocations as of that date were unmaintained, non-tracked, and shut down whois queries for them. At that time, no production network that was fiscally responsible to it's customers would date to remain IPv4 only. > >I'm not sure. >You assert: >- Router vendors will only support IPv6 in OS versions that require >more flash/memory than recent chassis can hold, to force upgrades. >- ISPs won't implement IPv6 until forced to do so, so they can >delay the expenses as long as possible. > >You conclude: >- None of the above are interested in proposals which would delay >the exhaustion of IPv4. > That's the gist of it, yes. >I will counter-assert that router vendors and large ISPs do not >control the public policy process. They can send email and speak >at the meetings only as much as anyone else. The only argument I >recall seeing against some proposal you continue not making is >that reclamation wouldn't be worth the effort. > > >Really, send a proposal. It may not be adopted, but it definitely >won't be if you don't send it. > Very good, then. I will predict it will be shot down, but we will see. Ted From drc at virtualized.org Mon Mar 19 17:58:29 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:58:29 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8BED20CE-F198-4FD9-A412-6BB44C653AEC@virtualized.org> Hi, On Mar 19, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> IANA does not control the "global BGP network". > I disagree. Then you are wrong. Really. I can speak authoritatively on this. > In other words, if IANA were to decide 2010 was "flag day" they could > merely announce that all IPv4 allocations as of that date were > unmaintained, non-tracked, and shut down whois queries for them. a) IANA doesn't decide these sorts of things. It implements policies others, like the RIRs, define. b) IANA does not maintain, track, or provide whois service for the vast majority of IPv4 allocations. We maintain a top-level delegation (textual) chart for the /8s IANA has handed out over the years. Nothing more, nothing less. c) Even if IANA did maintain this sort of data, if we were to stop, it would mean essentially nothing to the various ISPs and end users that would continue to use IPv4. You seem to have a view that there is a responsible adult who can make the hard decisions. That entity does not exist. The entire addressing system works because people agree it works and cooperate to define how. That's why Lee, John, et al, have asked for proposals. Rgds, -drc General Manager, IANA From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Mar 19 18:24:59 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:24:59 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <8BED20CE-F198-4FD9-A412-6BB44C653AEC@virtualized.org> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] >Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:58 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Public Policy Mailing List >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > >Hi, > >On Mar 19, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>> IANA does not control the "global BGP network". >> I disagree. > >Then you are wrong. Really. I can speak authoritatively on this. > >> In other words, if IANA were to decide 2010 was "flag day" they could >> merely announce that all IPv4 allocations as of that date were >> unmaintained, non-tracked, and shut down whois queries for them. > >a) IANA doesn't decide these sorts of things. It implements policies >others, like the RIRs, define. >b) IANA does not maintain, track, or provide whois service for the >vast majority of IPv4 allocations. We maintain a top-level >delegation (textual) chart for the /8s IANA has handed out over the >years. Nothing more, nothing less. OK, so change that to say "if all the RIR's" >c) Even if IANA did maintain this sort of data, if we were to stop, >it would mean essentially nothing to the various ISPs and end users >that would continue to use IPv4. > >You seem to have a view that there is a responsible adult who can >make the hard decisions. That entity does not exist. That isn't true. There is always a "responsible adult" lurking around out there, you just want to stick your head in the sand and ignore it. That "adult" is called the government, and it's form is of the various legislatures and courts and dictators out there who run things in the world. You seem to think that these governments don't give a hoot if we all botch up this IPv4 thing and end up with a train wreck on the Internet because nobody stepped forward and implemented the hard decisions. I can tell you they do. If we don't do it, they will, with legislation. And the results will not be pretty. That is what happened to the DNS ssytem. Do you want a repeat? >The entire >addressing system works because people agree it works and cooperate >to define how. That's why Lee, John, et al, have asked for proposals. > It doesen't matter if we all agree on a proposal, it matters if the proposal we all agree on is carried out. For those who advocate a weak numbering authority, which is what we have now (no offense intended) there is little controversy for them to do their jobs. But human nature being what it is, when we run out of IPv4 at some day in the future, there will be some networks out there who make decisions based on what is best for them and damn the rest of the Internet. A weak central authority won't be able to rein them in. What do you think the likely outcome will be if a large network with many very rich online porno customers needs more numbers and makes a request of ARIN and is denied because there are no more IPv4 numbers? a) they will tell their customers "sorry no more servers" b) they will just grab a random IPv4 block allocated to someone else that they don't think is being used. Ted From owen at delong.com Mon Mar 19 18:47:02 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:47:02 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5BA147C1-984B-400E-A322-CAA661AC024C@delong.com> >> c) Even if IANA did maintain this sort of data, if we were to stop, >> it would mean essentially nothing to the various ISPs and end users >> that would continue to use IPv4. >> >> You seem to have a view that there is a responsible adult who can >> make the hard decisions. That entity does not exist. > > That isn't true. There is always a "responsible adult" lurking around > out there, you just want to stick your head in the sand and ignore > it. That "adult" is called the government, and it's form is of the > various legislatures and courts and dictators out there who run > things in the world. > Um, no... THAT is not true. Number one, I would hardly refer to most governments as responsible, or, adult. Number two, there is no single government that has authority over IP addressing. In fact, it's pretty hard to envision any government having any real authority over any IP addressing other than specifically what has been delegated them for their use. Afterall, a government order that says party A owns 12.1.2.3 doesn't mean much if no ISP will route it for them. It means even less if several other ISPs will route it in other countries for someone else. > You seem to think that these governments don't give a hoot if we > all botch up this IPv4 thing and end up with a train wreck on the > Internet because nobody stepped forward and implemented the hard > decisions. > I think that whether we botch it up or not, the governments cannot improve the situation whether they care or not. > I can tell you they do. If we don't do it, they will, with > legislation. > And the results will not be pretty. That is what happened to the > DNS ssytem. Do you want a repeat? You're right. The results of legislation will not be pretty, and, it is unlikely that they will have any semblance of what lawmakers intended the results to be. First, US law is not binding on about 2/3rds of the internet, and, I believe that puts US law in charge of the largest portion of the internet under the control of a single national government. Number two, it's pretty hard to imagine how one would actually successfully legislate the usage of a collection of 32 bit integers. Not that the government is smart enough to realize this futility. We're talking about the same people that make it illegal for me to have an ounce of black powder in my possession for ejection charges in rocketry without a Federal Explosives User Permit, require me to store even an ounce of BP in a type 2 or type 3 magazine if I do possess it legally for rocketry purposes, yet they allow me to have up to 50 pounds in my possession with no permit and no magazine if it is for my firearm hobby. (Yes, this is actually the current state of US law on that subject, I kid you not.) I don't want a repeat, but, I also don't think the government can actually achieve a repeat. DNS got mucked up by the trademark and intellectual property interest groups. The government had minimal effect, but, in that case, the US DOC had clear jurisdiction over certain domains, and, WIPO managed to do a land-grab over others. Do you really think that anyone is going to hand global IP management over to WIPO in any meaningful way? I don't. I don't think anyone would follow WIPOs lead, even if the law said we should. I think that IP routing and addressing works because people agree to cooperate and non-cooperating parties tend to get de-routed. I think that any interference with that process will be treated as damage and be routed around (paraphrasing old RFCs and related historical commentary). IP is very different from DNS. It's much harder to claim you own PI or any other number as property than it is to claim you own a trademark name. Frankly, the government/WIPO takeover of DNS was not because it was not being handled correctly, but, because WIPO didn't like the fact that domain names were NOT the same kind of namespace as Trademarks and they were afraid of a meaningful namespace existing that they didn't control. I would argue that what we were doing RIGHT is what bothered WIPO the most. > >> The entire >> addressing system works because people agree it works and cooperate >> to define how. That's why Lee, John, et al, have asked for >> proposals. >> > > It doesen't matter if we all agree on a proposal, it matters if the > proposal we all agree on is carried out. > A proposal cannot be carried out until it becomes policy. It can't become policy until it is proposed. As such, the ability to carry out said proposal depending on us agreeing to it, I would say it matters very much what we all agree on. > For those who advocate a weak numbering authority, which is what we > have > now (no offense intended) there is little controversy for them to > do their > jobs. But human nature being what it is, when we run out of IPv4 at > some day in the future, there will be some networks out there who make > decisions based on what is best for them and damn the rest of the > Internet. > A weak central authority won't be able to rein them in. > This is where we disagree. Networks who do what is in their own short-term interest in a manner sufficiently contrary to the common good will tend to find themselves without peers to connect them to the rest of the internet. This has happened historically, and, it will happen in the future. There is no need for a strong central authority, and your continued focus on trying to scare us into needing one, among other things, convinces me that our existing rational anarchy is actually pretty robust. > What do you think the likely outcome will be if a large network > with many > very rich online porno customers needs more numbers and makes a > request of > ARIN and is denied because there are no more IPv4 numbers? > a) they will tell their customers "sorry no more servers" More likely they will tell their customers that they need to get more clever about recycling/reusing addresses. > > b) they will just grab a random IPv4 block allocated to someone else > that they don't think is being used. What makes you think that any of their peers will accept this advertisement for any significant period of time? What makes you think that if they repeat this type of abuse they will continue to have peers? Owen From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Mar 19 19:23:08 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:23:08 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <5BA147C1-984B-400E-A322-CAA661AC024C@delong.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:47 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: David Conrad; Public Policy Mailing List >Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown > > > >This is where we disagree. Networks who do what is in their own >short-term >interest in a manner sufficiently contrary to the common good will >tend to >find themselves without peers to connect them to the rest of the >internet. >This has happened historically, and, it will happen in the future. >There is >no need for a strong central authority, and your continued focus on >trying >to scare us into needing one, among other things, convinces me that >our existing rational anarchy is actually pretty robust. We need one to manage the IPv4 to IPv6 conversion. We will need one to manage any IPv4 reclamation project, if one happens. That does not mean we will need one going forward from that. Ever read about the RTC and S&L shutdown? That is a perfect example of a strong central authority that was called into being (and broke a lot of rules by the way) and once it's job was completed, it disappeared. > >What makes you think that any of their peers will accept this >advertisement >for any significant period of time? What makes you think that if >they repeat >this type of abuse they will continue to have peers? 5 years ago I would have agreed with that. I have seen too many technically stupid standards and whatnot, put into place because some deep pocket wanted it, not because it was the right way to do things. I am too cynical these days to expect that there's enough people who would stand up to huge amounts of money and do the right thing. If the Internet were rife with honorable people do you think we would have as much spam as we do? Ted From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Mar 19 19:26:11 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:26:11 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: <45FEF37C.5050505@arin.net> References: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> <45FEF37C.5050505@arin.net> Message-ID: At 16:33 -0400 3/19/07, Member Services wrote: >Steve Ryan's remarks follow the opening announcements so you need to >scroll down a bit: >http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XVIII/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_1 Thanks. My apologies for not looking deeper into the transcript, I had expected the presentation to be a separate agenda item. So - for the person that asked about the lawsuit - the above URL is where you can find the best introduction to it. I would "trust" it to be the better source as Mr. Ryan does *not* say "I am not a lawyer, but". -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Mon Mar 19 23:39:38 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:39:38 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown Message-ID: <45ff577a.3bd.6212.6505@batelnet.bs> [ snip ] > >> If for example IANA announced that on January 1st 2012 > that >> there would be no more IPv4 traffic allowed on > the global BGP >> network, > > > >IANA does not control the "global BGP network". > > I disagree. IANA, which is ICANN, has no authority over operations, operators, or routing table "policy". It never has. I'm truly sorry, but you are incorrect. And there's not even a gray area. ZERO is probably a useful word in this case. [ SNIP ] > Very good, then. I will predict it will be shot down, but > we will see. That's not the point. The point is that anybody can make a policy, even spurious ones. We are all equal. Please do some additional reading on the ICANN website, the ASO website, the NRO website, and the ARIN website. Everything you never wanted to know about the RIR system is contained in all of those sites. It's a fair amount of reading. Best, -M< From owen at delong.com Tue Mar 20 11:06:09 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:06:09 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Petition for IPv4 End of Life proposal Message-ID: <3CDA3C48-72FF-4DDB-AB29-8F2F9E272AF4@delong.com> While I do not support the policy, I am going to support the petition because I have become convinced that the issue needs to be addressed and discussed by the community. Owen From matt.pounsett at cira.ca Tue Mar 20 11:13:29 2007 From: matt.pounsett at cira.ca (Matt Pounsett) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:13:29 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Petition for IPv4 End of Life proposal In-Reply-To: <3CDA3C48-72FF-4DDB-AB29-8F2F9E272AF4@delong.com> References: <3CDA3C48-72FF-4DDB-AB29-8F2F9E272AF4@delong.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2007-Mar-20, at 11:06, Owen DeLong wrote: > While I do not support the policy, I am going to support the petition > because > I have become convinced that the issue needs to be addressed and > discussed by > the community. Likewise. I'm not personally in favour of this proposal being adopted, but I think it does fit all the criteria for a valid proposal to be discussed by the community, and so I'm going to support the petition to have it assigned a formal proposal number. Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFF//oZae4z2vjbC8sRAnUdAKCP8ZswJOXDlM8fmr1lSbhaYqsPzgCgyUY/ 3AGDt3g2oojyoAzH2IEShkc= =W0Rv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From maem at nic.ad.jp Tue Mar 20 13:43:31 2007 From: maem at nic.ad.jp (MAEMURA Akinori) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:43:31 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Petition for IPv4 End of Life proposal In-Reply-To: References: <3CDA3C48-72FF-4DDB-AB29-8F2F9E272AF4@delong.com> Message-ID: <200703210243.JAF33035.NBFN@nic.ad.jp> Owen and Matt, as well as Leo and Ed, Thank you very much for your support for this petition. We understand your supports for our petition doesn't always mean that for our particular proposal, and we understand that might look extreme. However we are really glad to hear you regarded this worth being discussed in the Public Policy Meeting. Just in case to have your support, I'd like to make sure if you have also done the other needed action - sending full point of contact to petition at arin . | Per the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, "People who | wish to document their support for the petition must do the following: | 1) post a response to the Public Policy Mailing List stating their | support for the proposal, and 2) send email to petition at arin.net with | full point of contact information, including their telephone number and | organizational affiliation. The ARIN President will verify whether | people from at least four different organizations support the petitioned | policy proposal." You've already done 1) and I'm not sure for 2). Thanks for your support! Regards, Akinori In message "Re: [ppml] Petition for IPv4 End of Life proposal" "Matt Pounsett " wrote: | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- | Hash: SHA1 | | | On 2007-Mar-20, at 11:06, Owen DeLong wrote: | | > While I do not support the policy, I am going to support the petition | > because | > I have become convinced that the issue needs to be addressed and | > discussed by | > the community. | | Likewise. I'm not personally in favour of this proposal being | adopted, but I think it does fit all the criteria for a valid | proposal to be discussed by the community, and so I'm going to | support the petition to have it assigned a formal proposal number. | | Matt | | | | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- | Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) | | iD8DBQFF//oZae4z2vjbC8sRAnUdAKCP8ZswJOXDlM8fmr1lSbhaYqsPzgCgyUY/ | 3AGDt3g2oojyoAzH2IEShkc= | =W0Rv | -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- | _______________________________________________ | This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List | (PPML at arin.net). | Manage your mailing list subscription at: | http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml | | From drc at virtualized.org Tue Mar 20 14:05:23 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:05:23 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ted, On Mar 19, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> You seem to have a view that there is a responsible adult who can >> make the hard decisions. That entity does not exist. > > That isn't true. There is always a "responsible adult" lurking around > out there, you just want to stick your head in the sand and ignore > it. Not really (since I have to deal with them fairly regularly). > That "adult" is called the government, and it's form is of the > various legislatures and courts and dictators out there who run > things in the world. As Owen pointed out, it isn't "the government" and therein lies some of the problem. > You seem to think that these governments don't give a hoot if we > all botch up this IPv4 thing and end up with a train wreck on the > Internet because nobody stepped forward and implemented the hard > decisions. Not at all. There are inter-governmental organizations that are likely already rubbing their hands gleefully at the direction the existing address allocations mechanisms are heading. Of course, the individual governments associated with those IGOs all have their own agendas, very few (if any) of which have any consideration of "for the good of the Internet". > I can tell you they do. If we don't do it, they will, with > legislation. > And the results will not be pretty. That is what happened to the > DNS ssytem. Do you want a repeat? Which government passed legislation to make hard decisions on the DNS system? > What do you think the likely outcome will be if a large network > with many > very rich online porno customers needs more numbers and makes a > request of > ARIN and is denied because there are no more IPv4 numbers? > > a) they will tell their customers "sorry no more servers" > > b) they will just grab a random IPv4 block allocated to someone else > that they don't think is being used. c) they will purchase address space on the {black,grey,white} market, passing the cost on to their customers. d) they'll cannibalize their own internal infrastructure addressing, perhaps renumbering their internal infrastructure to IPv6 (in some version of "the best possible world"), passing the cost on to their customers. e) everybody will magically switch over to IPv6 and live in peace and happiness forever more. I'm guessing (c) & (d). I doubt they'll do (b) as the owners of the address space the network has just stolen will undoubtedly have their own lawyers. In the end, I suspect what you'll see is a much more address- efficient use of IPv4. The implication of this, of course, is a much less routing-efficient use of the address space, with whatever that implies. Rgds, -drc From info at arin.net Tue Mar 20 14:16:38 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:16:38 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Initiation of Petition - petition successful In-Reply-To: <45F7F681.7030502@arin.net> References: <45E86319.5040609@arin.net> <45F7AAD7.7090609@nic.ad.jp> <45F7F681.7030502@arin.net> Message-ID: <46002506.2010109@arin.net> The author's petition to advance the policy proposal entitled "IPv4 countdown policy proposal" was successful. This policy proposal will be: ? assigned a policy proposal number ? posted to the Public Policy Mailing List and ARIN website ? included in the agenda at the next ARIN meeting. Regards, Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO ARIN Member Services wrote: > The deadline for issuing statements of support for this petition is > 12:00 noon ET, 21 March 2007. > > Per the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, "People who > wish to document their support for the petition must do the following: > 1) post a response to the Public Policy Mailing List stating their > support for the proposal, and 2) send email to petition at arin.net with > full point of contact information, including their telephone number and > organizational affiliation. The ARIN President will verify whether > people from at least four different organizations support the petitioned > policy proposal." > > If the petition is successful, the policy proposal will be numbered, > posted online for discussion, and presented at the upcoming Public > Policy Meeting in San Juan. > > If the petition is not successful, the policy proposal will be > considered closed. > > Regards, > > Member Services Department > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > > Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote: > >>Dear All, >> >>This is a formal petition request to advance the policy proposal entitled "IPv4 >>Countdown Policy Proposal". The full text of the proposal is posted on the ARIN >>website at the following URL: >> >> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html >> >>This policy proposal was to respond in an orderly way to the upcoming exhaustion >>of the IPv4 address space. The AC rejected this proposal due to anti-trust >>issues however I strongly believe that we should discuss this kind of policy in >>the ARIN open policy forum, rather than simple rejection, since IPv4 address >>exhaustion is so important issue to the whole community. >> >>According to the Internet Policy Evaluation Process, people who wish to document >>their support for the petition must do the following within the next five (5) days: >> >> 1) post a response to the Public Policy Mailing List stating their >> support for the proposal, >> >> and, >> >> 2) send email to petition at arin.net with full point of contact >> information, including their telephone number and organizational >> affiliation. >> >>If you have any questions about this process you can refer to the ARIN website >>at http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html for the full text explaining the >>petition process. >> >>Thanks and best regards, >>Toshi >>-- >>Toshiyuki Hosaka >>JPNIC >> >> >> >>Member Services wrote (2007/03/03 2:47): >> >> >>>On 1 March 2007 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review of >>>the proposed policy 'IPv4 Countdown' and did not accept it as a formal >>>policy proposal. >>> >>>The AC rejected this proposal having taken into consideration the >>>anti-trust issues raised by the ARIN General Counsel and because the AC >>>deemed the proposal to be contrary to ARIN's mission. >>> >>>During the initial review period the AC may decide to: >>>1) Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is presented, >>>2) Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine it with another >>>proposal, or >>>3) Not accept the policy proposal. >>> >>>In the event that the AC decides not to accept the proposed policy, then >>>the author may elect to use the petition process to advance the >>>proposal. For petition details see the section called "Petition >>>Process" in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process which >>>can be found at: >>>http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html >>> >>>The deadline for the author to initiate a petition per the ARIN Internet >>>Resource Policy Evaluation Process is 40 days prior to the meeting; the >>>petition deadline for the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting >>>is 14 March 2007. If the author chooses not to petition or the petition >>>is unsuccessful, then the proposed policy is closed. If a petition is >>>successful, then the proposal will be numbered and posted for discussion >>>and presented at ARIN's Public Policy Meeting. >>> >>>The proposed policy text can be found at: >>>http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-February/006000.html >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Member Services >>>American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>PPML mailing list >>>PPML at arin.net >>>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml >>> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>PPML mailing list >>PPML at arin.net >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From jlewis at lewis.org Tue Mar 20 15:12:05 2007 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:12:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? Message-ID: I'm not sure if this is strictly on-topic for ppml...but Suppose company A multihomes, gets an ASN from ARIN, and uses PA IP space. Company A is then bought by company B. Company B is bigger, qualifies for PI space from ARIN, and goes through the process of getting an ASN and PI space from ARIN. B and A still run totally independent networks. Can B give A a subnet of its PI space in order for A to renumber out of PA space and into that subnet of B's PI space? I see under Guidelines - Requesting a Direct IPv4 Assignment from ARIN, it says: ARIN assigns blocks of IPv4 addresses to organizations that request address space for internal use in running their own networks, and not for subdelegation of those addresses outside their organization's networks. Since B owns A, but they run as separate networks, I'm not sure this applies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From info at arin.net Tue Mar 20 15:48:29 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:48:29 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal Message-ID: <46003A8D.5070209@arin.net> The author's petition to advance the policy proposal entitled "IPv4 countdown policy proposal" was successful. The proposal is designated Policy Proposal 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal. The proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_12.html All persons in the community are encouraged to discuss Policy Proposal 2007-12 prior to it being presented at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, 23-24 April 2007. Both the discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List and at the Public Policy Meeting will be used to determine the community consensus regarding this policy proposal. The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal Author: Toshiyuki Hosaka (Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)) Co-Authors: Takashi Arano (Intec Netcore, Inc.) Kuniaki Kondo (Atelier Mahoroba) Tomohiro Fujisaki (NTT) Akinori Maemura (JPNIC) Kosuke Ito (IRI Ubitech) Shuji Nakamura (IPv6 Promotion Council) Tomoya Yoshida (NTT Communications) Susumu Sato (JPNIC) Akira Nakagawa (KDDI) Proposal Version: 1 Submission Date: 22 February 2007 Proposal type: new Policy term: renewable Policy statement: - Set the date for termination of (IPv4) allocations and the date of announcement Set the date to terminate allocations as a general rule, and announce it a certain period in advance. Define the date of announcement as "A-date" and the date to terminate allocations as "T-date". The two dates will be set as follows: A-date (Date of Announcement): - The day in which the IANA pool becomes less than 30*/8 - RIRs must announce "T-date" on this day, which is defined later (*) There will be no changes in the policy on A-date T-date(Date of Termination): - Exactly two years after A-date - 10*/8 blocks should remain at T-date, and defined as two years after A-date, based on the current pace of allocations - It is however possible to move T-date forward at the point where address consumpution exceeds the projections during the course of two years (*) new allocations/assignments from RIRs should terminate on T-date as a general rule. Allocations or assignments to "critical infrastructure" after T-date should be defined by a separate policy. Rationale: 1. Introduction The exhaustion of IPv4 address is approaching round the corner. Geoff Huston's latest projection at Potaroo (as of January 6, 2007) (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/) draws the date of IANA pool exhaustion as 31st May 2011, and that of RIR pool as 14th July 2012. Tony Hain projects similar dates based on a different algorithm of his own. From these data, we may observe that if that the current allocation trend continues, the exhaustion of IPv4 address space is expected to take place as early as within the next five years. ICANN/IANA and RIRs must co-ordinate with stakeholders to achieve smooth termination of IPv4 address space as the Internet bodies responsible for stable management and distribution of IP number resources. This proposal provides some ideas as well as concrete examples of the policy that helps IPv4 allocations come to an end with "the minimum confusion" and in "as fair manner as possible". "Five years at the earliest" is not too far in the future for the exhaustion of IPv4 address space. Assuming the minimum of one year is required for sufficient policy discussions with this proposal as a start, and two years for preparation and transfer by LIRs, we need to start the discussions right at this time. 2. Summary of current problems Despite the fact that several projections are made on IPv4 address to run out as early as within the next few years, no discussions are taking place on any of the RIR's policy fora. (we have submitted the same proposal to APNIC on January 2007) This section lists possible problems if no policies are defined to prepare for the terminal period of allocations. 2-1. LIR LIRs currently do not consider IPv4 address exhaustion as an imminent issue in the first place. It is possible that they will finally realize the situation only when impacts of the exhaustion becomes visible as a practical matter, and lead to confusions such as re-addressing their network or making subsequent requests at the last minute in within a limited time frame. There could also be cases where allocations blocks cannot be allocated to some of the LIRs even though requests are submitted on the same day. Moreover, although it would be necessary for LIRs to announce to their customers that IPv4 address space will not be available for assignments eventually, it is difficult to plan this timing without clear policy for the last phase of allocations. As new IPv4 address allocations space will no longer be available, LIRs have no choice but to build networks based on IPv6. However, there are risks of trouble if preparations are made from that point in time, as it will lead to premature actions even if some time can be bought by re-addressing and subsequent allocations. Lastly, using up all available IPv4 address space will disable assignments to services inevitable for co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6 networks, such as the translator service between the two networks, which it may create situation where transfer to IPv6 network will not even be possible. 2-2. RIR/NIR It is likely that smooth allocations by RIRs/NIRs will be hindered by rush of inquiries during the terminal phase of allocations. 2-3. End users End users generally receive address assignments from ISPs accompanied with Internet connection service. If an ISP no longer has IPv4 address space available, nor unable to provide IPv6 service, end users will not be able to receive services from that ISP. Moreover, if the terminal date of allocations remains ambiguous, it may leave end users behind to prepare for IPv6 ready network. 3. Benefits There will be the following benefits by implementing the policy for IPv4 address exhaustion as proposed on this paper. 3-1. LIR LIRs will be able to consciously plan their addressing within their networks if the final date of allocations is clearly demonstrated. Keeping a certain amount of unallocated address blocks enables allocations/assignments for "critical infrastructure" after the termination of regular allocations, which will be explained later section in more details. 3-2. RIR/NIR Announcing the date of terminating allocations in advance and ensuring that all allocations before this date will be made according to the policy at the time enables RIRs/NIRs to make the last allocation without confusions and avoids causing feelings of unfairness among LIRs and end users. In addition, consistent policy applied to all RIRs removes bias towards certain region as well as inter-regional unfairness. The period which IPv6 support is completed becomes clear, therefore, RIRs/NIRs can prepare for this. 3-3. End user As this proposal enables LIRs to prepare for the terminal period of allocations in advance, it reduces the risk of delays/ suspensions of assignments from LIRs to enduers, and end users will be able to continuously receive services from LIRs. As in the case of LIRs, end users will be able to prepare for IPv6 support by the date of allocation termination is clarified. In addition, IPv6 connectivity as well as IPv4 address required during the allocation termination period will be smoothly secured by LIRs preparing for such period. As listed above, there will be important, notable benefits for stakeholders as a result of this policy. It is therefore necessary to take the following actions to achieve a smooth transfer to IPv6 and prevent causing instability in the Internet as well as; - start discussions on allocation scheme during the exhaustion period, - indicate a roadmap to exhaustion after raising awareness on the issue, and - allow enough time for LIRs to plan timing of addressing of their networks, submit allocation requests, and consider how to switch to IPv6. 4. Proposal principles As the first step to discuss IPv4 exhaustion planning, we would like to have an agreement(consensus) on the following four principles. -------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Global synchronization: All five RIRs will proceed at the same time for measures on IPv4 address exhaustion. (2) Some Blocks to be left: Keep a few /8 stocks instead of distributing all. (3) Keeping current practices until the last moment : Maintain the current policy until the last allocation. (4) Separate discussions on "Recycle" issue : Recovery of unused address space should be discussed separately. -------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Global synchronization: All RIRs must proceed at the same time to take measures for IPv4 address exhaustion. This is important not only for ensuring fairness for LIRs across the regions, but alsot to prevent confusions such as attempts to receive allocations from an RIR outside their region. The five RIRs should facilitate bottom-up discussions, which should be well coordinated under the leaderships of ICANN ASO and NRO. (2) Some blocks to be left: It is not practical to consider that IPv4 address blocks can be allocated to the last piece. It is expected to cause confusions if one party can receive an allocation while the other has to give up, just with a touch of a difference. The best solution to avoid such confusion is to set in advance, a date in which one is able to receive an allocation if requests are submitted before this timeline. Furthermore, there are few cases where allocations or assignments of IPv4 address space become absolutely necessary in the future. For example, requirements to start a translator service between IPv4 and IPv6 networks should be supported, and there may be some requirements in the future that are beyond our imagination at this current moment. As such, a date to stop allocations under the current policy should be set/defined so that certain number of IPv4 address blocks will be kept as stocks instead of allocating all blocks without remains. (3) Maintaining current practices until the last moment : Allocations should be made based on the current policy until the time to terminate allocations. As the IPv4 Internet has now developed into a social infrastructure supporting large number of businesses, making large changes in the current policy towards conservation within the next one or two years will lead to large-scale confusions, and difficult in the reality. (4) Separate discussion from "Recycle" issue Recovering unused allocated/assigned address blocks is an important measure, and in fact, it has already be discussed and implemented in each RIR regions. This issue, however should be considered separately from this proposal as recovery of a few /8 blocks extends the lifetime of IPv4 for less than one year while efforts for the recovery is expected to require substantial time. 5. Rationale for "A-date" & "T-date" A-date is set in order to: - Allow some grace period and period for networks to be IPv6 ready until the termination of allocations. - Prevent unfairness among LIRs by clarifying the date, such as not being able to receive allocations by a small difference in timing. The rationale for setting A-date as "when IANA pool becomes less than 30*/8" is as follows: The rate of allocations from IANA to RIRs after 2000 is as follows. 2000 : 4*/8 2001 : 6*/8 2002 : 4*/8 2003 : 5*/8 2004 : 9*/8 2005 : 13*/8 2006 : 10*/8 Approximately 10*/8 has been allocated annually after 2003, and the consumption is likely to accelerate with rise of the last minute demands. As it is better to keep minimum stocks of address pool at IANA, 30*/8 is set as the threshold value, and allocations should be terminated two years after it reaches the value, which ensures that IANA/RIRs secure the address space for allocations/assignments to critical infrastructure. 6. Effect on RIR members RIR members are expected to concretely grasp the termination date of allocations and take actions within their organization to prepare for the event. Timetable for implementation: Immediate after all 5 RIRs ratified this policy. From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Mar 20 16:05:31 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:05:31 -0500 Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D1E@mail> Isn't this exactly what the private ASN implementation of BGP is for? Though as long as company A is a separate entity, I would suspect they would retain their ASN even if they did relinquish their original IP net. That way company B could re-assign a network to company A to manage independantly. I suspect that resistance to relinquishing the original allocation would be strong due to the traumas of renumbering. What you outlined is certainly possible. Kevin $s/worry/happy,g > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Jon Lewis > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:12 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? > > I'm not sure if this is strictly on-topic for ppml...but > > Suppose company A multihomes, gets an ASN from ARIN, and uses > PA IP space. > Company A is then bought by company B. Company B is bigger, > qualifies for PI space from ARIN, and goes through the > process of getting an ASN and PI space from ARIN. B and A > still run totally independent networks. Can B give A a > subnet of its PI space in order for A to renumber out of PA > space and into that subnet of B's PI space? > > I see under Guidelines - Requesting a Direct IPv4 Assignment > from ARIN, it > says: > > ARIN assigns blocks of IPv4 addresses to organizations that request > address space for internal use in running their own > networks, and not for > subdelegation of those addresses outside their > organization's networks. > > Since B owns A, but they run as separate networks, I'm not > sure this applies. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon Lewis | I route > Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are > Atlantic Net | > _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public > key_________ _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 20 17:04:25 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:04:25 -0700 Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Jon Lewis >Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:12 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? > > >I'm not sure if this is strictly on-topic for ppml...but > >Suppose company A multihomes, gets an ASN from ARIN, and uses PA IP space. >Company A is then bought by company B. Company B is bigger, qualifies for >PI space from ARIN, and goes through the process of getting an ASN and PI >space from ARIN. B and A still run totally independent networks. Can B >give A a subnet of its PI space in order for A to renumber out of PA space >and into that subnet of B's PI space? > >I see under Guidelines - Requesting a Direct IPv4 Assignment from ARIN, it >says: > > ARIN assigns blocks of IPv4 addresses to organizations that request > address space for internal use in running their own networks, and not for > subdelegation of those addresses outside their organization's networks. > >Since B owns A, but they run as separate networks, I'm not sure this >applies. > This is another example of one of the holes I brought up a few days ago on this list. If company B owns company A then they are the same organization from one point of view. However if the two companies maintain separate incorporation papers then legally they are separate entities. I guess the question is do you want the ARIN Guidelines you cited above to be treated as laws or merely administrative directives? The posts to this list appear to indicate people do not want them treated as having the force of law. In that case then you can interpret them as administrative guidelines and since the one company owns the other, company A's network is "company b's network" thus the same block can be used for both. Whether you would atually want to do this is a different issue. Ted From stephen at sprunk.org Tue Mar 20 17:04:49 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:04:49 -0500 Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? References: Message-ID: <00b701c76b38$1b986020$353816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Jon Lewis" > I'm not sure if this is strictly on-topic for ppml...but > > Suppose company A multihomes, gets an ASN from ARIN, and > uses PA IP space. Company A is then bought by company B. > Company B is bigger, qualifies for PI space from ARIN, and > goes through the process of getting an ASN and PI space from > ARIN. B and A still run totally independent networks. Can B > give A a subnet of its PI space in order for A to renumber out > of PA space and into that subnet of B's PI space? > > I see under Guidelines - Requesting a Direct IPv4 Assignment > from ARIN, it says: > > ARIN assigns blocks of IPv4 addresses to organizations that > request address space for internal use in running their own > networks, and not for subdelegation of those addresses outside > their organization's networks. > > Since B owns A, but they run as separate networks, I'm not sure this > applies. "Organization" is deliberately ambiguous so that it can be read both ways in cases like this. If A still has its own connectivity (i.e. it's an autonomous network), it can qualify as a separate org, but it doesn't have to; if A's upstreams will accept a subnet of B's addresses, then in theory there should be no conflict. Ideally, both companies would arrange to both advertise B's entire assignment; this is easiest if they maintained common POP(s) that they connected their disparate networks to, but could be done with distinct POPs that had a connection between them to carry traffic coming in to the "wrong" one. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Mar 20 17:38:09 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:38:09 -0500 Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D24@mail> > I guess the question is do you want the ARIN Guidelines you > cited above to be treated as laws or merely administrative > directives? The posts to this list appear to indicate people > do not want them treated as having the force of law. In that > case then you can interpret them as administrative guidelines > and since the one company owns the other, company A's network > is "company b's network" thus the same block can be used for both. > > Whether you would atually want to do this is a different issue. > > Ted > Of course we don't want ARIN "Guidelines" to be delivered with force of law. The one thing that has kept the internet going this far is the combination of anarchy and the cooperation of the netizens. The surest way to crash the internet or at a minimum to place it beyond the reach of the common man will be to make internet policy legitable. The moment that the internet is under government control it will be taxed to pay for the agency. Who wants to start that ball rolling? We could, but let's not.. We are talking about something that is more widespread than government, perhaps even bigger than any government. The internet has thus far been more productive and functional than any government on the planet. Wars and violence on the internet have been comparatively well managed and controlled by the citizenry and by consensual policy. If anything we should be remodeling our governments in the form of the internet, not subjecting the internet to the force of 'legal' governance. In any case it is neigh impossible to universally subject the internet to law, because who's law would you use? An example is the proliferation of offshore gambling, music and video sharing, and other "illegal" (by U.S.A. law) activities. The U.S. laws have done virtually nothing to quell such activity even within the U.S. borders. We have a model that works. If it works please don't fix it! Kevin $s/worry/happy,g From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Mar 20 18:23:51 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:23:51 -0000 Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Since B owns A, but they run as separate networks, I'm not sure this > applies. If only the legal picture was so simple. Likely these companies are composed of many legal entities. Some own networks. Some have sales employees and engage in billing and collection of money. Some have ops and engineering employees and run some networks that they don't own. I don't think that ARIN worries about splitting hairs and sorting through these tangled legal structures. What you see as company A and company B is largely a marketing fiction. If the network owning legal entity signs the RSA with ARIN, then can they assign addresses to customers of the sales legal entity, even though they neither own that legal entity, nor are they a subsidiary of that legal entity? The answer is yes, because people do it all the time. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Mar 20 18:28:47 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:28:47 -0000 Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > However if the two companies > maintain separate incorporation papers then legally they are separate > entities. I worked for a big ISP before the telecoms collapse and one day I walked in to see one of the senior finance people; i.e. he reported to the CFO. He showed me a complex network diagram on the wall and asked what I thought. I said that it looked rather complex. He said that it showed the inter-relationships of all the legal entities that made up our company. The finance team were really proud that they had reduced the number to only about 250 legal entities. > Whether you would atually want to do this is a different issue. Whether you would actually want to open Pandora's box is also a different issue. ;-) --Michael Dillon From jlewis at lewis.org Tue Mar 20 18:40:06 2007 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:40:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > I don't think that ARIN worries about splitting hairs and sorting > through these tangled legal structures. What you see as company A and > company B is largely a marketing fiction. If the network owning legal > entity signs the RSA with ARIN, then can they assign addresses to > customers of the sales legal entity, even though they neither own that > legal entity, nor are they a subsidiary of that legal entity? The answer > is yes, because people do it all the time. So it sounds like it's not the sort of thing ARIN is likely to flip over. The way it would most likely be done would be A announcing a /24 of B's larger assignment using A's ASN. B would announce the actual ARIN assigned CIDR using their own ASN. A and B do actually "peer" but not in a way or sized pipe that either would want internet traffic routing through. I guess my only other real concern is the possibility of any "tier 1" doing route filtering on ARIN minimum size allocation/assignment boundaries. Even that seems like it'd be unlikely to cause serious problems as long as A's and B's transits were all willing to carry the /24 route. That's probably more a question for nanog than ppml though. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 20 18:42:10 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:42:10 -0700 Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D24@mail> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Kevin Kargel >Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:38 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? > > >> I guess the question is do you want the ARIN Guidelines you >> cited above to be treated as laws or merely administrative >> directives? The posts to this list appear to indicate people >> do not want them treated as having the force of law. In that >> case then you can interpret them as administrative guidelines >> and since the one company owns the other, company A's network >> is "company b's network" thus the same block can be used for both. >> >> Whether you would atually want to do this is a different issue. >> >> Ted >> > >Of course we don't want ARIN "Guidelines" to be delivered with force of >law. The one thing that has kept the internet going this far is the >combination of anarchy and the cooperation of the netizens. The surest >way to crash the internet or at a minimum to place it beyond the reach >of the common man will be to make internet policy legitable. > It already is legitable, didn't you follow the Kremen lawsuit we just discussed? DNS has been so for a long time now. The reason the IP number allocations have worked cooperatively so far is simply that there have been more numbers than what people needed. It is in everyone's self-interest to be helpful because it doesen't hurt you and the good karma might come back one day. Where the real test will be is when helping someone will hurt you and the good karma may never come back. That will be the case if IPv4 allocations run out and the backbone has not been switched over to IPv6. If someone needs IPv4 to help them you have to give something up that you likely will never get back. >The moment that the internet is under government control it will be >taxed to pay for the agency. Who wants to start that ball rolling? We >could, but let's not.. > I think your mistaking what I am saying. I am not advocating for government control. I am saying that if we mismanage it that we will be forced into government control, and since it appears people do not want that, then by golly, don't screw things up. >We are talking about something that is more widespread than government, >perhaps even bigger than any government. The internet has thus far been >more productive and functional than any government on the planet. Wars >and violence on the internet have been comparatively well managed and >controlled by the citizenry and by consensual policy. If anything we >should be remodeling our governments in the form of the internet, not >subjecting the internet to the force of 'legal' governance. > >In any case it is neigh impossible to universally subject the internet >to law, because who's law would you use? That is what the UN does. And governments across the world have had no trouble getting together and using that apparatus when something happens that the majority of them consider a threat to their self interest. Such as for example the cooperation on copyright. And the cooperation on having a fairly stable rate of exchange of currency. People that think the UN is ineffective simply do not understand that what is in a governments self-interest is not usually in a person's self interest. It is for example in very few governments self-interest to help the starving children in Africa that is why there have been starving children in Africa since the UN was formed. People do not want to believe that helping starving children isn't in a governments self-interest so they continue to hand-wring over the ineffectiveness of the UN of solving this problem. >An example is the >proliferation of offshore gambling, music and video sharing, and other >"illegal" (by U.S.A. law) activities. The U.S. laws have done virtually >nothing to quell such activity even within the U.S. borders. > That is lumping a lot of stuff that is very dissimilar into one pot. Offshore gambling helps get money out of the US economy so many governments support it. music and video sharing only harm the producers of music and video and so only governments of countries that have a large number of such producers really care about spending money to stop it, and there aren't a lot of countries like that. You are not going to get world government on any issue that governments and countries don't agree with. But this you see is the problem. While you probably could successfully get the world's governments at odds with each other over allowing stuff like online gambling, and thus online gamblers would be left alone, since all of the world's governments benefit from a smooth running Internet they would rather quickly band together and take over governance of it if they felt the existing structure was letting it collapse. Governments usually have no problem cooperating on issues that they agree on even while at the same time having issues they violently disagree with. Much more so than people, in fact. >We have a model that works. If it works please don't fix it! > There will not be time to fix it if it breaks under stress. And the runout of IPv4 will put very much stress on it. That is why, after all, that the IPv4 Countdown Policy ended up getting advanced even though everyone hates it. People do recognize the danger of the head in the sand "leave it alone it ain't broke" approach. The bright spot here is that if we do manage the rundown of IPv4 with a minimum of trouble then it will be in the world's governments self-interest to leave us alone. But that will not happen by doing nothing about the problem and expecting the free market will step in and take care of the problem, or by simply telling everyone to migrate to IPv6 and sitting back and expecting that to magically happen by itself as well. Ted From owen at delong.com Tue Mar 20 19:07:18 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:07:18 -0700 Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <055DF95F-C8D1-4BA4-89E9-3CD6F4F753D3@delong.com> > >> We have a model that works. If it works please don't fix it! >> > > There will not be time to fix it if it breaks under stress. And the > runout of IPv4 will put very much stress on it. That is why, after > all, > that the IPv4 Countdown Policy ended up getting advanced even though > everyone hates it. People do recognize the danger of the head in > the sand > "leave it alone it ain't broke" approach. > As one of the four who signed the petition to advance the IPv4 policy, I thought I had made it very clear that I did not support the policy. I believe that the AC kicked it for the wrong reasons, and, I believe the proposal was worthy of discussion. I would prefer that the AC had taken option 2A of the initial review process, as I think that would have been the correct thing to do with this policy, but, that didn't happen, so, I agreed to sign the petition. I will again make it clear.... I do not support this policy and do not believe that any policy change is actually necessary under the current circumstances. I believe that the system will function and that there is no need to do anything different until ARIN is unable to fulfill requests. At that time, ARIN should fulfill request it can on a first-come-first-serve basis and provide a polite apology in response to requests which cannot be fulfilled. I do not believe a change of policy is required in order for ARIN staff to do this. Merely a tactical change in operational conduct to meet a changing set of circumstances. Thus far, the ARIN staff has shown themselves to be rather well equipped for such changes when necessary in my opinion. I rather suspect that it will be easier to get all of the RIR constituencies to agree on how to manage the IPv4 space through exhaustion than to get the various governments to come to a similar agreement. I believe it is virtually impossible to get all of the RIR constitutiencies to agree. As such, I'm not too worried about successful world government intervention. > The bright spot here is that if we do manage the rundown of IPv4 > with a minimum of trouble then it will be in the world's governments > self-interest to leave us alone. But that will not happen by doing > nothing about the problem and expecting the free market will step > in and > take care of the problem, or by simply telling everyone to migrate to > IPv6 and sitting back and expecting that to magically happen by itself > as well. > I think you confuse the role of the RIR s with the role of the network operators and the IETF. The RIRs are technology neutral. They have no interest or care whether people use v4, v6, or some other technology to be named later. They don't run networks and they don't control BGP. Network operators make the operational decisions on this and do the actual implementations. The IETF makes the architectural decisions. The RIRs just register resources to organizations in order to provide cooperating organizations with reliable uniqueness. Owen From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Mar 20 19:36:52 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:36:52 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <46003A8D.5070209@arin.net> References: <46003A8D.5070209@arin.net> Message-ID: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> While I think there has been a lot of good discussion generated from the IPv4 policy, a lot of it has strayed from the original policy proposal. I'm going to attempt to bring that back around a bit as we need to tackle the issue of address space exhaustion. To that end, I'd like to oversimplify the proposal. Language, format, and justification aside I believe the proposal can be boiled down to the following simpler statement: The RIR's, in order to assure the orderly shutdown of IPv4 allocations should do their best to predict the date at which there will be no more IPv4 addresses available, should announce a termination date just before the predicted exhaustion, and should cease allocations on that date even if there is some address space still available. I believe the intent of the authors is to realize a number of potential benefits: - There is a well known date at which no more IPv4 space will be available, making it easier for those needed addresses to show their management the need for alternate plans. - By the RIR's shutting down distributions of addresses at the same time it prevents the "last RIR standing" from being swamped by every international company solely because they still have addresses. Of course, there are drawbacks: - This requires global coordination. - We may leave some IPv4 space unused that could otherwise be put to good use. - This policy itself may cause a run on IP space. There are alternatives, Owen DeLong just wrote about what would probably be considered the opposite viewpoint in another message, I quote: I believe that the system will function and that there is no need to do anything different until ARIN is unable to fulfill requests. At that time, ARIN should fulfill request it can on a first-come-first-serve basis and provide a polite apology in response to requests which cannot be fulfilled. I do not believe a change of policy is required in order for ARIN staff to do this. Last, in an attempt to keep the discussion focused, I'd ask you to consider if these related topics are relevant to this policy's thread, along with why I think most are not: - Reclamation of unused address space. It doesn't matter if we do this or not, all predictions are we still run out of address space. All this does is move the date, which is a valid discussion but the topic at hand here is what happens when the RIR's have no more space to allocate. - Encouraging people to use less IPv4 addresses, including but not limited to higher fees, required use of NAT, rejustification of existing IPs. Same issue, it delays the date we run out, but doesn't change the problem of what the RIR's should do when they run out. - Are the predictions of when we run out correct? Same problem, doesn't matter if it's 2010, 2020, or 2050, the question is what do we do when it happens. I'd like to see all three of those issues discussed, just in another thread. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jlewis at lewis.org Tue Mar 20 23:19:45 2007 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:19:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? In-Reply-To: <00b701c76b38$1b986020$353816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <00b701c76b38$1b986020$353816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > "Organization" is deliberately ambiguous so that it can be read both ways in > cases like this. If A still has its own connectivity (i.e. it's an > autonomous network), it can qualify as a separate org, but it doesn't have > to; if A's upstreams will accept a subnet of B's addresses, then in theory A still has its own multiple connections over which BGP is in use. The trouble is, they're heavy users of NAT and only need a handful of public IPs...so unless we fill out the forms saying we want public addresses for all of the hundreds of IP devices they have behind a number of NAT devices, they don't come close to qualifying for a direct assignment from ARIN. B apparently is bigger and does (or was more creative with the paperwork). I've only done consulting work for A, so I know next to nothing about B's network. > there should be no conflict. Ideally, both companies would arrange to both > advertise B's entire assignment; this is easiest if they maintained common > POP(s) that they connected their disparate networks to, but could be done > with distinct POPs that had a connection between them to carry traffic coming > in to the "wrong" one. Other than saving a slot in the global routing table, why would each network want to announce all the space? I realize that question sounds bad/selfish...but IMO it's mitigated by the fact that A is already doing BGP announcing a PA /24...so trading a /24 from B's assignment for their PA /24 really doesn't add to the global table. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From stephen at sprunk.org Wed Mar 21 01:23:52 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:23:52 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal References: <46003A8D.5070209@arin.net> <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <022201c76b7b$4bd13620$353816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Leo Bicknell" > To that end, I'd like to oversimplify the proposal. Language, > format, and justification aside I believe the proposal can be > boiled down to the following simpler statement: > > The RIR's, in order to assure the orderly shutdown of IPv4 > allocations should do their best to predict the date at which > there will be no more IPv4 addresses available, should > announce a termination date just before the predicted > exhaustion, and should cease allocations on that date even > if there is some address space still available. > > I believe the intent of the authors is to realize a number of > potential benefits: > > - There is a well known date at which no more IPv4 space will > be available, making it easier for those needed addresses to > show their management the need for alternate plans. Also, having the RIRs jointly announce such a date gives it credibility. A few slides by Geoff or Tony, as much as we respect their work, doesn't have the same impact as an official announcement. That is something that can be presented to management, vendors, customers, etc. to try to motivate them. Personally, I don't think it'll motivate most of them enough to be ready in time, but at least they couldn't blame us for not telling them. > - By the RIR's shutting down distributions of addresses at the > same time it prevents the "last RIR standing" from being > swamped by every international company solely because > they still have addresses. I think this is handled well enough under existing policy. An org with an int'l network is _supposed_ to go to the local RIR for each part of that network, and the RIR boundaries are such that enforcing that rule is not burdensome. OTOH, I'm not naive enough to think that people don't go RIR-shopping for favorable policies, just like lawyers go judge-shopping before filing a case. However, the vast majority of orgs only deal with one RIR; an ISP only in the US is going to have a really tough time convincing RIPE or LACNIC to allocate it a /16 after ARIN runs out. For truly int'l orgs, well, what's the harm? > Of course, there are drawbacks: > > - This requires global coordination. > > - We may leave some IPv4 space unused that could otherwise > be put to good use. That's why I'd prefer that the IETF and/or IANA mark space (a /8 or two) explicitly reserved for uses such as 4to6 gateways and other future IPv4 protocols (and let's face it, there will be) that require well-known addresses, and the RIRs should allocate whatever is left, down to the last address. The announced termination date will have to be given as a best estimate anyways, since projections will not be able to take into account the inevitable change in behavior after the date is announced. This has the (unfortunate?) side effect that even if IANA stops giving out /8s to RIRs on a given date, some will likely run out _months_ before others. LACNIC and AfriNIC don't go through a /8 anywhere near as fast as ARIN does -- and I don't believe we should tease folks in those regions by giving them an /8 and then telling them they can't use most of it just because folks on other continents have a problem. > - This policy itself may cause a run on IP space. Indeed it will. People are going to lie, cheat, and steal their way to addresses in the months before the big cut-off. Other folks who currently only apply for new allocations once or twice a year will start doing so monthly. Folks with many existing allocations will suddenly take advantage of the trade-in policies en masse to get additional space via rounding. etc. One must always remember the law of unintended consequences when trying to regulate people into something they won't like and probably won't feel is just. > There are alternatives, Owen DeLong just wrote about what > would probably be considered the opposite viewpoint in > another message, I quote: > > I believe that the system will function and that there is no need > to do anything different until ARIN is unable to fulfill requests. > At that time, ARIN should fulfill request it can on a > first-come-first-serve basis and provide a polite apology in > response to requests which cannot be fulfilled. I do not believe > a change of policy is required in order for ARIN staff to do this. For the record, I support Owen's position. Not because the end game is pretty, because it obviously isn't, but because it makes no sense to me that, as addresses are returned to (or reclaimed by) ARIN, we wouldn't be able to hand them out again. I also don't like the idea that folks wouldn't be able to use the trade-in policies, if ARIN happened to have blocks large enough to, for instance, consolidate the announcements of someone who currently has several hundred discontiguous blocks. Freezing the IPv4 registry on a particular date isn't necessary. ARIN (and the other RIRs) can still do many useful things even if there's no more "new" space left. And we, as policymakers, can change policy to free up more "used" space for new allocations/assignments if we decide to do so. > Last, in an attempt to keep the discussion focused, I'd ask you > to consider if these related topics are relevant to this policy's > thread, along with why I think most are not: > [snip] I agree with you that all of the issues you list are relevant to ARIN but not to this particular proposal. I would definitely like to see distinct proposals for each of them, and some lively debate around those proposals, which can be done concurrently with this debate. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Wed Mar 21 03:01:13 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:01:13 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal Message-ID: <4600d839.237.bdc.14423@batelnet.bs> > > Also, having the RIRs jointly announce such a date gives > it credibility. A few slides by Geoff or Tony, as much > as we respect their work, doesn't have the same impact as > an official announcement. That is something that can be > presented to management, vendors, customers, etc. to try > to motivate them. This is regulation. Not policy. We don't get credibility in going along with this. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 21 06:33:48 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:33:48 -0000 Subject: [ppml] 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown In-Reply-To: <055DF95F-C8D1-4BA4-89E9-3CD6F4F753D3@delong.com> Message-ID: > As one of the four who signed the petition to advance the IPv4 policy, > I thought I had made it very clear that I did not support the policy. > I believe that the AC kicked it for the wrong reasons, The main reason that I oppose this policy is that it is very poorly written. This fact makes it difficult to make sense of the policy because when you read something and think, "Did they really mean that?", the answer may well be, "No, but they didn't know how to express it in English". Just on the language grounds alone, I would reject this policy proposal entirely. And, noting that the authors are all Japanese, I would suggest that they redraft their proposal IN JAPANESE, and then find a native English speaker who knows Japanese well enough to translate it. The rationale is written well enough to understand, but in the policy text, we have to be careful which words are chosen. Remember, it is impossible to translate a single word from one language into another. A single English word will have several possible Japanese translations depending on the context. And each of those Japanese words will also have several possible English translations. Back in 1966 a US government project tried to develop a machine translator to translate Russian scientific papers into English. As part of the test, they fed in the phrase "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak". The Russian translation came out saying "The vodka is good but the meat is rotten". Of course, there are other reasons why I oppose 2007-12, but I will write about them another time. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 21 06:58:24 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:58:24 -0000 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: IPv4 wind-down is the natural running-out of the IPv4 space, as opposed to some manufactured countdown process. > The RIR's, in order to assure the orderly shutdown of IPv4 > allocations should do their best to predict the date at which > there will be no more IPv4 addresses available, That's not policy. Maybe you should make a suggestion at: https://app.arin.net/suggestion/ and the BoT will instruct staff to do this. > - There is a well known date at which no more IPv4 space will be > available, making it easier for those needed addresses to show their > management the need for alternate plans. I don't believe a policy is needed for this, just better publicity of the fact that IPv4 addresses are running out SOON where SOON is defined as "within the normal timeframe for mid-range corporate planning". The stats that have been published to date tend to be dry and lifeless things written by people who are more comfortable with data than with the English language. We don't need policy to fix this. > - By the RIR's shutting down distributions of addresses at the same > time it prevents the "last RIR standing" from being swamped by every > international company solely because they still have addresses. Why is this a problem? > - We may leave some IPv4 space unused that could otherwise be put to > good use. This seems foolhardy in the extreme and if my company was in need of an additional allocation at that time, I would certainly refer this issue to our legal department to see if we could challenge ARIN/ICANN in court. We all know there will be hardship when the food runs out, but, like the British landlords in Ireland during the potato famine, you want to keep grain in the storehouses while the peasants starve. > - Reclamation of unused address space. It doesn't matter if > we do this > or not, all predictions are we still run out of address space. However, it would be good to have a reclamation discussion in some forum. There are varying levels of reclamation. IANA/ICANN could reclaim some space such as class E addresses, some of the loopback block, and portions of early network number allocations that are not fully used. The RIRs can reclaim addresses by auditing all allocees and assignees to see if they still are using those addresses. Individual companies can reclaim addresses, perhaps by shuffling them around internally with lots of internal /32 routes. Or by renumbering to get a better internal aggregation scheme in place. These possibilities whould all be documented, along with estimates of the amount of addresses recoverable. In some cases we might be able to publish some best practices for reclamation and reuse of addresses in individual networks. > - Encouraging people to use less IPv4 addresses, including but not > limited to higher fees, required use of NAT, ARIN should never promote shifting to IPv4 NAT without promoting a shift to non-NAT IPv6 at the same time. Yes, there are tradeoffs and the IPv4 NAT solution may be more expedient, however both options should be fairly presented. I don't want to see ARIN pushing NAT. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 21 07:07:47 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:07:47 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <022201c76b7b$4bd13620$353816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: > Also, having the RIRs jointly announce such a date gives it > credibility. A > few slides by Geoff or Tony, as much as we respect their > work, doesn't have > the same impact as an official announcement. But if all we have is the slides from Geoff and Tony to justify the joint annnouncement, then we are on very slippery ground. In my opinion, these pseudo-scientific slides cannot justify a countdown policy. > I think this is handled well enough under existing policy. > An org with an > int'l network is _supposed_ to go to the local RIR for each > part of that > network, Where does it say that? > That's why I'd prefer that the IETF and/or IANA mark space (a > /8 or two) > explicitly reserved for uses such as 4to6 gateways That is an entirely separate issue and should be part of an entirely separate policy discussion. To start with, what IETF documents describe such 4to6 gateways? This sounds rather like an IPv4/6 equivalent of AS 23456. > This has the (unfortunate?) side effect that even if IANA > stops giving out > /8s to RIRs on a given date, some will likely run out _months_ before > others. IANA doesn't have to ONLY give out /8s. Towards the end they could give out smaller blocks. But that is a separate policy discussion. > For the record, I support Owen's position. Not because the > end game is > pretty, because it obviously isn't, but because it makes no > sense to me > that, as addresses are returned to (or reclaimed by) ARIN, we > wouldn't be > able to hand them out again. We are going to need better, more dynamic systems for determining the right to use IP address blocks such as an official ARIN route server that is the ultimate authority for all address space allocated or assigned by ARIN. The clunky whois/rwhois/SWIP system just does not cut it. --Michael Dillon From leo.vegoda at icann.org Wed Mar 21 07:15:59 2007 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:15:59 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2007, at 12:07 PM, wrote: [...] > IANA doesn't have to ONLY give out /8s. Towards the end they could > give > out smaller blocks. But that is a separate policy discussion. Actually, the IANA does have to allocate in /8s units. The Allocation Principles section of the policy quite clearly states: "The IANA will allocate IPv4 address space to the RIRs in /8 units." http://www.icann.org/general/allocation-IPv4-rirs.html Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 21 07:40:32 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:40:32 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > IANA doesn't have to ONLY give out /8s. Towards the end they could > > give > > out smaller blocks. But that is a separate policy discussion. > > Actually, the IANA does have to allocate in /8s units. The > Allocation > Principles section of the policy quite clearly states: > > "The IANA will allocate IPv4 address space to the RIRs in > /8 units." > > http://www.icann.org/general/allocation-IPv4-rirs.html This is precisely why IANA does *NOT* have to allocate in /8s. Because this is a policy, it can be changed. For instance, once the IPv4 supply is reduced to no more than 5 /8s, allocate to RIRs only based on their short term needs. Or maybe that should be 7 /8s, or... In any case, it would be useful to study the uptake rates of all 5 RIRs in order to find the right trigger point for beginning "less than /8" allocations to RIRs. The intent of such a change would be to make all 5 regions run out of IANA allocations at roughly the same time. Note that this does not mean the RIRs themselves run dry. They will all have extra space due to their allocation algorithms which reserve space for some period of time. I would expect that the RIRs would change their internal policies about reserved space and allocation algorithms after IANA runs dry. --Michael Dillon From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Mar 21 09:25:11 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:25:11 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <022201c76b7b$4bd13620$353816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <46003A8D.5070209@arin.net> <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <022201c76b7b$4bd13620$353816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <20070321132510.GA82184@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 12:23:52AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > This has the (unfortunate?) side effect that even if IANA stops giving out > /8s to RIRs on a given date, some will likely run out _months_ before > others. LACNIC and AfriNIC don't go through a /8 anywhere near as fast as > ARIN does -- and I don't believe we should tease folks in those regions by > giving them an /8 and then telling them they can't use most of it just > because folks on other continents have a problem. Others have already raised that we may want to alter the IANA to RIR policies so they don't have to allocate /8's, and to better allow all the RIR's to run out around the same time. I like that concept, but I'm a bit unsure exactly how to put that into policy. However, I will say this, if the community wants to alter that policy now is the time. It will take all the RIR's passing the policy for it to be considered by IANA as a global policy. I believe the most optimistic time frame for that to happen would be around 2 years. With the more aggressive predictions of when we run out, we could need it in 3 years. > For the record, I support Owen's position. Not because the end game is > pretty, because it obviously isn't, but because it makes no sense to me > that, as addresses are returned to (or reclaimed by) ARIN, we wouldn't be > able to hand them out again. I also don't like the idea that folks > wouldn't be able to use the trade-in policies, if ARIN happened to have > blocks large enough to, for instance, consolidate the announcements of > someone who currently has several hundred discontiguous blocks. Freezing > the IPv4 registry on a particular date isn't necessary. ARIN (and the > other RIRs) can still do many useful things even if there's no more "new" > space left. And we, as policymakers, can change policy to free up more > "used" space for new allocations/assignments if we decide to do so. I'm so glad you wrote this, because it's an excellent write up of my biggest issue with this policy. When we're out of IPv4 space (either by using all of it, or by putting some in reserve and using all of the rest) there is still a need for the RIR function on IPv4 space. End sites will still come and go from ISP's, meaning we still need to process SWIP's. ISP's will go bankrupt, fail to pay under the RSA, and have their space reclaimed. That should be able to go back out for re-use as it does today. One can only assume there will be increased pressure on transfers, which we need to take into account. There really is a four part problem, and this proposal only manages one: 1) How do we get people to take action now so the limits on IPv4 space don't have major consequences to the industry. (i.e. Move to IPv6 now) 2) How do we manage the "run on the bank" as the space runs out. No matter what this will occur, the goal is to make it the least painful. 3) How do we manage the IPv4 space when it is "full". Do we have to alter any of our policies to properly function in that world? 4) How do we make sure the RIR is effective in the new world? In particular I'm concerned about our IPv6 policy keeping up with the market if there is an accelerated shift. We don't have enough experience with the existing policy to fine tune it for widespread adoption. It's likely the rate of change will outpace the RIR's policy process. > I agree with you that all of the issues you list are relevant to ARIN but > not to this particular proposal. I would definitely like to see distinct > proposals for each of them, and some lively debate around those proposals, > which can be done concurrently with this debate. Absolutely. I believe we need to make policy in all of these other areas as well. While there is some coordination needed, keeping the discussion focused on one area at a time is likely to lead to more progress, in my opinion. I think now is the time for people to start thinking about proposals for the fall, so they can be socialized at the spring meeting and posted shortly afterwards. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From plzak at arin.net Wed Mar 21 09:33:29 2007 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:33:29 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <20070321132510.GA82184@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <46003A8D.5070209@arin.net> <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <022201c76b7b$4bd13620$353816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <20070321132510.GA82184@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: The Open Policy Hour on Sunday would be an excellent opportunity to surface specific proposals. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Leo Bicknell > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:25 AM > To: ARIN PPML > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy > Proposal > > I think now is the time for people to start thinking about proposals > for the fall, so they can be socialized at the spring meeting and > posted shortly afterwards. > From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 21 10:27:28 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:27:28 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <20070321132510.GA82184@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: > Others have already raised that we may want to alter the IANA to > RIR policies so they don't have to allocate /8's, and to better allow > all the RIR's to run out around the same time. I like that concept, > but I'm a bit unsure exactly how to put that into policy. Personally, I would suggest informal discussions with people from all regions first. Then draft a policy along with co-authors from RIPE and APNIC areas, at a minimum. Get LACNIC and Afrinic co-authors if you can. Then send a copy of the proposal to nro at nro.net announcing that you intend this to be a global policy. And then submit it to one or more RIRs, noting prominently at the beginning of the Rationale (or whatever section) that this is intended to be a global policy. Obviously, having a co-author from each RIR helps greatly in submitting the policy proposal to the RIRs and in presenting it at each RIR meeting. Nobody has to travel very far. I think that will greatly improve the wording of your proposal, knock off rough edges that won't fly in other regions, build a groundswell of interest, and set you up well for the hard part. Which, of course, is getting people to vote for it. > 2) How do we manage the "run on the bank" as the space runs out. No > matter what this will occur, the goal is to make it the > least painful. Somehow we have to have tighter policies akin to gas-rationing of the Nixon years or food-rationing in Europe during and after WWII. But we don't need to put rationing in place until it really is needed because IPv6 uptake may be on an exponential track, ready to explode in 3 years from now and save us. > 3) How do we manage the IPv4 space when it is "full". Do we have to > alter any of our policies to properly function in that world? We need to make sure that we KEEP TRACK of the address space so that it can be reclaimed and reissued if needed. Maybe 20 years from now someone will come up with a great application for IPv4 networks that need to be run separately from IPv6 networks. > 4) How do we make sure the RIR is effective in the new world? In > particular I'm concerned about our IPv6 policy keeping up with the > market if there is an accelerated shift. We don't have enough > experience with the existing policy to fine tune it for widespread > adoption. It's likely the rate of change will outpace the > RIR's policy > process. I've always thought that ARIN was not terribly innovative or entrepreneurial. RIPE builds tools and runs measurement projects. APNIC has a chief scientist. ARIN could do a better job in building new services that are of value to the whole community. 1. Replace the bogon list with the official ARIN list of address ranges in good standing 2. Run an ARIN clearing house for network abuse incidents. This would be an automated system rather like a blacklist that would accept issues from members regarding an address range, and report statistics to the public. For instance, AOL might send in an issue like "Address block a through B sent me 16,782 SPAM emails today" and I might subscribe to "a list of address blocks which have sent greater than 10,000 SPAM messages in the previous 7 days but don't count reports from AOL and GoogleMail". 3. Run a lit-address service that is good enough that ISPs can, during their provisioning and decomissioning processes, report when they light up an address range for a customer. Then, people can build finer grained filters that block traffic from unused address ranges within an ISP's allocation. Don't accept the argument that SOME hardware can't do this filtering because hardware continues to improve. 4. Run a meetme service that applications can use to break through NATs. For instance, I boot my machine in a hotel room and my voice-conferencing app tells the ARIN meetme service where I am. If someone calls me, their app asks the meetme service how to reach me which tells them what to do. Maybe they can send packets to a specific port on the hotel's NAT gateway. Maybe they can send packets to my hosted relay server in Germany. Or maybe they can relay a connect request to me via the meetme server and my app will call back. The point of course, is to facilitate NAT without needing every protocol to come up with STUN-alikes (Google SIP STUN). And facilitating NAT means fewer registered IPv4 addresses are needed. A meetme service like this needs to have servers as widespread as the DNS roots, i.e. all over the world are major traffic interchanges. It doesn't work as a commercial product because there needs to be ONE service in the infrastructure, like DNS. ARIN is a service organization. It runs the in-addr.arpa service, the (creaky old) whois service, a route server, a registry service, and so on. Why not some new stuff too. > Absolutely. I believe we need to make policy in all of these other > areas as well. Only make policy if it is absolutely necessary. > I think now is the time for people to start thinking about proposals > for the fall, so they can be socialized at the spring meeting and > posted shortly afterwards. --Michael Dillon From rich at nic.umass.edu Wed Mar 21 10:34:38 2007 From: rich at nic.umass.edu (Rich Emmings) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:34:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <46003A8D.5070209@arin.net> References: <46003A8D.5070209@arin.net> Message-ID: I can't add to the discussion, without repeating points raised, other than to say "opposed" as written. From alh-ietf at tndh.net Wed Mar 21 13:21:24 2007 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:21:24 +0100 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: References: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <02a401c76bdd$5bec0f50$13c42df0$@net> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > ... > However, it would be good to have a reclamation discussion in some > forum. There are varying levels of reclamation. IANA/ICANN could > reclaim > some space such as class E addresses, some of the loopback block, This would be pointless. While I don't want this to devolve into MSFT bashing, every version of windows from 95 through Vista considers the E block to be insufficiently defined and they refuse to accept configuration into that space. While you could allocate from the Class E space, when 9x% of the end systems refuse to use it there is no point. > and > portions of early network number allocations that are not fully used. Shortly we will be burning through 2+ /8's per month, so the logistics of reclaiming space will be challenged to keep up, even if there are blocks that add up to that much. This statement also assumes that just because part of a block is currently unused that the assignee will be willing to give up their current 'holding', just for the right to get in line with everyone else when they need to grow shortly down the road. > The RIRs can reclaim addresses by auditing all allocees and assignees > to > see if they still are using those addresses. Individual companies can > reclaim addresses, perhaps by shuffling them around internally with > lots > of internal /32 routes. Or by renumbering to get a better internal > aggregation scheme in place. This statement assumes an organization would undertake substantial cost, strictly to allow a potential competitor to get space. Reality??? > These possibilities whould all be > documented, along with estimates of the amount of addresses > recoverable. > In some cases we might be able to publish some best practices for > reclamation and reuse of addresses in individual networks. > > > - Encouraging people to use less IPv4 addresses, including but not > > limited to higher fees, required use of NAT, > > ARIN should never promote shifting to IPv4 NAT without promoting a > shift > to non-NAT IPv6 at the same time. Yes, there are tradeoffs and the IPv4 > NAT solution may be more expedient, however both options should be > fairly presented. I don't want to see ARIN pushing NAT. I agree that ARIN should not be promoting NAT. At the same time, ARIN should not even be implying that they will be miserly with the remaining IPv4 space. Stewardship does not equate to rationing that causes people to do unnatural things like NAT in their network deployment. It is long past time to get over it and realize that further extending the lifetime of IPv4 is a waste of everyone's time and energy. People will need to learn the realities of the new version of IP, or find another line of work. Tony From tony at lava.net Wed Mar 21 14:05:17 2007 From: tony at lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:05:17 -1000 (HST) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've been following this discussion for a while and at first I thought the proposal might have some merit in trying to prevent the feared 'train-wreck'. However, as written it seems to me that all it really does is cause the RIRs and it's members to expend a quite a bit of time and energy to take non-trivial measures to extend the life of a protocol that already has a suitable substitute. That time and energy would be better spent on IPv6 transition efforts. I don't see this as an impending train-wreck but rather an old car about to run out of gas while there is a newer, more capable car with a more abundant fuel source ready to take it's place. We don't need to take extraordinary measures to banish the old car from the highway. Just park it, get in the new car and move on. Antonio Querubin tony at lava.net From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 14:28:37 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:28:37 +0300 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20070321132510.GA82184@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: On 3/21/07, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > ARIN is a service organization. It runs the in-addr.arpa service, the > (creaky old) whois service, a route server, a registry service, and so > on. Why not some new stuff too. It's my impression that's it's a reluctance to pay for these value added services on the part of the ARIN members. Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 15:31:51 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:31:51 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Antonio Querubin >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:05 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > >I've been following this discussion for a while yes, yes, >and at first I thought the >proposal might have some merit in trying to prevent the feared >'train-wreck'. However, as written it seems to me that all it really does >is cause the RIRs and it's members to expend a quite a bit of time and >energy to take non-trivial measures to extend the life of a protocol that >already has a suitable substitute. That time and energy would be better >spent on IPv6 transition efforts. I don't see this as an impending >train-wreck but rather an old car about to run out of gas while there is a >newer, more capable car with a more abundant fuel source ready to take >it's place. We don't need to take extraordinary measures to banish the >old car from the highway. Just park it, get in the new car and move on. > Antonio, you are answering your own question. The proposal was accepted for discussion precisely because of people like you who are merely 'following" the discussion and NOT contributing your opinions. If everyone wants to go full speed on an IPv6 transition plan then great. If everyone wants to spend time and energy extending the life of a protocol that has a suitable substitute, then great. The problem is that since too many people are merely following and not venturing opinions, we don't know what people want. Richard Nixon coined a term for these people, calling them the "Silent Majority" If the "Silent Majority" prefers IPv6 transition then the only way we may be able to get it to happen is by going in the opposite direction - towards extending IPv4 - which will get the "Silent Majority" to realize that unless they say something, then they won't get what they want. In the United States, the "Silent Majority" was seen in operation in the November 2006 congressional midterm elections. Up until then, the pro-war hawks were telling the United States that the majority of people wanted to stay in Iraq and keep fighting. The "Silent Majority" voted in the opposite direction, and emasculated the party in power and the President. (and about time, too) In other words, it wasn't until they were forced to speak, that they did. (by voting) It may be that much the same thing is happening here. It may be that only serious efforts to extend IPv4 will crystalize people's determination to switchover to IPv6. It certainly seemed to do so for you. Think about it. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 15:33:35 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:33:35 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Rich Emmings >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:35 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > >I can't add to the discussion, without repeating points raised, >other than to say "opposed" as written. If you are going to go on record opposing, then what exactly is the alternative that you do support? Ted From stephen at sprunk.org Wed Mar 21 15:16:07 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:16:07 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal References: <20070321132510.GA82184@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <00d001c76bf0$6196e2f0$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "McTim" > On 3/21/07, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> ARIN is a service organization. It runs the in-addr.arpa service, >> the (creaky old) whois service, a route server, a registry service, >> and so on. Why not some new stuff too. > > It's my impression that's it's a reluctance to pay for these value > added services on the part of the ARIN members. Has it ever been put to a vote? Is there even an official way to get such things onto the agenda besides stuffing the suggestion box and hoping the BoT/AC will bring it up? We have a very good process to make policy changes that affect ARIN's registry services, but it's unclear to me how much control we have over the other things ARIN does. And that's not a slam at ARIN at all, since they have a good track record of doing what we ask, but it makes it difficult to propose non-registry programs like community outreach (i.e. to people who aren't on this list or attending meetings, via ads or articles in Network World, Information Week, CIO, or even the WSJ). It's like we need a non-policy proposal process. Is the consensus truly that ARIN shouldn't do things besides registry services (i.e. act like a trade association), or do we just not have a method of telling ARIN it needs to be done combined with them being hesitant to do (i.e. spend money on) things they haven't been explicitly told to? S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 15:57:07 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:57:07 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <022201c76b7b$4bd13620$353816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Stephen Sprunk >Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:24 PM >To: Leo Bicknell >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > > >One must always remember the law of unintended consequences when trying to >regulate people into something they won't like and probably won't feel is >just. > People don't like the fact that IPv4 is ending, period. You cannot get around this. They don't like the fact they are going to have to put money and labor dollars into renumbering to IPv6 or buying NAT gateways or whatnot. So no matter what, the ending of IPv4 allocations, whether natural or artificial, is going to produce a set of unintended consequences that are going to be pretty much the same. Your argument is thus: "we should ignore IPv4 runout because if we try to affect it, it will cause consequence A. Oh and by the way, when we eventually get to IPv4 runout, consquence A is going to happen" What is YOUR answer to the question of what is the alternative to "regulating people into something they don't like"? It sounds to me pretty much like "letting something happen to people that they don't like" End results in either case: identical. >> There are alternatives, Owen DeLong just wrote about what >> would probably be considered the opposite viewpoint in >> another message, I quote: >> >> I believe that the system will function and that there is no need >> to do anything different until ARIN is unable to fulfill requests. >> At that time, ARIN should fulfill request it can on a >> first-come-first-serve basis and provide a polite apology in >> response to requests which cannot be fulfilled. I do not believe >> a change of policy is required in order for ARIN staff to do this. > >For the record, I support Owen's position. Not because the end game is >pretty, because it obviously isn't, but because it makes no sense to me >that, as addresses are returned to (or reclaimed by) ARIN, we wouldn't be >able to hand them out again. I also don't like the idea that >folks wouldn't >be able to use the trade-in policies, if ARIN happened to have >blocks large >enough to, for instance, consolidate the announcements of someone who >currently has several hundred discontiguous blocks. Freezing the IPv4 >registry on a particular date isn't necessary. ARIN (and the other RIRs) >can still do many useful things even if there's no more "new" space left. No more "new" space? So you don't call IPv6 allocations "new" Who is using them now?!?! What these arguments seem to boil down to is "I don't like laws or policies or regulation of any type, whether bad or good, so I'm always going to oppose additional regulation no matter what, and I'm always going to advocate for removing regulations that curently exist, no matter what" In other words, the classic "I don't have a real answer for the problem" kind of response. In the US people who advocate that position are generally classed as Libertarians and seem to be married to someone named "Pollyanna" Ted From info at arin.net Wed Mar 21 16:07:40 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:07:40 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <00d001c76bf0$6196e2f0$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <20070321132510.GA82184@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <00d001c76bf0$6196e2f0$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <4601908C.6040506@arin.net> Stephen, The ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process was created for just that purpose. You will find the document outlining the process at: http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html. You may submit a suggestion by following the guidelines on the suggestion template found at: https://app.arin.net/suggestion/ The link to this information is found on the home page, www.arin.net, shown in the right side box as *Suggestions. Regards, Susan Hamlin Director, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers(ARIN) Stephen Sprunk wrote: >Thus spake "McTim" > > >>On 3/21/07, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> >> >>>ARIN is a service organization. It runs the in-addr.arpa service, >>>the (creaky old) whois service, a route server, a registry service, >>>and so on. Why not some new stuff too. >>> >>> >>It's my impression that's it's a reluctance to pay for these value >>added services on the part of the ARIN members. >> >> > >Has it ever been put to a vote? Is there even an official way to get such >things onto the agenda besides stuffing the suggestion box and hoping the >BoT/AC will bring it up? > >We have a very good process to make policy changes that affect ARIN's >registry services, but it's unclear to me how much control we have over the >other things ARIN does. And that's not a slam at ARIN at all, since they >have a good track record of doing what we ask, but it makes it difficult to >propose non-registry programs like community outreach (i.e. to people who >aren't on this list or attending meetings, via ads or articles in Network >World, Information Week, CIO, or even the WSJ). It's like we need a >non-policy proposal process. > >Is the consensus truly that ARIN shouldn't do things besides registry >services (i.e. act like a trade association), or do we just not have a >method of telling ARIN it needs to be done combined with them being hesitant >to do (i.e. spend money on) things they haven't been explicitly told to? > >S > >Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything >CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." >K5SSS --Isaac Asimov > > >_______________________________________________ >This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List >(PPML at arin.net). >Manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > > From james at towardex.com Wed Mar 21 16:22:05 2007 From: james at towardex.com (James Jun) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:22:05 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070321201903.D0D876D443@mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com> > > > >I can't add to the discussion, without repeating points raised, > >other than to say "opposed" as written. > I am also going to go on record to state that I'm opposed to this proposal. While I am an advocate for adoption of IPv6, the artificial timeline is unfair to many. My position is that we ought to continue to work in IPv4<->IPv6 transition phase for a smoother rather than artificial T-dates. And once the market speaks for IPv6, let the transition happen naturally as market demands. There's been a lot of surge of pressure and discussions relating to the death of IPv4 or IPv4 space otherwise running out; however discussion to allow or encourage people to IPv6 has been little, and had only been impeded by issues like shim6, unresolved multihoming, etc (which is why the recent /48 PI allocation adoption by ARIN was a great step forward to get more people to transition to IPv6 IMO). And to top it off, for some people from a single region to advocate that we globally determine a timeline for IPv4 based on expectations is unfair, when not too many efforts to encourage and market IPv6 had been made. Regards, james From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 16:29:35 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:29:35 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Leo Bicknell >Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:37 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > > >While I think there has been a lot of good discussion generated >from the IPv4 policy, a lot of it has strayed from the original >policy proposal. I'm going to attempt to bring that back around a >bit as we need to tackle the issue of address space exhaustion. > >To that end, I'd like to oversimplify the proposal. Language, >format, and justification aside I believe the proposal can be boiled >down to the following simpler statement: > > The RIR's, in order to assure the orderly shutdown of IPv4 > allocations should do their best to predict the date at which > there will be no more IPv4 addresses available, should announce > a termination date just before the predicted exhaustion, and > should cease allocations on that date even if there is some > address space still available. > Leo, can we make it: "The RIR's, in order to assure the orderly shutdown of IPv4 allocations must announce a termination date for IPv4 by January 1st, 2008. The termination date will be reviewed every 6 months thereafter if conditions warrant" Consider that it isn't going to be possible to predict with accuracy, but what we need to have is a "official" termination date so that we can get people thinking about what they are going to do post-IPv4. And I don't mean just people thinking about it who are on the list here, I mean a date that news journalists can toss around. The goal should be that by at least a year from announcement date of this drop-dead date, that most CEO's of large organizations should have asked their network people "so what are we going to do about this end of TCP/IP thing I just read about?" You see I have a theory that the reason that most large company CEO's come up with the screwy hairbrained ideas that they do is because they read about them in in-flight magazines on airplanes, and until we have a drop-dead date announced, the people that write for these publications won't have anything concrete they can write about. >I believe the intent of the authors is to realize a number of potential >benefits: > >- There is a well known date at which no more IPv4 space will be > available, making it easier for those needed addresses to show their > management the need for alternate plans. > >- By the RIR's shutting down distributions of addresses at the same > time it prevents the "last RIR standing" from being swamped by every > international company solely because they still have addresses. > >Of course, there are drawbacks: > >- This requires global coordination. > >- We may leave some IPv4 space unused that could otherwise be put to > good use. > >- This policy itself may cause a run on IP space. > >There are alternatives, Owen DeLong just wrote about what would probably >be considered the opposite viewpoint in another message, I quote: > > I believe that the system will function and that there is no need > to do anything different until ARIN is unable to fulfill requests. > At that time, ARIN should fulfill request it can on a > first-come-first-serve basis and provide a polite apology in > response to requests which cannot be fulfilled. I do not believe > a change of policy is required in order for ARIN staff to do this. > This is not an alternative. Doing nothing about a problem is not an alternative, it is status quo, and it certainly invites government interference and involvement. >Last, in an attempt to keep the discussion focused, I'd ask you to >consider if these related topics are relevant to this policy's thread, >along with why I think most are not: > >- Reclamation of unused address space. It doesn't matter if we do this > or not, all predictions are we still run out of address space. This is an extreme simplification that is essentically incorrect. If relamation were to exceed everyone's estimates then it might push the runout date so far in advance that it would become theoretical. I agee the chances of this are small but the are not nonexistent - so in fact, reclamation does have a place in the discussion. > All > this does is move the date, which is a valid discussion but the topic at > hand here is what happens when the RIR's have no more space to > allocate. > >- Encouraging people to use less IPv4 addresses, including but not > limited to higher fees, required use of NAT, rejustification of existing > IPs. Same issue, it delays the date we run out, but doesn't change > the problem of what the RIR's should do when they run out. > These are all part of IPv4 reclamation. >- Are the predictions of when we run out correct? Same problem, doesn't > matter if it's 2010, 2020, or 2050, the question is what do we do when > it happens. > If it is 2050 then we are setting policy prematurely if the policy is not going to come into effect for another 43 years. You and I will certainly both be retired, very likely both dead of old age. We do not have the moral right to dictate policy to our children for a community problem that will arise after we are dead of old age. We only have the right to set policy that we are going to live by. I also have the same objection to the continual immoral lengthing of copyright terms, by the way. You might as well write policy now for the runout of IPv6. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 16:41:27 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:41:27 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <20070321201903.D0D876D443@mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >James Jun >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:22 PM >To: 'Rich Emmings'; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > >> > >> >I can't add to the discussion, without repeating points raised, >> >other than to say "opposed" as written. >> > >I am also going to go on record to state that I'm opposed to this proposal. >While I am an advocate for adoption of IPv6, the artificial timeline is >unfair to many. My position is that we ought to continue to work in >IPv4<->IPv6 transition phase for a smoother rather than artificial T-dates. So you favor a natural T-date then? >And once the market speaks for IPv6, let the transition happen naturally as >market demands. > May I remind you that there is no such thing as a "natural transition" to IPv6. IPv6 itself was developed as an answer to the expected runout of IPv4. It did not arise as a natural and logical progression to the TCP/IP protocol but rather as a response to a single mistake in an assumption to the protocol design. For all we know in another 20 years there will be another fundamental flaw discovered in IPv6 that will necessitate an "internet Protocol Next Generation" and we will go through this whole thing all over again when contemplating an IPv6->IP-NG transition. >There's been a lot of surge of pressure and discussions relating to the >death of IPv4 or IPv4 space otherwise running out; however discussion to >allow or encourage people to IPv6 has been little, and had only >been impeded >by issues like shim6, unresolved multihoming, etc (which is why the recent >/48 PI allocation adoption by ARIN was a great step forward to get more >people to transition to IPv6 IMO). > Well, DUH! Since there is no "artificial T-date" as you put it that everyone agrees on, people do not feel any pressure to discuss a post-IPv4 world. Most people are probably thinking that in the absense of an "artificial T date" that after IPv4 ruout "I'll just be able to buy what IPv4 I need off Ebay" >And to top it off, for some people from a single region to advocate that we >globally determine a timeline for IPv4 based on expectations is >unfair, when >not too many efforts to encourage and market IPv6 had been made. > Until a timeline is determined for IPv4 there will be little effort to encourage and market IPv6. How do you market something that the need of which hasn't even been proven? It is like trying to sell a bio-diesel car based on the idea that "one day the oil will run out and biodiesel will be the only thing you can use as a fuel" Well sure, you will get a few people to buy it. But most aren't going to pay attention. Ted From rich at nic.umass.edu Wed Mar 21 16:44:09 2007 From: rich at nic.umass.edu (Rich Emmings) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm jotting this off quickly. My first reading of the proposal before it was re-petitioned, was that it's adaption would be more likely to cause a run on the bank right after adoption, speeding exhaustion, not holding it up. Driving a car off a tall cliff is general a bad idea; not doing is the alternative. I might investigate voluntary recovery of unused numbers as a better first step. Email postage is still cheap, and most people probably haven't been personally asked. ARIN maintains a registry of unique numbers for those who require uniqueness; there is no requirement the numbers show up in the routing table. For those that gloom about the size of the global routing table, this could be construed to be a good thing. I have a list of 10 /8's which are not seen in the global tables. I might ask those folks first, what they'd be willing to do. Larger, order /16's might be the next order of business. ARIN records not updated in 10 or 12 years. As I understand it, there some action taking towards cleaning out the swamp at one point, by trading for address space. /8 holders (ala Stanford) might be able to trade down. I'd not force the issue until I'd see what asking did. Renumbering consumes the resources (time, money, etc) of the enitity. It might be worth offering up some IPv6 space in lieu of, and outside of the current allocation minimums -- Any size of IPv4 smaller than what you have + an IPv6 block, might be a not unreasonable offer. Some people might be able to take advantage of this, others won't be able to. A co-worker & his wife ran around the house one day checking the seat cushions and change jars, and came up with $600 in loose change. Maybe there's no loose change out there in IPv4 Land, but has any one asked anyone to check under the cushions. Or maybe we're unwilling to try and use a collaborative approach, and should instead adopt the Atilia the Hun method. But I'd rather not. --- Specific criticisms: If we're heading for a disaster, we shouldn't be waiting for "A-Date" or "D-Date" whatever the psuedo-math formula was. If the exhaustion models[2] are accurate, rewrite the policy around specific dates, since the models already predict them. Gimme a specific date, if you want me to move staff and management, not some arbitrary future trigger event that can be ignored. Even with that, I'd still oppose it on the basis of a belief, it will have the opposite behavior. --- Note 1: RFC1925 Controls, especially 2(4). Note 2: IPv4 Exhaustion assumptions are using the wrong smoothed curve. It'll be a logistic ("S") curve, not exponential. On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >> Rich Emmings >> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:35 AM >> To: ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >> Proposal >> >> >> I can't add to the discussion, without repeating points raised, >> other than to say "opposed" as written. > > If you are going to go on record opposing, then what exactly is the > alternative that you do support? > > Ted > From info at arin.net Wed Mar 21 16:45:54 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:45:54 -0400 Subject: [ppml] PPML Subscription Campaign Results Message-ID: <46019982.6040402@arin.net> In an effort to increase participation in our policy process, ARIN recently invited all registered designated member representatives (DMRs), Admin POCs, and Tech POCs to subscribe to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). In terms of numbers, the campaign was a success. The number of subscribed e-mail accounts has grown from 456 to 1,711, a 275% increase. Due to this increase, we?ve also seen several unsubscribe requests posted to the list. We have modified the footer on all mailing list messages to more explicitly direct subscribers to the mailing list management interface. We also posted a message to the PPML with instructions to unsubscribe successfully: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-March/006102.html We appreciate your continued patience in this matter. We encourage you to participate in the policy proposal discussions so that all viewpoints can be considered. The PPML is an intrinsic part of ARIN?s Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP) and broad participation is necessary for its success. It is the public forum in which all policy proposals are introduced and discussed. The feedback given on the list and at the Public Policy Meetings is used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine community consensus. You can also use the PPML to present and discuss policy ideas before submitting the idea as a policy proposal. ARIN will continue to send PPML subscription invitations to new DMRs, Admin POCs, and Tech POCs as they are registered. You can assist in this effort as well by inviting other interested individuals to join the PPML. The list is open to the public and we look forward to many of you becoming active participants in our policy process. As a list subscriber, please be courteous and remember that you can manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml This includes unsubscribing, updating your e-mail address, changing your settings, and searching the archives. If you set an auto-reply on your e-mail account, we require you to change your mail delivery setting to ?Disabled? during that time. We also request that e-mail accounts with ticketing systems attached be unsubscribed. If you receive any auto-reply messages to a post, please submit it to info at arin.net so that we may investigate. If at any time you have questions about the mailing list, our policy process, or ARIN in general, please contact us at info at arin.net. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 16:55:11 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:55:11 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Rich Emmings >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:44 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > >I'm jotting this off quickly. > >My first reading of the proposal before it was re-petitioned, was >that it's >adaption would be more likely to cause a run on the bank right after >adoption, speeding exhaustion, not holding it up. > >Driving a car off a tall cliff is general a bad idea; not doing is >the alternative. > > >I might investigate voluntary recovery of unused numbers as a better first >step. Email postage is still cheap, and most people probably haven't been >personally asked. > >ARIN maintains a registry of unique numbers for those who require >uniqueness; there is no requirement the numbers show up in the >routing table. >For those that gloom about the size of the global routing table, >this could >be construed to be a good thing. > >I have a list of 10 /8's which are not seen in the global tables. I might >ask those folks first, what they'd be willing to do. Larger, order /16's >might be the next order of business. ARIN records not updated in >10 or 12 years. > >As I understand it, there some action taking towards cleaning out >the swamp >at one point, by trading for address space. /8 holders (ala >Stanford) might >be able to trade down. > >I'd not force the issue until I'd see what asking did. > >Renumbering consumes the resources (time, money, etc) of the enitity. It >might be worth offering up some IPv6 space in lieu of, and outside of the >current allocation minimums -- Any size of IPv4 smaller than what >you have + >an IPv6 block, might be a not unreasonable offer. Some people >might be able >to take advantage of this, others won't be able to. > >A co-worker & his wife ran around the house one day checking the seat >cushions and change jars, and came up with $600 in loose change. Maybe >there's no loose change out there in IPv4 Land, but has any one >asked anyone >to check under the cushions. > That is a genius analogy, I wish I'd thought of it. It makes me think of a great proposal title: "Collection efforts on IPv4 loose change" Much better than the one I was considering, "IPv4 reclamation efforts" Do you think that a proposal that listed a series of steps starting wtih a collaborative approach and switching to an Atillia the Hun approach if the collaborative approach fails would work? Or should it be all collaborative, or all Atilla? Ted From james at towardex.com Wed Mar 21 17:01:13 2007 From: james at towardex.com (James Jun) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:01:13 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070321205811.69CA26D44C@mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com> > > How do you market something that the need of which hasn't even been > proven? Exactly, and it is your position to force it down to everyone when as you stated, the protocol's needs have not been proven? Perhaps we should more focus in proving the needs of the protocol before forcing it down on everyone by setting artificial time for IPv4 withdrawal. I am puzzled as to your exact position on what to do after the T-date. What exactly is your position to do after the artificial T-date? Do you support switching to IPv6 by the determined date? Or are we just declaring that we artificially set date for end-of-the-world and letting people ponder what to do? This proposal is flawed because it offers no solution on what to do past the artificial IPv4 termination date, nor does it offer any easier solutions on how to make IPv6 transition easier, cheaper and more preferable for the majority in the industry. It simply assumes that LIRs would just migrate to IPv6 simply by threatening them with artificially set timelines. Don't expect every CEO sitting in plane reading those so-called magazines to always call their MIS/IT department to ask what the hell happened; some will resort to frivolous lawsuits. james From alex at aspenworks.com Wed Mar 21 17:00:59 2007 From: alex at aspenworks.com (Alex Huppenthal) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:00:59 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <20070321205811.69CA26D44C@mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com> References: <20070321205811.69CA26D44C@mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com> Message-ID: <9B3CBC98-CBEF-427F-AA27-C2517ED273CE@aspenworks.com> Have we talked about a trade-out program? On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:01 PM, James Jun wrote: >> >> How do you market something that the need of which hasn't even been >> proven? > > Exactly, and it is your position to force it down to everyone when > as you > stated, the protocol's needs have not been proven? Perhaps we > should more > focus in proving the needs of the protocol before forcing it down on > everyone by setting artificial time for IPv4 withdrawal. > > I am puzzled as to your exact position on what to do after the T- > date. What > exactly is your position to do after the artificial T-date? Do you > support > switching to IPv6 by the determined date? Or are we just declaring > that we > artificially set date for end-of-the-world and letting people > ponder what to > do? > > This proposal is flawed because it offers no solution on what to do > past the > artificial IPv4 termination date, nor does it offer any easier > solutions on > how to make IPv6 transition easier, cheaper and more preferable for > the > majority in the industry. It simply assumes that LIRs would just > migrate to > IPv6 simply by threatening them with artificially set timelines. > Don't > expect every CEO sitting in plane reading those so-called magazines to > always call their MIS/IT department to ask what the hell happened; > some will > resort to frivolous lawsuits. > > > james > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From stephen at sprunk.org Wed Mar 21 16:47:31 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:47:31 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal References: Message-ID: <010801c76bfd$ed8012c0$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" >[ I said: ] >>One must always remember the law of unintended consequences >>when trying to regulate people into something they won't like and >>probably won't feel is just. > > People don't like the fact that IPv4 is ending, period. IPv4 isn't ending; it's approaching the inherent limits of growth. This proposal seeks not only to artificially move up the date that happens but to try to make IPv4 unusable after that date even if addresses are reclaimed by or returned to the RIRs. That is _not_ the same as what will happen if we let IPv4 hit the wall on its own. > You cannot get around this. They don't like the fact they are going > to have to put money and labor dollars into renumbering to IPv6 or > buying NAT gateways or whatnot. So no matter what, the ending > of IPv4 allocations, whether natural or artificial, is going to produce > a set of unintended consequences that are going to be pretty > much the same. You missed the second part of my statement. Most people are willing to live with things they don't like if they feel they're just. For instance, I'm okay with not being allowed to kill people (even if I occasionally want to) because I agree that such a law is just. Likewise, people can't help but agree that when we're out of addresses, we're out; one cannot argue with a bare cupboard no matter how hungry one is. OTOH, if the RIRs still have addresses available, how is it just to refuse to let people have them solely because some arbitrary date has passed? That is the distinction I'm making. >>Freezing the IPv4 registry on a particular date isn't necessary. >>ARIN (and the other RIRs) can still do many useful things even >>if there's no more "new" space left. > > No more "new" space? So you don't call IPv6 allocations "new" I said "the IPv4 registry". > Who is using them now?!?! IPv6? Pretty much nobody so far in the ARIN region; that's part of the problem. This proposal comes from JPNIC, which sees significantly higher IPv6 uptake rates than we've got; their views on the best path forward are naturally going to be inconsistent with ours since we're working from different experiences. (Not to mention cultural differences...) There are two questions to answer about any "global" policy proposal: 1. Does the ARIN community agree with it? 2. If we don't, should we adopt it anyways to support other RIRs' plans? My answer to both is "no" at this time, but that's just me and I might be swayed. I'm seeing a definite shortage of people saying "yes" to either so far, but it's only been 25 hours since the proposal was posted... S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Wed Mar 21 18:37:45 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:37:45 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down Message-ID: <4601b3b9.a7.20a1.9148@batelnet.bs> > Shortly we will be burning through 2+ /8's per month, so > the logistics of reclaiming space will be challenged to > keep up, even if there are blocks that add up to that > much. An above ground v4 trade would be helpful. Allowing V4 to be treated as property, at least for legacy space, would be required. The economics of that are interesting, and the outcome predictable. Seems like a smoother transition than tossing a bomb into the problem like the aforementioned policy seems to do, IMHO. -M< From owen at delong.com Wed Mar 21 17:43:10 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:43:10 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <81507E90-FE43-4CA4-AC47-CB5A5CE158BC@delong.com> >> >> There are alternatives, Owen DeLong just wrote about what would >> probably >> be considered the opposite viewpoint in another message, I quote: >> >> I believe that the system will function and that there is no need >> to do anything different until ARIN is unable to fulfill >> requests. >> At that time, ARIN should fulfill request it can on a >> first-come-first-serve basis and provide a polite apology in >> response to requests which cannot be fulfilled. I do not believe >> a change of policy is required in order for ARIN staff to do this. >> > > This is not an alternative. Doing nothing about a problem is not an > alternative, it is status quo, and it certainly invites government > interference and involvement. I believe by alternative, Leo was referring to options other than the one presented. Continuing as I stated certainly is an option, and, frankly, I don't think it invites regulation to any degree greater than what you are advocating. In fact, there wouldn't really be much left to regulate by the time the regulators did anything. OTOH, with the artificial reserve and EOL proposal on the table, there'd be some stuff left for them to think they could gain control over. >> Last, in an attempt to keep the discussion focused, I'd ask you to >> consider if these related topics are relevant to this policy's >> thread, >> along with why I think most are not: >> >> - Reclamation of unused address space. It doesn't matter if we do >> this >> or not, all predictions are we still run out of address space. > > This is an extreme simplification that is essentically incorrect. If > relamation were to exceed everyone's estimates then it might push the > runout date so far in advance that it would become theoretical. I > agee the chances of this are small but the are not nonexistent - so > in fact, reclamation does have a place in the discussion. > And, if the aerodynamic coefficient of monkeys could be modified sufficiently, then, they could fly, perhaps even out of my butt. Get real. The odds of any reclamation effort succeeding to such an extent are so close to zero as to not even be good theory. >> - Are the predictions of when we run out correct? Same problem, >> doesn't >> matter if it's 2010, 2020, or 2050, the question is what do we do >> when >> it happens. >> > > If it is 2050 then we are setting policy prematurely if the policy is > not going to come into effect for another 43 years. You and I will > certainly both be retired, very likely both dead of old age. We do > not > have the moral right to dictate policy to our children for a > community problem that will arise after we are dead of old age. > We only have the right to set policy that we are going to live by. > I also have the same objection to the continual > immoral lengthing of copyright terms, by the way. > Wrong again. We have the right and, indeed, the obligation to set appropriate policy for likely circumstances now. No matter what policy we set now, it will likely be changed by our children and perhaps their children between now and 2050, so, this is no reason to avoid setting policy now. > You might as well write policy now for the runout of IPv6. > Personally, I think it should be the same as the current policy regarding the runout of IPv4 (which I also think is perfectly fine), so, I have no problem with that. Owen From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 17:43:15 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:43:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <20070321205811.69CA26D44C@mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: James Jun [mailto:james at towardex.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:01 PM >To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; 'Rich Emmings'; ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > >> >> How do you market something that the need of which hasn't even been >> proven? > >Exactly, and it is your position to force it down to everyone when as you >stated, the protocol's needs have not been proven? Perhaps we should more >focus in proving the needs of the protocol before forcing it down on >everyone by setting artificial time for IPv4 withdrawal. > It appears to me that the only way to prove need of IPv6 is to be able to state with authority that "All usable IPv4 addresses are currently in use" Anything else is a prediction of when it will happen. And the only way to state that all usable addresses are in use is to wait until all of them are allocated. Which goes right back to the "do nothing until we are out of numbers" answer. Thus if you are going to insist on proof of need of IPv6 then your advocating to do nothing, it appears. If you have other criteria in mind that would constitute proof of need of IPv6, then what are they? >I am puzzled as to your exact position on what to do after the >T-date. What >exactly is your position to do after the artificial T-date? Do you support >switching to IPv6 by the determined date? Or are we just declaring that we >artificially set date for end-of-the-world and letting people >ponder what to >do? > I think we should switch to IPv6 after the T-date. However I do not believe the T-date is as soon as people think because I believe that reclamation should be tried, and I think there's a lot of IPv4 out there that could be reclaimed. I think that NOT switching to IPv6 after the T-date will put anyone at a disadvantage who needs more IP allocations because on a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet, the paying customers will all demand IPv4 for servers and suchlike, so as to be as accessible as possible to both IPv6 and IPv4 clients. Thus the organizations that are rich and can afford to twist things to get IPv4, will over time collect the higher paying customers. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. >This proposal is flawed because it offers no solution on what to >do past the >artificial IPv4 termination date, nor does it offer any easier solutions on >how to make IPv6 transition easier, cheaper and more preferable for the >majority in the industry. It simply assumes that LIRs would just >migrate to >IPv6 simply by threatening them with artificially set timelines. Don't >expect every CEO sitting in plane reading those so-called magazines to >always call their MIS/IT department to ask what the hell happened; >some will >resort to frivolous lawsuits. > That is OK by me. While the lawyers are arguing the rest of the Internet will be switched over to IPv6 and the companies that try suing will become like what happened to SCO when it tried suing over Linux - nothing more than amusing sideshows. It is kind of hard to fund a lawsuit when your not making money because you refuse to renumber to IPv6 and all your customers have renumbered. Filing a lawsuit like this is like suing the phone company because they went to 10-digit dialing. You have to go to 10-digit dialing yourself to even talk to your own lawyers, to file the lawsuit that if you win you won't have to go to 10-digit dialing. The whole premise kind of collapses when you consider it. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 17:43:42 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:43:42 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <9B3CBC98-CBEF-427F-AA27-C2517ED273CE@aspenworks.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Alex Huppenthal [mailto:alex at aspenworks.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:01 PM >To: James Jun >Cc: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; 'Rich Emmings'; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > >Have we talked about a trade-out program? > A trade-out program would be an IPv4 reclamation idea along with many others. Ted From tvest at pch.net Wed Mar 21 17:46:43 2007 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:46:43 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: <4601b3b9.a7.20a1.9148@batelnet.bs> References: <4601b3b9.a7.20a1.9148@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> Shortly we will be burning through 2+ /8's per month, so >> the logistics of reclaiming space will be challenged to >> keep up, even if there are blocks that add up to that >> much. > > An above ground v4 trade would be helpful. Allowing V4 to be > treated as property, at least for legacy space, would be > required. The economics of that are interesting, and the > outcome predictable. Seems like a smoother transition > than tossing a bomb into the problem like the aforementioned > policy seems > to do, IMHO. > > -M Interesting, maybe -- but predictable? Are you predicting an "interesting" outcome? TV From drc at virtualized.org Wed Mar 21 17:47:35 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:47:35 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <010801c76bfd$ed8012c0$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <010801c76bfd$ed8012c0$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: Hi, On Mar 21, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> People don't like the fact that IPv4 is ending, period. > IPv4 isn't ending; it's approaching the inherent limits of growth. It isn't even that. The IPv4 _FREE POOL as administered by IANA and the RIRs_ is being exhausted. That's all. There is lots of unused address space locked away in legacy (and not so legacy) allocations. I imagine that address space is increasingly going to come into play as folks find they are not able to obtain addresses via "traditional" means. Looking at the Routing Analysis sent out by APNIC (as of March 16, 2007): Percentage of available address space announced: 45.6 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 62.6 Percentage of available address space allocated: 72.8 So, about half the IPv4 address space is not yet even announced. As real addressing costs (that is, a cost not hidden by the administrative overhead of dealing with RIR bureaucracy) become more apparent to address space users (read: as the black market turns grey), I would imagine individual demand for addresses will _decrease_ (although with the continued growth of the Internet, aggregate demand will likely continue to increase, albeit perhaps not as quickly). Additionally, people will likely begin to see that client-only/firewalled machines don't really need publicly routed address space, thus freeing up even some of the already announced space for reuse (router jockeys, start your upgrade engines now!). It seems irrational (to put it mildly) to me to suggest creating an arbitrary cut-off date for IPv4 allocations. A more rational approach would be to increase the restrictions on allocations relative to the amount of unassigned address space remaining (that is, rationing) in order to promote increased efficiency and innovation in addressing technologies. Rgds, -drc From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Wed Mar 21 18:48:23 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:48:23 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal Message-ID: <4601b637.243.20e4.13561@batelnet.bs> [ snip ] > > However, I will say this, if the community wants to alter > that policy now is the time. It will take all the RIR's > passing the policy for it to be considered by IANA as a > global policy. I believe the most optimistic time frame > for that to happen would be around 2 years. With the more > aggressive predictions of when we run out, we could need > it in 3 years. And to undo, or modify it, would take 2 more years. I would avoid this route at all costs. We currently use utilization as the distribution model for IANA to RIR's, but some claim that is not fair. Reducing the size of the allocation could also be unfair. ARIN and RIPE are the largest consumers of IP space. Cutting the allocation size granulates the utilization so that others would possibly get "less". That's a problem and it's likely that you would not get all five RIR's on board, IMHO. -M< From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 17:51:54 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:51:54 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <010801c76bfd$ed8012c0$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org] >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:48 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Leo Bicknell >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > >You missed the second part of my statement. Most people are >willing to live >with things they don't like if they feel they're just. For instance, I'm >okay with not being allowed to kill people (even if I occasionally >want to) >because I agree that such a law is just. > >Likewise, people can't help but agree that when we're out of addresses, >we're out; one cannot argue with a bare cupboard no matter how hungry one >is. OTOH, if the RIRs still have addresses available, how is it just to >refuse to let people have them solely because some arbitrary date has >passed? That is the distinction I'm making. > Well, that is a sticky issue, one I deliberately didn't address. On one hand reassigning IPv4 that is reclaimed is a fundamental principle of doing IPv4 reclamation in the first place - if you are not reclaiming it to hand out again, what is the point of reclamation? That is my feeling. On the other hand, there is some logic to the idea that if your going to set a T-date for when no more IPv4 will be allocated, then it is difficult to make an argument that you will not move the T-date forward if you get a lot of addressing given back - but if the T-date becomes more flexible, then it loses potency. I am hoping that if a T-date is set that the networking people will understand that it can be adjusted and the PC-ragazine columnists that like to write "sky is falling" stories will miss the distinction (or deliberatly ignore it) Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 17:54:37 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:54:37 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: <4601b3b9.a7.20a1.9148@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Martin Hannigan >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:38 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down > > > > > >> Shortly we will be burning through 2+ /8's per month, so >> the logistics of reclaiming space will be challenged to >> keep up, even if there are blocks that add up to that >> much. > >An above ground v4 trade would be helpful. Allowing V4 to be >treated as property, at least for legacy space, would be >required. The economics of that are interesting, and the >outcome predictable. Seems like a smoother transition >than tossing a bomb into the problem like the aforementioned >policy seems >to do, IMHO. > If you do this then the inevitable lawsuit that claims IPv6 is also "property" becomes delightfully easy to argue. Ted From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Mar 21 18:02:47 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:02:47 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: <02a401c76bdd$5bec0f50$13c42df0$@net> References: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <02a401c76bdd$5bec0f50$13c42df0$@net> Message-ID: <20070321220246.GA15723@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 06:21:24PM +0100, Tony Hain wrote: > I agree that ARIN should not be promoting NAT. At the same time, ARIN should > not even be implying that they will be miserly with the remaining IPv4 > space. Stewardship does not equate to rationing that causes people to do > unnatural things like NAT in their network deployment. It is long past time > to get over it and realize that further extending the lifetime of IPv4 is a > waste of everyone's time and energy. People will need to learn the realities > of the new version of IP, or find another line of work. I strongly disagree with that statement. No matter your thoughts on IPv4 and IPv6 one of ARIN's tasks is to be a steward of IPv4 space /for as long as people wish to use it./ There is a long history of new technology eroding existing markets, but rarely does it make them go away. More importantly, technology that is not useful in one market may be huge in another. Venezula uses lots of Ethanol, the US does not. This despite a gas crisis in the 70's, and numerous alternative technologies. Digital downloads have not stopped people from selling CD's. VoIP has not forced AT&T and wireline phone providers out of business. There are companies out there still making steam engines and buggy whips, if only for much smaller market segments today. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gih at apnic.net Wed Mar 21 18:03:50 2007 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:03:50 +1100 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: <4601b3b9.a7.20a1.9148@batelnet.bs> References: <4601b3b9.a7.20a1.9148@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20070322085123.04161700@apnic.net> At 09:37 AM 22/03/2007, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Shortly we will be burning through 2+ /8's per month, so > > the logistics of reclaiming space will be challenged to > > keep up, even if there are blocks that add up to that > > much. > >An above ground v4 trade would be helpful. Allowing V4 to be >treated as property, at least for legacy space, would be >required. The economics of that are interesting, "interesting" in that "all markets are interesting" or "intersting in that "this market would be unique in a number of ways, only some of which are predictable"? > and the >outcome predictable. Again its not clear to me what you mean by 'predictable." Yes, in effect a market for a good prices itself against the cost of alternatives, and a market in IPv4 may well perceivce NATs and IPv6 as alternatives and prices within such an IPv4 market may well reflect the perceived cost (and benefit) of such alternatives. My question to you is whether this is what you mean by a predictable outcome, or are you hinting at some other view of the behaviour of such a market? > Seems like a smoother transition >than tossing a bomb into the problem like the aforementioned >policy seems >to do, IMHO. There is the view that its not the date of exhaustion that is the issue for industry - its the transition from the address distribution system we use today to what happens thereafter that is critical to industry stability here. The entire issue of demand levels of continued deployment of IPv4 and the likely levels of industry attention to alternatives look to be critical factors here when thinking about such transitions. Its an topic that appears to call for a broader (multi-disciplinary?) approach to understand the full extent of the industry dynamics here, and it certainly appears to be more than just the perspective of looking at this as a choice set of technically feasible alternatives being presented to a relatively homogenous industry that is capable of making coordinated decisions. Geoff From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Mar 21 18:04:30 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:04:30 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: <4601b3b9.a7.20a1.9148@batelnet.bs> References: <4601b3b9.a7.20a1.9148@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: <20070321220430.GB15723@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 06:37:45PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: > An above ground v4 trade would be helpful. Allowing V4 to be > treated as property, at least for legacy space, would be > required. The economics of that are interesting, and the > outcome predictable. Seems like a smoother transition > than tossing a bomb into the problem like the aforementioned > policy seems > to do, IMHO. Note, you do not have to treat addresses as property to enable a range of addresses to be registered to a new owner. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 18:04:50 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:04:50 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <81507E90-FE43-4CA4-AC47-CB5A5CE158BC@delong.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:43 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > >>> >>> - Reclamation of unused address space. It doesn't matter if we do >>> this >>> or not, all predictions are we still run out of address space. >> >> This is an extreme simplification that is essentically incorrect. If >> relamation were to exceed everyone's estimates then it might push the >> runout date so far in advance that it would become theoretical. I >> agee the chances of this are small but the are not nonexistent - so >> in fact, reclamation does have a place in the discussion. >> >And, if the aerodynamic coefficient of monkeys could be modified >sufficiently, then, they could fly, perhaps even out of my butt. Get >real. The odds of any reclamation effort succeeding to such an >extent are so close to zero as to not even be good theory. > :-) Is there some usage of the phrase "extreme simplification" that escapes you? I did like the monkeys image, though. >>> - Are the predictions of when we run out correct? Same problem, >>> doesn't >>> matter if it's 2010, 2020, or 2050, the question is what do we do >>> when >>> it happens. >>> >> >> If it is 2050 then we are setting policy prematurely if the policy is >> not going to come into effect for another 43 years. You and I will >> certainly both be retired, very likely both dead of old age. We do >> not >> have the moral right to dictate policy to our children for a >> community problem that will arise after we are dead of old age. >> We only have the right to set policy that we are going to live by. >> I also have the same objection to the continual >> immoral lengthing of copyright terms, by the way. >> >Wrong again. We have the right and, indeed, the obligation to >set appropriate policy for likely circumstances now. Now <> 2050. >No matter >what policy we set now, it will likely be changed by our children >and perhaps their children between now and 2050, so, this is no >reason to avoid setting policy now. > Hmm.. So we should set policy that we think is likely to be changed. >> You might as well write policy now for the runout of IPv6. >> >Personally, I think it should be the same as the current policy >regarding >the runout of IPv4 (which I also think is perfectly fine), You mean the nonexistent policy for IPv4 runout that we have now? >so, I have no >problem with that. > Oh, I get it. Little slow today. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 18:18:34 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:18:34 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: <20070321220246.GA15723@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Leo Bicknell >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:03 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down > > >There >are companies out there still making steam engines and buggy whips, >if only for much smaller market segments today. > Horse and buggies are not permitted on freeways, at least not in the United States. And I would think that very few of the population today could qualify for a boilers license and if any significant number did, the local municipalities would ban them from the roads - the last thing you want is a steam boiler involved in a serious auto collision. There are many many examples of abandonded older technologies that are completely incompatible with newer technologies, and have been obsoleted. As owners of analog-broadcast-recieve televisions in the United States are going to soon find out. We make allowances for older technologies only when they do not conflict with newer technologies and they are not dangerous. Try purchasing an automobile with Refrigerant 12 in it, or tilt mercury switches. Ted From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 21 18:21:15 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:21:15 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > It's my impression that's it's a reluctance to pay for these value > added services > on the part of the ARIN members. I don't think the members have been given much of a choice on the matter. But then, in North America, there is a disconnect between ARIN and NANOG that you don't find in the other RIR regions. --Michael Dillon From tony at lava.net Wed Mar 21 18:28:47 2007 From: tony at lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:28:47 -1000 (HST) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > The proposal was accepted for discussion precisely because of people > like you who are merely 'following" the discussion and NOT contributing > your opinions. Allow me to make myself perfectly clear. My opinion is: - This is an unnecessary, unneeded policy. - Artificial phaseout (IPv4) or adoption (IPv6) timelines are undesirable. - Keeping ARIN members informed of the status of the IPv4 pool is important so that members can make informed decisions and plans. - Reclaiming unused IPv4 space is ok but doable with existing policy. We don't need a new policy for that - just better (active) implementation of existing policy. > If everyone wants to go full speed on an IPv6 transition plan then great. Sorry but I wasn't advocating full speed ahead. The transition to IPv6 should not be revolutionary but rather evolutionary. Revolutions tend to be disruptive. > It may be that only serious efforts to extend IPv4 will crystalize people's > determination to switchover to IPv6. It certainly seemed to do so for you. Actually no. This isn't a situation where one has to decide to switchover to IPv6. The decision to make is whether this proposal is necessary. It's not. Antonio Querubin tony at lava.net From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 21 18:39:21 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:39:21 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > "The RIR's, in order to assure the orderly > shutdown of IPv4 allocations must announce a termination date for > IPv4 by January 1st, 2008. The termination date will be reviewed > every 6 months thereafter if conditions warrant" It seems you don't want a policy at all, just some better publicity. It is possible to suggest non-policy ideas to ARIN simply by filling out this form: https://app.arin.net/suggestion/ > The goal should be that by at least a year from announcement date of > this drop-dead date, that most CEO's of large organizations should > have asked their network people "so what are we going to do > about this > end of TCP/IP thing I just read about?" Drop-dead date comes from the news industry and it refers to the very real deadline when the presses *MUST* begin to roll in order to have X number of printed copies bundled and ready for pickup by the delivery drivers who are sitting in the alley behind the press building waiting for them. There is no give in the printing process. It can slow down to deal with paper defects (that plastic you threw in with the recycled paper) or inkflow problems but it cannot speed up. The end of IPv4 is very, VERY, *V*E*R*Y* unlike the drop-dead copy submission date. In fact, the end of IPv4 will be a long drawn out process with uncertainties right to the very end. In some areas, addresses will suddenly be used up while other areas will have a supply for longer than expected. There will be surprise INCREASES in supply and people fiddling to find ways to make use of Class E addresses despite their limitations. > This is an extreme simplification that is essentically incorrect. If > relamation were to exceed everyone's estimates then it might push the > runout date so far in advance that it would become theoretical. So you agree that a drop-dead date is a ludicrous concept. Good. > We do not > have the moral right to dictate policy to our children for a > community problem that will arise after we are dead of old age. That's why ARIN operates according to the laws of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Deleware. ARIN simply cannot make a policy which removes the power of the future Board of Trustees to change it. Therefore we cannot dictate any policy at all. We merely come to agreement on current policy until the next biannual ARIN meeting, when it could get changed or revoked entirely. --Michael Dillon From owen at delong.com Wed Mar 21 18:41:06 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:41:06 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:43 PM >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt >> Cc: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >> Proposal >> >>>> >>>> - Reclamation of unused address space. It doesn't matter if we do >>>> this >>>> or not, all predictions are we still run out of address space. >>> >>> This is an extreme simplification that is essentically >>> incorrect. If >>> relamation were to exceed everyone's estimates then it might push >>> the >>> runout date so far in advance that it would become theoretical. I >>> agee the chances of this are small but the are not nonexistent - so >>> in fact, reclamation does have a place in the discussion. >>> >> And, if the aerodynamic coefficient of monkeys could be modified >> sufficiently, then, they could fly, perhaps even out of my butt. Get >> real. The odds of any reclamation effort succeeding to such an >> extent are so close to zero as to not even be good theory. >> > > :-) > > Is there some usage of the phrase "extreme simplification" that > escapes > you? I did like the monkeys image, though. > The primary point was that the likelihood of getting more than 3 or so years out of reclamation efforts is so low that calling the exhaustion date theoretical is absurd. >>>> - Are the predictions of when we run out correct? Same problem, >>>> doesn't >>>> matter if it's 2010, 2020, or 2050, the question is what do we do >>>> when >>>> it happens. >>>> >>> >>> If it is 2050 then we are setting policy prematurely if the >>> policy is >>> not going to come into effect for another 43 years. You and I will >>> certainly both be retired, very likely both dead of old age. We do >>> not >>> have the moral right to dictate policy to our children for a >>> community problem that will arise after we are dead of old age. >>> We only have the right to set policy that we are going to live by. >>> I also have the same objection to the continual >>> immoral lengthing of copyright terms, by the way. >>> > >> Wrong again. We have the right and, indeed, the obligation to >> set appropriate policy for likely circumstances now. > > Now <> 2050. > True, but, IPv4 exhaustion, by all rational estimates, is much closer to now than to 2050. Since there is a likelihood of IPv4 exhaustion within the next 10 years (not 40), there's no reason not to set whatever policy we think is appropriate for that event now, even if we're not sure the event will occur. >> No matter >> what policy we set now, it will likely be changed by our children >> and perhaps their children between now and 2050, so, this is no >> reason to avoid setting policy now. >> > > Hmm.. So we should set policy that we think is likely to be changed. > Yes. If we have half a clue, then, we realize that all policy is subject to change. Even the constitution can be (and has been) amended. Change is inevitable, and, if we wait for the perfect opportunity and the perfect policy, then we'll never do anything. A common term for such a situation is paralysis by analysis. >>> You might as well write policy now for the runout of IPv6. >>> >> Personally, I think it should be the same as the current policy >> regarding >> the runout of IPv4 (which I also think is perfectly fine), > > You mean the nonexistent policy for IPv4 runout that we have now? > I think we have a perfectly fine policy. ARIN will continue to allocate space until there isn't any to allocate. When/if more space becomes available through reclamation or other mechanism, then, they will begin allocating again. I don't see a problem with that policy. I also would have no problem with the idea if someone wanted to propose a policy to address IPv6 exhaustion. I'm not saying I would necessarily support the policy, as it would depend on what the poilcy was, but, I would support the idea of discussing the policy and running it through the process, just as I did with 2007-12, even though I do not support that proposal. Owen From james at towardex.com Wed Mar 21 18:45:19 2007 From: james at towardex.com (James Jun) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:45:19 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070321224217.451B06D440@mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com> > Thus the organizations that are rich and can > afford to twist things to get IPv4, will over time collect the higher > paying customers. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor > get poorer. My concern here is with the merit behind your rationale that, instead of moving IPv6 FORWARD, that we should artificially regulate, where people will need to be forced and imprisoned to transition to IPv6 and create a situation where IPv4 is still what they want. So instead of moving IPv6 forward, the plan is to create a cynicism around IPv6 where people will WANT to go back to IPv4 unless they are forced not to by an unneeded regulation. This is not necessary. The 'rich gets rich', 'poorer gets poorer' would not happen when everyone wants IPv6, not be forced into it as you propose; therefore such clause of argument makes no sense. And you too, can help to spark interest in IPv6 by consider enabling IPv6 inside your own network today, for your customers, as opposed to proposing a forced regulation schedule. ar2.bos>show bgp ipv6 unicast reg _10248_ ar2.bos> > It appears to me that the only way to prove need of IPv6 is to be > able to state with authority that "All usable IPv4 addresses are > currently in use" Anything else is a prediction of when it will > happen. Your notion that the only way to adapt to IPv6 is to set a timeline is wrong. Ask carriers why they are not supporting IPv6 today, and their response is "show us the money and we will." How do these carriers make money, by moving bits. When there is traffic in IPv6, market will adopt, plain and simple. And to create traffic for IPv6 is to get application writers and rest of the IT industry to realize, through mass marketing effort, that shows IPv4 is ending soon and IPv6 is the preferred industry solution. Setting artificial timeline as a matter of policy within IP allocation authority only exacerbates the problem for ISPs and carriers, and further confines the boundary of the problem to carrier industries, as opposed to all participants of the Internet. We do not need a policy to educate people that IPv4 is running out; this is best solved by mass marketing effort coordinated with journalists and industry efforts, not a regulation approach that oversteps the boundary of RIR's role as acting in stewardship. James From stephen at sprunk.org Wed Mar 21 18:25:08 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:25:08 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal References: Message-ID: <026a01c76c0b$8e420580$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" >>From: Alex Huppenthal [mailto:alex at aspenworks.com] >> >>Have we talked about a trade-out program? > > A trade-out program would be an IPv4 reclamation idea along with > many others. Did you not notice that we _already have_ a trade-in program, and that some nice folks have already taken advantage of it? It even lets folks keep their fee-free status if the resources they're trading in were previously fee-free. We also have a trade-down program as well. However, both are completely voluntary at this time. BTW, I've officially submitted a "suggestion" that ARIN start proactive reclamation efforts (2007.6). I'll let folks here know the result if ARIN doesn't post it publicly. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 21 19:07:57 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:07:57 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > There is lots of unused address space locked away in legacy (and not > so legacy) allocations. I imagine that address space is > increasingly > going to come into play as folks find they are not able to obtain > addresses via "traditional" means. I have worked for two different telecoms companies in the past who both had "cash leakage" problems caused by not cancelling circuits when customers left, or upgraded to higher bandwidth. In one of these companies we were spending 2.5 million dollars per month on these unneeded circuits for several years. When it came to light that money was draining away, both companies did begin a program of identifying these circuits and cancelling them. I am certain that in most of the largest ARIN members, there are similar stocks of unused IP addresses that have been lost in the system. But because there is no telltale cash leakage to alert people to the existence of the lost addresses, there is little motivation to mount an expedition to seek out and recover these addresses. But, in a few years, there will be motivation. We should just wait until the natural course of events provides the motivation for cleaning out dusty corners and shifting some network services onto IPv6. --Michael Dillon From jweyand at computerdata.com Wed Mar 21 19:11:42 2007 From: jweyand at computerdata.com (Jim Weyand) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:11:42 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal Message-ID: <1582DCBFF968F044A9A910C0AB177C9012FF3D@cliff.cdi.local> This may violate the spirit of the various Memorandums of Understanding, etc. but shouldn't we let the market determine the value of IPv4 addresses? Imagine if some central source (ICANN or the RIRs) created a service where transfers of IP address space could be registered like a county registrar of deeds. In our world we commonly deal with limited resources. For example, consider land in Florida. There is no chance of switching to land in Florida v6. Over many years we have developed mature, commonly understood methods of buying and selling land. We have real estate agents, title companies, mortgage companies and the county registrar of deeds. We primarily look to the government (or in this case ICANN/RIR) to keep track of who owns what and to help settle any disputes. ICANN/RIR should develop a formal process where a buyer and a seller could come and register the sale of IPv4 Address Space. This process should be modeled on the formal processes used to register land in developed countries like the US. ICANN/RIR should not make value judgements about the purchaser or the intended use. ICANN/RIR should charge for this service. ICANN/RIR should also develop a dispute resolution service to settle disputes regarding the ownership of IPv4 Address Space. Finally ICANN/RIR should develop a policy of selling IPv4 Address Space that is currently not assigned and begin a public debate regarding how much space should be held for the "common good". Some of the problems I can think of are: 1) We could overwhelm the routing tables with too many small networks. Yes, but we could also limit the sale to something like a /24 or greater. Smarter people than me know the right size. 2) Speculators would attempt "land grabs" and artificially drive up the price of IPv4 address space. Yes, but anybody sitting on unused address space would have an incentive to sell their unused space thus driving down the price and purchasers would have an incentive to move to IPv6. 3) It would be unfair to organizations that have practiced good IPv4 address space management compared to organizations that have sat on unused IPv4 space. Yes, can anybody list those organizations? Are there organizations that have voluntarily returned assigned space? I love the fact that Stanford has a /8. Do you think they could figure out how to get by on a /20 if the Chinese government offered them a couple of billion dollars for the /8? 4) It would be unfair to regions and organizations of modest means. Maybe, but is it fair to make them upgrade to IPv6? Isn't the fairest thing to allow them to make their own choice? Some of the advantages I can think of are: 1) This something that CEO on an airplane can understand. IPv4 addresses are a resource. Resources have a cost. Markets determine costs. 2) This creates an incentive to: a) Reclaim unused IPv4 addresses b) Be very careful in how they are used c) Migrate to IPv6 when the price of IPv4 addresses get too high 3) This creates a new source of funding for ICANN or whoever becomes the registrar. 4) This tends to keep the various Internet governing bodies out of the world of playing favorites and making decisions regarding the value of one request v. another. Those decisions should be limited to requests for IPv4 Address Space for the "common good". Those decisions are political and should be as open and transparent as possible. The state of Florida almost never says who should own a particular piece of land but when it does (usually for eminent domain) it is a very political process. That is my idea. It's not a proposal yet, I haven't even figured out how to make a formal proposal. Take your best shot. If you like it, tell me how to improve it. If you don't, suggest something better. -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:30 PM To: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Leo Bicknell >Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:37 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > > >While I think there has been a lot of good discussion generated >from the IPv4 policy, a lot of it has strayed from the original >policy proposal. I'm going to attempt to bring that back around a >bit as we need to tackle the issue of address space exhaustion. > >To that end, I'd like to oversimplify the proposal. Language, >format, and justification aside I believe the proposal can be boiled >down to the following simpler statement: > > The RIR's, in order to assure the orderly shutdown of IPv4 > allocations should do their best to predict the date at which > there will be no more IPv4 addresses available, should announce > a termination date just before the predicted exhaustion, and > should cease allocations on that date even if there is some > address space still available. > Leo, can we make it: "The RIR's, in order to assure the orderly shutdown of IPv4 allocations must announce a termination date for IPv4 by January 1st, 2008. The termination date will be reviewed every 6 months thereafter if conditions warrant" Consider that it isn't going to be possible to predict with accuracy, but what we need to have is a "official" termination date so that we can get people thinking about what they are going to do post-IPv4. And I don't mean just people thinking about it who are on the list here, I mean a date that news journalists can toss around. The goal should be that by at least a year from announcement date of this drop-dead date, that most CEO's of large organizations should have asked their network people "so what are we going to do about this end of TCP/IP thing I just read about?" You see I have a theory that the reason that most large company CEO's come up with the screwy hairbrained ideas that they do is because they read about them in in-flight magazines on airplanes, and until we have a drop-dead date announced, the people that write for these publications won't have anything concrete they can write about. >I believe the intent of the authors is to realize a number of potential >benefits: > >- There is a well known date at which no more IPv4 space will be > available, making it easier for those needed addresses to show their > management the need for alternate plans. > >- By the RIR's shutting down distributions of addresses at the same > time it prevents the "last RIR standing" from being swamped by every > international company solely because they still have addresses. > >Of course, there are drawbacks: > >- This requires global coordination. > >- We may leave some IPv4 space unused that could otherwise be put to > good use. > >- This policy itself may cause a run on IP space. > >There are alternatives, Owen DeLong just wrote about what would probably >be considered the opposite viewpoint in another message, I quote: > > I believe that the system will function and that there is no need > to do anything different until ARIN is unable to fulfill requests. > At that time, ARIN should fulfill request it can on a > first-come-first-serve basis and provide a polite apology in > response to requests which cannot be fulfilled. I do not believe > a change of policy is required in order for ARIN staff to do this. > This is not an alternative. Doing nothing about a problem is not an alternative, it is status quo, and it certainly invites government interference and involvement. >Last, in an attempt to keep the discussion focused, I'd ask you to >consider if these related topics are relevant to this policy's thread, >along with why I think most are not: > >- Reclamation of unused address space. It doesn't matter if we do this > or not, all predictions are we still run out of address space. This is an extreme simplification that is essentically incorrect. If relamation were to exceed everyone's estimates then it might push the runout date so far in advance that it would become theoretical. I agee the chances of this are small but the are not nonexistent - so in fact, reclamation does have a place in the discussion. > All > this does is move the date, which is a valid discussion but the topic at > hand here is what happens when the RIR's have no more space to > allocate. > >- Encouraging people to use less IPv4 addresses, including but not > limited to higher fees, required use of NAT, rejustification of existing > IPs. Same issue, it delays the date we run out, but doesn't change > the problem of what the RIR's should do when they run out. > These are all part of IPv4 reclamation. >- Are the predictions of when we run out correct? Same problem, doesn't > matter if it's 2010, 2020, or 2050, the question is what do we do when > it happens. > If it is 2050 then we are setting policy prematurely if the policy is not going to come into effect for another 43 years. You and I will certainly both be retired, very likely both dead of old age. We do not have the moral right to dictate policy to our children for a community problem that will arise after we are dead of old age. We only have the right to set policy that we are going to live by. I also have the same objection to the continual immoral lengthing of copyright terms, by the way. You might as well write policy now for the runout of IPv6. Ted _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 21 19:22:34 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:22:34 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Do you think that a proposal that listed a series of steps starting > wtih a collaborative approach and switching to an Atillia the Hun > approach if the collaborative approach fails would work? Or should it > be all collaborative, or all Atilla? No. Attila the Hun approaches don't work. Period. And ARIN has no authority to act like Attila the Hun either. And besides, after Attila died his empire collapsed. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 21 19:37:38 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:37:38 -0000 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Horse and buggies are not permitted on freeways, at least not > in the United States. You can buy a brand new bicycle for $14,000 http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/23/would_you_spend_140 00_for_this_bike/ but you can't drive that on a freeway. And you can't drive a Segway on the freeway either. > There are many many examples of abandonded older technologies > that are completely incompatible with newer technologies, and > have been obsoleted. As owners of analog-broadcast-recieve > televisions in the United States are going to soon find out. Back in the 1930's, something called radio was developed into a business. There were popular music programs and radio dramas. Today, in the UK admittedly, I have a digital radio on which I can listen to popular music programs and radio dramas. In fact, when I switched from analog to digital I got a wider choice of stations to listen to. There is a metaphor in here somewhere, for the IPv4 to IPv6 transition. --Michael Dillon From stephen at sprunk.org Wed Mar 21 19:34:38 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:34:38 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal References: Message-ID: <028b01c76c11$a18377e0$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake >> Also, having the RIRs jointly announce such a date gives it >> credibility. A few slides by Geoff or Tony, as much as we >> respect their work, doesn't have the same impact as an >> official announcement. > > But if all we have is the slides from Geoff and Tony to justify the > joint annnouncement, then we are on very slippery ground. Then let's figure out what would be authoritative and go develop it. Maybe it's just Geoff and Tony getting together and writing a whitepaper detailing their findings, methodology, etc. with a solid executive summary that any CIO could understand. It'll all be over the reporters' heads anyways, so it probably doesn't even matter; what matters is getting an official message out that wakes people up. > In my opinion, these pseudo-scientific slides cannot justify a > countdown policy. I don't care about justifying a countdown policy because I'm opposed to one. What I _am_ concerned about is motivating IT managers, smaller ISPs, consumer CPE vendors, etc. to take IPv6 seriously. >> I think this is handled well enough under existing policy. >> An org with an int'l network is _supposed_ to go to the local >> RIR for each part of that network, > > Where does it say that? I checked the NRPM and was surprised to find that there don't seem to be any rules preventing someone from outside ARIN's region from requesting IPv4 allocations or assignments, though 2.2 could be read that way if someone was completely out of line and needed to be smacked down. IPv6 isn't much clearer, though 6.2.2 and 6.5.1.1 could similarly be read that way if desired. Is it me, or is this a loophole? The "supposed to" I wrote above is based on prior discussions where that policy was treated as common knowledge but doesn't actually appear to be written anywhere. Oops. (This is an actual problem, since ARIN is out of sync with the other RIRs on PIv6 policy, and their members could -- in theory -- come to ARIN for things they can't get from their own RIR. That's contrary to the way RIRs were sold to the community.) >> That's why I'd prefer that the IETF and/or IANA mark space (a >> /8 or two) explicitly reserved for uses such as 4to6 gateways > > That is an entirely separate issue and should be part of an entirely > separate policy discussion. To start with, what IETF documents > describe such 4to6 gateways? This sounds rather like an IPv4/6 > equivalent of AS 23456. That was just an example. I don't think the RIRs actually need to do anything here; the IETF could publish an RFC stating that, for example, 223/8 was reserved for future IETF work (whatever that may be) and not available to RIRs, and IANA would have to abide by that per RFC 3330. I'm not even sure it'd be appropriate for the RIRs to tell IANA that something belongs to the IETF, since it's the IETF that gave it to IANA in the first place. (I picked 223/8 on purpose, since IANA tried to give it to APNIC and it was rejected. I'm reasonably comfortable that the IETF won't find a use for more than a /8 after the rest of the v4 space is consumed.) >> This has the (unfortunate?) side effect that even if IANA >> stops giving out /8s to RIRs on a given date, some will likely >> run out _months_ before others. > > IANA doesn't have to ONLY give out /8s. Towards the end they > could give out smaller blocks. But that is a separate policy > discussion. It'd be a global policy change, and if this proposal is any indicator, we're not going to make much progress changing anything about v4 on a global basis. Besides, dropping the allocation size from IANA to, say, a /12 would buy ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC a few weeks at most, whereas it'd pull in LACNIC's and AfriNIC's exhaustion dates months or even years. That seems a silly place to expend our limited energies. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 19:56:38 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:56:38 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <20070321224217.451B06D440@mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: James Jun [mailto:james at towardex.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:45 PM >To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; 'Rich Emmings'; ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > >> Thus the organizations that are rich and can >> afford to twist things to get IPv4, will over time collect the higher >> paying customers. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor >> get poorer. > > >My concern here is with the merit behind your rationale that, instead of >moving IPv6 FORWARD, that we should artificially regulate, where >people will >need to be forced and imprisoned to transition to IPv6 and create a >situation where IPv4 is still what they want. So instead of moving IPv6 >forward, the plan is to create a cynicism around IPv6 where people >will WANT >to go back to IPv4 unless they are forced not to by an unneeded regulation. >This is not necessary. > >The 'rich gets rich', 'poorer gets poorer' would not happen when everyone >wants IPv6, not be forced into it as you propose; therefore such clause of >argument makes no sense. > >And you too, can help to spark interest in IPv6 by consider enabling IPv6 >inside your own network today, for your customers, as opposed to >proposing a >forced regulation schedule. > >ar2.bos>show bgp ipv6 unicast reg _10248_ > >ar2.bos> > But then if I did that I would be not sparking interest in IPv4 reclamation. Which I think is important and should be done before IPv6 switchover. You have a point, though. :-) Simply publicizing a T-date can simply be nothing more than publishing a T-date. Since there does not seem to be a way to prevent people from advertising IPv4, a T-date could be considered to be nothing more than symbolic - but symbols are powerful. If they were not, people wouldn't be arguing over the idea of the RIR's getting together and agreeing on a single T-date. > >> It appears to me that the only way to prove need of IPv6 is to be >> able to state with authority that "All usable IPv4 addresses are >> currently in use" Anything else is a prediction of when it will >> happen. > > >Your notion that the only way to adapt to IPv6 is to set a timeline is >wrong. Ask carriers why they are not supporting IPv6 today, and their >response is "show us the money and we will." How do these carriers make >money, by moving bits. When there is traffic in IPv6, market will adopt, >plain and simple. And to create traffic for IPv6 is to get application >writers and rest of the IT industry to realize, through mass marketing >effort, that shows IPv4 is ending soon and IPv6 is the preferred industry >solution. > That is nothing more than a statement of a catch-22. A timeline is one way out of this catch-22. Can you suggest others? I can't think of any. >Setting artificial timeline as a matter of policy within IP allocation >authority only exacerbates the problem for ISPs and carriers, No, it merely creates this publicity and advertising that you say is needed to get people to switch to IPv6. >and further >confines the boundary of the problem to carrier industries, as opposed to >all participants of the Internet. Yes, and there is a good reason why. The users of the Internet will do what they are told. If their ISP says that they have to spend money to switch to IPv6 and, not liking this, they go to their ISP's competitor, and also hear that they have to spend money to switch to IPv6, they will have no choice but to either disconnect from the Internet, or spend the money to switch to IPv6. The carriers by contrast don't have a group of ISPs telling them what to do. You can tell them to switch to IPv6 by regulation, or their customers can tell them to switch by customer demand. If you want to use customer demand, then fine. THe historical way this is done is to design a "killer app". For example if you could download, for free, all the pirated music and videos you wanted as long as you were on the IPv6 network, why then there would be huge customer demand for it and the carriers would switch immediately. But, there is no "killer app" out there that requires IPv6. Thus you will not get customer demand for IPv6. Thus the only way left to get carriers to switch is regulation. If we do nothing with policy, then the regulators who distribute IPv4 allocations will eventually run out, and will deny new IPv4 reguests. That is a regulatory approach to switching, thus the carriers will be forced to switch. But, it's going to be done in a very haphazard way because the runout will not occur all at the same time. So, some carriers will switch before others. That has in fact already happened as there is a lot of deployed IPv6 in Asia. But, customers sitting in Japan cannot very well run to the United States for Internet service when they were told they had to spend money to switchover to IPv6. When ARIN runs out of allocations then you will have a situation where some carriers in the US will run out before others, and the problem will propagate downwards to their ISP customers. And eventually you will in fact have situations were multiple ISP's in the same city, some will be able to delay IPv6 switchover. Very likely it will be the deep pocket ISPs. So a day will come when the poorer ISPs start telling their customers they must switch to IPv6, and their customers, not wanting to spend money, will simply drop service and go to the deep pocket ISPs who have been able to delay IPv6 switchover, and get a few more years of IPv4 service before they will finally be backed into a corner and will have to spend money to switch over. If you want all Interent service concentrated in the AOL/Comcast/RoadRunners of the world, then I guess you might be in favor of this happening. A published and advertised T-date can help to equalize things because those who run short of IPv4 first, can use the published T-date to help educate their customers that IPv6 is inevitable, and moving to their competitor down the street that will not require them to switchover to IPv6 yet, will not in the long run save them any money. > We do not need a policy to >educate people >that IPv4 is running out; this is best solved by mass marketing effort >coordinated with journalists and industry efforts, not a >regulation approach >that oversteps the boundary of RIR's role as acting in stewardship. > Then the RIRs can simply set a T-date that is nothing more than a T-date without any cooresponding policy to do anything about it. What is your objection to this? Ted From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 21 20:01:11 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:01:11 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <1582DCBFF968F044A9A910C0AB177C9012FF3D@cliff.cdi.local> Message-ID: >...shouldn't we let the market determine the value of IPv4 > addresses? > > Imagine if some central source (ICANN or the RIRs) created a service > where transfers of IP address space could be registered like a county > registrar of deeds. We call this service, ARIN. > In our world we commonly deal with limited resources. For example, > consider land in Florida. There is no chance of switching to land in > Florida v6. Over many years we have developed mature, commonly > understood methods of buying and selling land. We have real estate > agents, title companies, mortgage companies and the county > registrar of > deeds. You could have picked any state in the union. Why choose Florida of all places. At one time it had a well-deserved reputation for selling non-existent land, i.e. mangrove swamp. Then, some smart people figured out that instead of ripping of northerners by selling them swampland, they could make more money by manufacturing land by filling in the swamps. IPv4 addresses are not as malleable as Florida land. They are more like the good solid square plots of land found in the Great Plains states. > Some of the problems I can think of are: And that is the basic problem with all of these "selling address" ideas. They change things, in the hopes that it will solve some problem or other, but with the certainty that it will create a host of new problems. > Some of the advantages I can think of are: > 1) This something that CEO on an airplane can understand. Indeed! I can hear him on the phone to his senator now, demanding that the government stop this madness. Remember that CEO made his career in orderly controlled and regulated markets. Think SEC, SOX, FCC, RIAA, ISO-9000 etc. > If you like it, > tell me how to improve it. If you don't, suggest something better. You want something better? The basic problem is that there is not enough publicity about the IPv4 wind-down and therefore not enough debate, in the networking/IT industry, about how to deal with it. Changing ARIN policy is not the right way to deal with a publicity problem and not the right way to engage the networking/IT industry in debate. --Michael Dillon From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 20:24:03 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:24:03 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <1582DCBFF968F044A9A910C0AB177C9012FF3D@cliff.cdi.local> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Weyand [mailto:jweyand at computerdata.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:12 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > >This may violate the spirit of the various Memorandums of Understanding, >etc. but shouldn't we let the market determine the value of IPv4 >addresses? > >Imagine if some central source (ICANN or the RIRs) created a service >where transfers of IP address space could be registered like a county >registrar of deeds. > There are several problem with this approach. First, is that your inviting governmental regulation in where you really do not want it. Governments clearly have authority over buying and selling between people in their countries in every country in the world. They can tell you what you can and cannot buy and sell, they can tell you how to do it, when you can do it, and on and on and on. Governments also go to the mat for wealthy corporations in their borders because corporations fund governments, either by taxes or bribery (ie: political campaign contributions) You would end up with the wealthy networks and wealthy governments using legal means to push the poorer governments and networks out of the running for IPv4 addressing. >In our world we commonly deal with limited resources. For example, >consider land in Florida. There is no chance of switching to land in >Florida v6. Over many years we have developed mature, commonly >understood methods of buying and selling land. We have real estate >agents, title companies, mortgage companies and the county registrar of >deeds. > And you will find in Florida that the most desirable land is owned by the wealthy. That is an acceptable solution for the United States because the society in the US has been conditioned to believe that it is OK for the rich to get the best of everything. However it is not what many societies in the world accept and from a moral standpoint it is a solution rejected by just about every mainstream religion in the world, as well as many secular schools of philosophy. >4) It would be unfair to regions and organizations of modest means. >Maybe, but is it fair to make them upgrade to IPv6? Isn't the fairest >thing to allow them to make their own choice? > IPv4 "sales" and "speculation" and all of that are going to happen, I assure you. And no matter how it happens it is going to be unfair to some people. However there is a huge difference between official support and sanction of the deep pockets by IANA and the RIR's and no official support and sanction. It is very possible for the RIR's to take the high road here. The deep pockets that want to engage in billion dollar /8 sales to each other do not need the help of the numbering authorities to do their deals, they are going to do them if market conditions warrant with or without official sanction. If the RIRs stay the hell out of this then such activity will happen for several years but eventually as conversion to IPv6 continues, such activity will die off. If they get into the thick of things then your going to establish an infractructure that will last far longer than it is needed, and will give a toehold for governments to interfere. >Some of the advantages I can think of are: >1) This something that CEO on an airplane can understand. IPv4 >addresses are a resource. Resources have a cost. Markets determine >costs. > Not for all resources. For example, labor is a resource that as it becomes scarcer and more expensive, costs have less and less effect. If your in the market for ditch diggers you can get all you want by adjusting your costs for them. If your in the market for the 5 people who designed the last AMD processor chip, you may find that no amount of money in the world will obtain their services. They may decide your a jerkoff. If your in the market for a wife.... well I won't go there. In any case, one of the requirements, probably the most important requirement, for IP allocation is defining need. That need is based on what your customers and servers and network gear must have to function. It is not defined by how much IPv4 your planning on selling. All of this is current policy and would have to be swept away to permit IP allocations based on how much IPv4 you want to be able to sell in the future, but really don't need for your own use. Ted From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Mar 21 20:30:55 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:30:55 -0500 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ Message-ID: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> I'm going to start a thread with an offshoot idea, although it's not strictly a policy matter. People keep talking about incenting people to move to IPv6. What if ARIN were to implement a new fee schedule: Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses 2007 Existing rates. 2008 2 * 2007 Rates 2009 4 * 2007 Rates 2010 8 * 2007 Rates 2011 16 * 2007 Rates 2012 32 * 2007 Rates 2013 32 * 2007 Rates 2014 32 * 2007 Rates 2015 32 * 2007 Rates etc Per http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html, someone with a single /19 would go from $2,250 a year in 2007 to $72,000 in 2012. It's predictable so you can show management, there is a sense of urgency, and it doesn't happen overnight to create a run on IPv6 addresses. It also provides proportional incentive to the largest and smallest IP's. As an alternative, so as not to punish existing address space holders this could be applied to initial allocations only. I suspect, "hey boss, our IPv4 space is going to cost us 32x in 6 years, and we can get IPv6 space for free" would be a powerful motivator. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Mar 21 20:40:17 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:40:17 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >michael.dillon at bt.com >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:38 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down > > > >> Horse and buggies are not permitted on freeways, at least not >> in the United States. > >You can buy a brand new bicycle for $14,000 >http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/23/would_you_spend_140 >00_for_this_bike/ Please tell me you couldn't find anything as stupid as that in the UK! >but you can't drive that on a freeway. And you can't drive a Segway on >the freeway either. > Actually you can ride bicycles on US highways, at least in some states (maybe all of them?) definitely in the state I'm in. Yes, you too can be within a foot of cars going 65 Mph on a bicycle. Where do I sign up!! >> There are many many examples of abandonded older technologies >> that are completely incompatible with newer technologies, and >> have been obsoleted. As owners of analog-broadcast-recieve >> televisions in the United States are going to soon find out. > >Back in the 1930's, something called radio was developed into a >business. There were popular music programs and radio dramas. Today, in >the UK admittedly, I have a digital radio on which I can listen to >popular music programs and radio dramas. In fact, when I switched from >analog to digital I got a wider choice of stations to listen to. There >is a metaphor in here somewhere, for the IPv4 to IPv6 transition. > Hmm - let's see now, compare the amount of time devoted to commercials on today's radio with 1930's radio... Ted From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 21 20:52:33 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:52:33 -0000 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >> Horse and buggies are not permitted on freeways, at least not > >> in the United States. > >but you can't drive that on a freeway. And you can't drive a > Segway on > >the freeway either. > Actually you can ride bicycles on US highways, at least in some states > (maybe all of them?) definitely in the state I'm in. You can take a horse and buggy on US highways as well, but not on the freeway. You see it all the time in Pennsylvania's Lancaster county. From gih at apnic.net Wed Mar 21 21:39:32 2007 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:39:32 +1100 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <010801c76bfd$ed8012c0$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20070322122445.02d00168@apnic.net> At 08:47 AM 22/03/2007, David Conrad wrote: >Hi, > >On Mar 21, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >> People don't like the fact that IPv4 is ending, period. > > IPv4 isn't ending; it's approaching the inherent limits of growth. > >It isn't even that. The IPv4 _FREE POOL as administered by IANA and >the RIRs_ is being exhausted. That's all. > >There is lots of unused address space locked away in legacy (and not >so legacy) allocations. I imagine that address space is increasingly >going to come into play as folks find they are not able to obtain >addresses via "traditional" means. The data on the IPv4 address pools over time appears to show that this might already be happening today. The total size of the address pool that has been allocated by the RIRs but is not visible in the routing table peaked in July 2005 at a pool size that was the equivalent of 49.4 /8's Today that "allocated but unadvertised" pool sits at 47.0 /8's. i.e. over the past 20 months or so the equivalent of 2.4 /8's, or some 40.2M /32s, has come into play in the public Internet as address space advertised as reachable in the routing system. While I have not looked hard at the data to determine the precise profile of allocation dates of this particular pool of address space, it does appear that most of this allocated but unadvertised space that has appeared in the routing system over this period was originally allocated in the period 1990 - 1995, providing a strong hint that its the legacy address space that is reappearing in this manner already. [The reports of IPv4 consumption are at http://ipv4.potaroo.net, and the time series of the size of the "allocated but unadvertised" address pool is graphed in Figure 30b, and allocation date distribution of unadvertised address space is shown in Figure 14.] Geoff From maem at nic.ad.jp Wed Mar 21 21:46:48 2007 From: maem at nic.ad.jp (MAEMURA Akinori) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:46:48 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <46003A8D.5070209@arin.net> <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <200703221046.JJI42726.FBNN@nic.ad.jp> Leo, Thank you very much for your simplification on our proposal and summarization of the discussion. It is not "over-"simplification but precisely figuring out our motivation and original idea. Regards, Akinori P.S. - I must admit it is very hard for me to catch up all discussion on this mailing list, even in my native language it should be tough. In message <20070320233652.GC37431 at ussenterprise.ufp.org> "Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal" "Leo Bicknell " wrote: | While I think there has been a lot of good discussion generated | from the IPv4 policy, a lot of it has strayed from the original | policy proposal. I'm going to attempt to bring that back around a | bit as we need to tackle the issue of address space exhaustion. | | To that end, I'd like to oversimplify the proposal. Language, | format, and justification aside I believe the proposal can be boiled | down to the following simpler statement: | | The RIR's, in order to assure the orderly shutdown of IPv4 | allocations should do their best to predict the date at which | there will be no more IPv4 addresses available, should announce | a termination date just before the predicted exhaustion, and | should cease allocations on that date even if there is some | address space still available. | | I believe the intent of the authors is to realize a number of potential | benefits: | | - There is a well known date at which no more IPv4 space will be | available, making it easier for those needed addresses to show their | management the need for alternate plans. | | - By the RIR's shutting down distributions of addresses at the same | time it prevents the "last RIR standing" from being swamped by every | international company solely because they still have addresses. | | Of course, there are drawbacks: | | - This requires global coordination. | | - We may leave some IPv4 space unused that could otherwise be put to | good use. | | - This policy itself may cause a run on IP space. | | There are alternatives, Owen DeLong just wrote about what would probably | be considered the opposite viewpoint in another message, I quote: | | I believe that the system will function and that there is no need | to do anything different until ARIN is unable to fulfill requests. | At that time, ARIN should fulfill request it can on a | first-come-first-serve basis and provide a polite apology in | response to requests which cannot be fulfilled. I do not believe | a change of policy is required in order for ARIN staff to do this. | | Last, in an attempt to keep the discussion focused, I'd ask you to | consider if these related topics are relevant to this policy's thread, | along with why I think most are not: | | - Reclamation of unused address space. It doesn't matter if we do this | or not, all predictions are we still run out of address space. All | this does is move the date, which is a valid discussion but the topic at | hand here is what happens when the RIR's have no more space to | allocate. | | - Encouraging people to use less IPv4 addresses, including but not | limited to higher fees, required use of NAT, rejustification of existing | IPs. Same issue, it delays the date we run out, but doesn't change | the problem of what the RIR's should do when they run out. | | - Are the predictions of when we run out correct? Same problem, doesn't | matter if it's 2010, 2020, or 2050, the question is what do we do when | it happens. | | I'd like to see all three of those issues discussed, just in another | thread. | | -- | Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 | PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ | Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org | | | | _______________________________________________ | This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List | (PPML at arin.net). | Manage your mailing list subscription at: | http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml | | | From maem at nic.ad.jp Wed Mar 21 21:59:43 2007 From: maem at nic.ad.jp (MAEMURA Akinori) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:59:43 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <010801c76bfd$ed8012c0$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <010801c76bfd$ed8012c0$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <200703221059.JCE84873.BNFN@nic.ad.jp> Stephen, | IPv6? Pretty much nobody so far in the ARIN region; that's part of the | problem. This proposal comes from JPNIC, which sees significantly higher | IPv6 uptake rates than we've got; their views on the best path forward are | naturally going to be inconsistent with ours since we're working from | different experiences. (Not to mention cultural differences...) | That's true. I think Japan has a significantly higher readiness for IPv6 in comparison with other countries, and that should be why we can think IPv6 more practical. However, as you may suppose, it is obvious that readiness is yet far from enough to switch immediately to IPv6. Then, again, this proposal doesn't assume only IPv6 but also NAT or some other if possible. It's up to Operators' consideration. Regards, Akinori In message <010801c76bfd$ed8012c0$443816ac at atlanta.polycom.com> "Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal" ""Stephen Sprunk" " wrote: | Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" | >[ I said: ] | >>One must always remember the law of unintended consequences | >>when trying to regulate people into something they won't like and | >>probably won't feel is just. | > | > People don't like the fact that IPv4 is ending, period. | | IPv4 isn't ending; it's approaching the inherent limits of growth. This | proposal seeks not only to artificially move up the date that happens but to | try to make IPv4 unusable after that date even if addresses are reclaimed by | or returned to the RIRs. That is _not_ the same as what will happen if we | let IPv4 hit the wall on its own. | | > You cannot get around this. They don't like the fact they are going | > to have to put money and labor dollars into renumbering to IPv6 or | > buying NAT gateways or whatnot. So no matter what, the ending | > of IPv4 allocations, whether natural or artificial, is going to produce | > a set of unintended consequences that are going to be pretty | > much the same. | | You missed the second part of my statement. Most people are willing to live | with things they don't like if they feel they're just. For instance, I'm | okay with not being allowed to kill people (even if I occasionally want to) | because I agree that such a law is just. | | Likewise, people can't help but agree that when we're out of addresses, | we're out; one cannot argue with a bare cupboard no matter how hungry one | is. OTOH, if the RIRs still have addresses available, how is it just to | refuse to let people have them solely because some arbitrary date has | passed? That is the distinction I'm making. | | >>Freezing the IPv4 registry on a particular date isn't necessary. | >>ARIN (and the other RIRs) can still do many useful things even | >>if there's no more "new" space left. | > | > No more "new" space? So you don't call IPv6 allocations "new" | | I said "the IPv4 registry". | | > Who is using them now?!?! | | IPv6? Pretty much nobody so far in the ARIN region; that's part of the | problem. This proposal comes from JPNIC, which sees significantly higher | IPv6 uptake rates than we've got; their views on the best path forward are | naturally going to be inconsistent with ours since we're working from | different experiences. (Not to mention cultural differences...) | | There are two questions to answer about any "global" policy proposal: | | 1. Does the ARIN community agree with it? | 2. If we don't, should we adopt it anyways to support other RIRs' plans? | | My answer to both is "no" at this time, but that's just me and I might be | swayed. I'm seeing a definite shortage of people saying "yes" to either so | far, but it's only been 25 hours since the proposal was posted... | | S | | Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything | CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." | K5SSS --Isaac Asimov | | | _______________________________________________ | This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List | (PPML at arin.net). | Manage your mailing list subscription at: | http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml | | From william at elan.net Wed Mar 21 23:16:03 2007 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:16:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > I am certain that in most of the largest ARIN members, there are similar > stocks of unused IP addresses that have been lost in the system. Absolutely. Even publicly available data indicates that with old SWIPs. > But because there is no telltale cash leakage to alert people to the > existence of the lost addresses, there is little motivation to mount an > expedition to seek out and recover these addresses. But, in a few years, > there will be motivation. One alternative to waiting until doom time that is within power of ARIN public policy is to modify so that when somebody asks for new IP space they have to be able to show not only is their last allocated block 80% utilized but all other blocks in ARIN system as well (including legacy blocks). This might cut down on the requests by some large ISPs and force them to look at their existing ip space (at the expense of ARIN personnel doing more work when looking at IPv4 additional allocation requests). > We should just wait until the natural course of events provides the > motivation for cleaning out dusty corners and shifting some network > services onto IPv6. > > --Michael Dillon > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From jay at handynetworks.com Wed Mar 21 23:00:41 2007 From: jay at handynetworks.com (Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:00:41 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508A@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Antonio Querubin wrote: > - Reclaiming unused IPv4 space is ok but doable with existing policy. > We don't need a new policy for that - just better (active) > implementation of existing policy. Can you please point out the policies that you are referring to? -Jay Sudowski From vixie at isc.org Wed Mar 21 23:04:42 2007 From: vixie at isc.org (vixie at isc.org) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 03:04:42 +0000 Subject: [ppml] some mh trickery that could be instructive Message-ID: <91484.1174532682@sa.vix.com> "Hey! 1994 called, and they want your mailer back!" [sa:amd64] pick -after 28feb2007 +arin/ppml -seq foo 283 hits [sa:amd64] mhpath foo +arin/ppml >~/foo [sa:amd64] cat `cat ~/foo` > ~/bar [sa:amd64] grep ^From: ~/bar | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -5 45 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" 34 From: 25 From: Member Services 24 From: Edward Lewis 11 From: Owen DeLong [sa:amd64] grep ^Subject: ~/bar | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -5 106 Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown 30 Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy ... 16 Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy ... 14 Subject: Re: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting 10 Subject: Re: [ppml] PI assignment subdelegation? i suspect that most of the n>1000 subscribers to PPML are no longer listening to the top five subjects or the top five posters here. indeed, the endless back and forth on points of trivial (are so! am not!) will mostly alienate the masses, rather than inform or involve them. i suggest taking a step backward. stop hitting reply. read what folks say, refile or delete it, wait a few days, and post a considered position statement. lather, rinse, repeat. (if i weren't a board member, i'd've unsubscribed by now -- and i love this stuff more than most folks.) (of course, noone would ignore info at arin.net, shown as top-five above due to automated and routine posts.) From jay at handynetworks.com Wed Mar 21 23:05:18 2007 From: jay at handynetworks.com (Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:05:18 -0600 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508C@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:31 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ > > >I'm going to start a thread with an offshoot idea, although it's not strictly a policy matter. People keep >talking about incenting people to move to IPv6. What if ARIN were to implement a new fee >schedule: > >Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses >2007 Existing rates. >2008 2 * 2007 Rates >2009 4 * 2007 Rates >2010 8 * 2007 Rates >2011 16 * 2007 Rates >2012 32 * 2007 Rates >2013 32 * 2007 Rates >2014 32 * 2007 Rates >2015 32 * 2007 Rates >etc > >Per http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html, someone with a single /19 would go from $2,250 a year in >2007 to $72,000 in 2012. >It's predictable so you can show management, there is a sense of urgency, and it doesn't happen overnight to >create a run on IPv6 addresses. It also provides proportional incentive to the largest and smallest IP's. > >As an alternative, so as not to punish existing address space holders this could be applied to initial >allocations only. > >I suspect, "hey boss, our IPv4 space is going to cost us 32x in 6 years, and we can get IPv6 space for free" >would be a powerful motivator. Meanwhile, every single small business service provider goes out of business because their IPv4 space costs just escalated to absurd levels. I hope you note that costs for IP addresses are already disproportionate to the number of IPs you are allocated. A /20 costs 55 cents per IP address. A /13 costs 1.71 cents per IP address. A /8 costs .053 cents per IP address. Put another way, a small service provider is already paying 100 times more per IP address than monster enterprise service provider with a /8 worth of IPs allocated to them. After your proposed cost increases, small business provider with a /20 will be paying $17.60 per IP address, per year and monster enterprise provider will be paying $.169 per IP address. The last thing I need to worry about is ARIN jacking up my rates to $17.60 per IP address. That would be a veritable death sentence for my company. -Jay Sudowski From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Mar 22 00:04:32 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:04:32 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal References: <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508A@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> Message-ID: <040e01c76c37$7d989060$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC" > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Antonio Querubin wrote: > >> - Reclaiming unused IPv4 space is ok but doable with existing >> policy. We don't need a new policy for that - just better (active) >> implementation of existing policy. > > Can you please point out the policies that you are referring to? It's easy to point to allocation reclamation policies: 4.1.3. Invalidation ARIN may invalidate any IP allocation if it determines that the requirement for the address space no longer exists. 4.1.4. Recall In the event of address space recall, ARIN will make every reasonable effort to inform the organization that the addresses are being returned to the free pool of IPv4 address space. 4.2.3.1. Efficient utilization ISPs are required to apply a utilization efficiency criterion in providing address space to their customers. To this end, ISPs should have documented justification available for each reassignment. ARIN may request this justification at any time. If justification is not provided, future receipt of allocations may be impacted. In extreme cases, existing allocations may be affected. However, I can't seem to find anything equivalent for direct assignments. Logic says that the authority is implied, but if we made a point of calling it out for allocations and were silent on assignments, one could argue we intended ARIN _not_ to have that power. Alternately, one can look at the RSA and find clauses that allow ARIN to revoke _any_ number resource at (4)(c)(i) and (8)(i) if its use does not continue to be in compliance with policy. That power is pretty clear. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From jay at handynetworks.com Thu Mar 22 02:47:27 2007 From: jay at handynetworks.com (Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:47:27 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <040e01c76c37$7d989060$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508A@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> <040e01c76c37$7d989060$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F5091@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org] >Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:05 AM >To: Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal >It's easy to point to allocation reclamation policies: > >4.1.3. Invalidation >ARIN may invalidate any IP allocation if it determines that the requirement >for the address space no longer exists. > >4.1.4. Recall >In the event of address space recall, ARIN will make every reasonable effort >to inform the organization that the addresses are being returned to the free >pool of IPv4 address space. > >4.2.3.1. Efficient utilization >ISPs are required to apply a utilization efficiency criterion in providing >address space to their customers. To this end, ISPs should have documented >justification available for each reassignment. ARIN may request this >justification at any time. If justification is not provided, future receipt >of allocations may be impacted. In extreme cases, existing allocations may >be affected. > > >However, I can't seem to find anything equivalent for direct assignments. >Logic says that the authority is implied, but if we made a point of calling >it out for allocations and were silent on assignments, one could argue we >intended ARIN _not_ to have that power. > >Alternately, one can look at the RSA and find clauses that allow ARIN to >revoke _any_ number resource at (4)(c)(i) and (8)(i) if its use does not >continue to be in compliance with policy. That power is pretty clear. It would be most interesting to know how frequently and under what circumstances ARIN has elected to utilize these provisions. That these policies already exist begs the question: what can the membership can do to get ARIN staff to more actively enforce the existing policies that speak to address reclamation? If these policies are rarely utilized, one possible cause for this is that that the policies are written so broadly (eg "ARIN may request this justification at any time"), ARIN fails to take any action at all because they are not required to do so. The use of "may" implies that ARIN has total discretion as to when it would be acceptable to request justification information and reclaim an IP allocation. Perhaps the policy simply needs to be refined to the point that ARIN has to take action when certain criteria are met. Specifically, the policy would be littered with "must" and "shall" and not a single instance of "may", except as a general catch all. Here are some thoughts: 1. Semi-annual review of justification data for all allocations. - Policy Statement: ARIN must review IP justification data for each IP allocation once every twenty four months. - Rational: If a member has not requested more IP space in a 2 year period, there is a good possibility their network is contracting or that there is no actual continued need for the existing IP allocations. 2. Random audits. - Policy Statement: ARIN shall conduct random audits of IP justification data on X% of all IP allocations per year. - Rational: Yes, it would be unfortunate to be subject of a random audit, but I don't think it's unreasonable to select some low percentage of allocations a year for random audit. 3. Severe late payment of registration fees (90+ days past due). - Policy Statement: If a member is severely past due with paying their annual membership fees, then ARIN must request justification data from member. - Rational: If an organization is not diligent enough to pay their bills within 90 days of being due, then it's very likely other business areas are lacking. It would make sense to scrutinize these IP allocations. 4 - Verified report from other ARIN members that rWHOIS/WHOIS/SWIP data is out dated/incorrect. - Policy Statement: If ARIN determines that a member has stale SWIP/rWHOIS entries, which in aggregate total more than a /22 worth of IP space, ARIN must review justification data from the member. - Rational/Example: We were allocated a /20 in Nov 2004 under the multi-homing policy at the time. We renumbered out of our existing IP allocations, but when we applied for another /20 in mid 2006, all of our previous net blocks, which had not been used by us in over a year, where still swip'd to us. It's very likely that these organizations were claiming that we continued to use the IP allocations in question many months after we stopped using them. There's a good chance these out-dated SWIP entries were used as justification to grant additional IP allocations to both of the companies. While it's very likely this happened due to poor record keeping and not malicious intent, it is still an problem that merits further scrutiny. I am only one duck in a very big pond, and at one point my allocated IP space was inflated by 50% because of poor record keeping. 5. Lame delegation in IN-ADDR.ARPA that is not corrected after notification by ARIN. - Policy Statement: If ARIN contacts a member regarding lame delegations and does not receive a response from said member within 30 days, ARIN must review the member's justification data. - Rational: Failure to correct lame delegation is an indication that no one is home and that the need for the allocation may no longer exist. 6. Total Non-payment. - Policy Statement: If a member fails to pay their membership fees within 180 days of invoice due date, ARIN shall reclaim member's resources. The member will have a 90 day period where they can bring their account current and may resubmit their IP justification data in order to be re-issued the same allocations as in the past. If a member is past due on their membership dues for a total of 270 days or longer, ARIN must release member's resources to other members who demonstrate a need. - Rational: This is a no brainer. Don't pay your bill, lose your IPs. * On a side note, if non-paying member keeps announcing their revoked IP allocation via BGP, is it possible to technically prevent them from doing so without contacting their transit providers / peers and informing them of this transgression? 7 Any Reason. - Policy Statement: ARIN may request justification data at any time. Consequences: If ARIN initiates a review of justification data and does not receive a response within 30 days of initial contact: - Policy Statement: If member fails to provide ARIN with requested usage data within 60 days, ARIN shall notify member that ARIN will elect to terminate RSA with member if justification data is not submitted within an additional 30 days. ARIN shall contact the member at this point using all possible means. If ARIN initiates a review of justification data and does not receive a response within 90 days of initial contact: - Policy Statement: ARIN will elect to terminate the RSA with the member and resources in use by this member shall be re-allocated to other members. - Rational: Failure to respond to a request for justification data is a violation of existing policy, which is a grounds for termination of the RSA. No member should be believe that they are above ARIN in status, and ARIN should take a strong line against members who fail to respond to ARIN requests for justification. If ARIN initiates a review of justification data and determines that member is using less than 40% of allocated resources: - ARIN shall require the member to renumber their IP allocation so that their need for IP space is per existing ARIN policy (80% utilization, multi-homed policy, etc). - Allow the member to split their existing allocation into two contiguous segments and return the unneeded segment to ARIN. The unneeded portion of the allocation must be returned to ARIN within 6 months. - Issue the member a new allocation based upon their actual need and require the member to return their other allocation within 3 months. If ARIN initiates a review of justification data and determines that member is using greater than 40% and less than 70% of allocated resources: - ??? (I am tired, and this is an area where possible consequences would vary based upon age of allocation, aggregate size of unused allocation, etc) I didn't intend for this to get so long. Would appreciate your thoughts and feedback. I am not sure if these standards would be too "Attila the Hun" for people to tolerate. But if the authority exists for such actions to be taken in existing policy, and the policies are not actively used, something should be done to clarify the position the membership has on this topic. -Jay Sudowski From jafo at tummy.com Thu Mar 22 04:04:15 2007 From: jafo at tummy.com (Sean Reifschneider) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:04:15 -0600 Subject: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re: IPv4 wind-down) In-Reply-To: References: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <20070322080415.GA24667@tummy.com> First, let me be honest and say that I just recently joined the list (because of the recent invitation), and beyond coming to this discussion late I also am only reading a tenth or less of the discussion because I just don't have time to read 100 long, densly-populated messages a day. So, some of this certainly may be duplication, but I was asked to participate and this is what I can do... I have 5 /24 blocks, one legacy allocation and 4 allocations from one of our upstreams. I have 0 IPv6 allocations and 0 interest in moving to v6. While the ppml list is talking about the wind-down and countdown of v4, v6 doesn't even exist for me. I've never tried to reach a service that I couldn't reach because it only had a v6 address. My network can handle v6 no problem, but there's 100% v4 coverage, as far as I can see, and so there's absolutely no reason for me to go through the pain of setting up and maintaining v6. Setting up v6 right now would, literally, gain me nothing. I can't use new v6 space on new servers that are set up because a client using a v6-only server would immediately yell at me that none of their users can access the server. I travel around a lot, and I've *NEVER* been to a location (client site, data center, residences of friends and family, coffee shops, hotels) that could offer me the ability to get to a v6-only host. I'm a good guy and all, and I'd like to be in a world where there are plenty of addresses for everyone. However, I just can't switch to v6. First of all, none of my providers offer me, as far as I know, v6, not at my facility, and certainly not at home. I honestly haven't looked at my facility, because none of the servers we host have any reasonable quantity of users who could access them on v6, even if I had v4+v6 on every host. I can't just go to my boss and say "IP space is going to start costing us twice (or 10 times) as much in another year". What I need are *USERS* who are on v6 who are trying to reach these sites. I'd literally need to have one of my home connections be v6 before I'd seriously consider switching. If the regional ILEC and a national cable provider "can't" switch to v6 (a) how can I be expected to, but more importantly (b) who exactly is going to be using my servers if I put them on v6? Just to be clear, I'm not looking for people to pipe up and say "I'm using v6 at home", because the audience of this I'm sure has the sort of people who would go and do it. These are the places we need to be providing incentives to to switch to v6. We need to reach a tipping point. There are two ways of going about that: One is to try to convert tens of thousands of entities who have smaller allocations (like /24s), the other is to go after dozens of entities that have larger allocations (like /8s). Previous corporations I've worked for have used large public allocations for private machines on their network. Several companies, one of which had a /8 *AND THEN* had additional /20-/24 allocations for their NAT boxes and other public addresses. It's annoying these places haven't given back the space, but it's *SHAMEFUL* that they haven't even started the process of being able to give back this space. "It would be too expensive for us, so we aren't even going to think about it" is the excuse I've heard about the /8. I won't name any names, but their first octet is a small prime number. ;-) I play by the rule that I won't ask for more space until I'm at 80% utilization on my current space. The low-hanging fruit may be that if you aren't using, say, 50% of your allocation publicly, that allocation has to come back. Just to throw out numbers, say 3 years. We have people out there who know or should know that there's a "looming" v4 shortage, yet they're actively holding onto space they aren't using publicly. I don't think that treating v4 like land, and giving people the ability to sell it, is a good way to go. First of all, there are only at most 16m /24 blocks. It reminds me of diamonds, they're as valuable as they are because one entity controls the release of diamonds. With that little space, an entity or government could literally purchase all available space and then could set prices to whatever they wanted, making a massively profitable enterprise. Just because it makes business sense. Anyway, it's late and those are my thoughts on v6. I'd propose working to get those with many users to switch to v6 first, and start the process of reclaiming space from those who aren't using it. The whole v6 thing seems like this fortune I read years ago: Let us live!!! Let us love!!! Let us share the deepest secrets of our souls!!! You first. Nobody wants to be the first to switch to v6. And by "nobody", I mean nobody that I know. ;-) I assume you get my point though. Sean -- YOU ARE WITNESSING A FRONT THREE-QUARTER VIEW OF TWO ADULTS SHARING A TENDER MOMENT. -- Gordon Cole, _Twin_Peaks_ Sean Reifschneider, Member of Technical Staff tummy.com, ltd. - Linux Consulting since 1995: Ask me about High Availability From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 22 04:12:46 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:12:46 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F5091@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> Message-ID: > I didn't intend for this to get so long. Would appreciate > your thoughts > and feedback. Draconian measures simply do not survive the policy proposal process. In other words, the voters prefer proposals that do not carry a big stick. And when a proposal is punitive in some way, it probably will not get past the Board of Trustees. And any policy whose intent is punitive may well be considered antitrust and therefore illegal. ARIN's job is not to go out and punish people or companies. --Michael Dillon From james at towardex.com Thu Mar 22 04:15:09 2007 From: james at towardex.com (James Jun) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:15:09 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070322081206.967CD6D489@mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com> > When ARIN runs out of allocations then you will have a situation where > some carriers in the US will run out before others, and the problem will > propagate downwards to their ISP customers. And eventually you will in > fact have situations were multiple ISP's in the same city, some will be > able to delay IPv6 switchover. Very likely it will be the deep pocket > ISPs. So a day will come when the poorer ISPs start telling their > customers they must switch to IPv6, and their customers, not wanting to > spend money, will simply drop service and go to the deep pocket ISPs > who have been able to delay IPv6 switchover, and get a few more years of > IPv4 service before they will finally be backed into a corner and will > have to spend money to switch over. I am puzzled by the notion that somehow end-users have to spend notable amount of money to get IPv6, when end-users often times spend money anyway to replace their computer and associated hardware, including home/SOHO routers as often as once every year if not even more often -- all as part of their routine home-entertainment/office-use technology upgrades. IPv6 does not have to be a costly dedicated upgrade in everyone's annual household budget, or even for many small business budgets. It can be gradually migrated into their existing annual spending budgets or next year budgets as part of everyone's routine technology upgrades. Unless of course you are dealing with certain router vendors that charge extra $$ just for enabling IPv6 in your firmware/OS code :) But the 'certain router vendors' problem hasn't occurred to end-user market yet to my knowledge, just within service-provider area (apparently it is already the carriers who are suffering the most with IPv6 mess, not the end-users and 'poor' ISPs who have not even enabled IPv6 yet). It is the *vendors*, the home CPE vendors, the software developers (major props to Microsoft for making Vista a lot more IPv6-friendly), the access ISPs/MSOs and content providers (youtube/Google, etc) that need to look into IPv6 to create a so-called "killer app" for the switch. End-user's regular cycle of upgrading their computers and software will then automatically pick up IPv6 on their next upgrade. All that is needed is a transition strategy at ISP level that would inter-operate the two protocols while the upgrades are taking place. Let me reiterate and say again: To think that end-users have to upgrade their computers and associated hardware just because of and *just for* IPv6, with enough price tag to the point of justifying changing their ISP, is an assessment that I disagree with. When vendors and developers include IPv6 support in their next product line or product update, end-users upgrading their hardware and software for purposes that have nothing to do with IPv6 (see: gaming, entertainment, faster speed, etc) will automatically pick up IPv6 technology. Energy is better spent on IPv4<->IPv6 transition technologies and migration strategies as Antonio Querubin pointed out in his inputs. > > If you want all Interent service concentrated in the > AOL/Comcast/RoadRunners > of the world, then I guess you might be in favor of this happening. > > A published and advertised T-date can help to equalize things because > those who run short of IPv4 first, can use the published T-date to > help educate their customers that IPv6 is inevitable, and moving to > their competitor down the street that will not require them to switchover > to IPv6 yet, will not in the long run save them any money. The idea of equalizing things with a T-date unfortunately again further exacerbates the IPv4 problem. Because with all due respect, in your perspective, it simply buys you more time and a shelter to keep reclaiming IPv4 again and again, just so your marketing department doesn't have to work to keep your products competitive. You said it right there when replying to my suggestion to enable IPv6 in your network: you prefer to keep reclaiming IPv4 space. The Internet is driven by a fluid and fast paced marketplace, and energy is best spent by getting on with the program. Small ISPs often bash the telcos/carriers for sitting in the "profit-forever guaranteed, lazy, hell-with-customer, monopoly zone" (which by the way is true). But often times, the said small ISPs are also hypocritical and lazy when they don't want to maintain competitiveness of their own products over new technologies like IPv6, while bashing the carriers for anti-competitive behaviors. IPv6 transition should be more or less be transparent and evolutionary for *end-users*, similar to automated Windows software update, and this believe it or not, is currently quite the case, although has been going extremely slower than expected. It is the developers, vendors and ISPs who should be coordinating efforts to move IPv6 forward, majority of end-users have little or nothing to do with it. Remember that end-users are customers of Internet; they are the ones who should be getting the least inconvenience. > > Then the RIRs can simply set a T-date that is nothing more than a T-date > without any cooresponding policy to do anything about it. What is your > objection to this? I would support publishing a date, in fact I don't have problem with the "A-Date" as specified. But in any regards, definitely not T-date in context of 2007-12 which again, oversteps the boundary of what constitutes "simple announcement of expected IPv4 capacity exhaustion." Letting people know that IPv4 won't be around for long is a great idea (which is what I had been saying for half of whole email you replied to by the way, which was construed as catch-22, then ongoing discussion being reconfigured to questioning what my objections to 'publishing a T-date but without any corresponding policy to it' are). But let the people make their own informed decisions; we do not have to make decisions on their behalf, by arbitrary setting a policy such as 2007-12, which insists on no more ipv4 allocation thereafter-- and that is one of the main reasons why many people are not in favor of it, and why my vote is again: No. Termination of IPv4 allocation should occur when the last available block has been allocated for, not by politics of IPv6. The RIRs and the community should certainly use whatever means necessary to continuously inform and update everyone that we are out of IPv4 numbering resources as the terminal allocation reaches near. And boy, the media will be all over it with the new Y2K-like Internet doomsday scenario well before the last single IPv4 address left standing. james From michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Thu Mar 22 04:30:38 2007 From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:30:38 -0700 Subject: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re: IPv4 wind-down) In-Reply-To: <20070322080415.GA24667@tummy.com> References: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20070322080415.GA24667@tummy.com> Message-ID: > Sean Reifschneider wrote: > there's 100% v4 coverage And there will continue to be for the foreseeable future, even if it requires double-NAT and other ugly tricks. Nice post, Sean. Re: making class E available, and although I contributed to and supported similar proposals in the past, I think it's too little too late now. There are significant political challenges, and the truth is I would not want to be the recipient of a class E unicast address because it will be flaky for years. Salvaging the last crumbs of the IPv4 address space is a nice idea, but it won't eliminate the NAT tricks to come. And, contrary to what some think, it would not slow down IPv6 adoption either. Michel. From bmanning at karoshi.com Thu Mar 22 04:29:10 2007 From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:29:10 +0000 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <20070322080415.GA24667@tummy.com> References: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20070322080415.GA24667@tummy.com> Message-ID: <20070322082910.GA18488@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:04:15AM -0600, Sean Reifschneider wrote: > > What I need are *USERS* who are on v6 who are trying to reach these sites. > I'd literally need to have one of my home connections be v6 before I'd > seriously consider switching. If the regional ILEC and a national cable > provider "can't" switch to v6 (a) how can I be expected to, but more > importantly (b) who exactly is going to be using my servers if I put them > on v6? data point. from the IETF this week, it was announced that COMCAST was ready to start the largest v6 rollout (in the US) starting this year. As an advisor to them over the past year, I can state that they have been planning on this for quite a while and I think they are covering (most) the bases. > Just to be clear, I'm not looking for people to pipe up and say "I'm using > v6 at home", because the audience of this I'm sure has the sort of people > who would go and do it. "me too!" - :) - frankly, I think the general idea is that ARIN members have a very low barrier to entry to get IPv6 resources and it behoves them to start -NOW- to get some v6 experience under the belt -before- it becomes critical path. > These are the places we need to be providing incentives to to switch to v6. i'm not sure we need to find incentives, i think they will emerge over time. what is important (IMHO) is to give ARIN members the ability and resources to use IPv6 as their dictates demand. > Nobody wants to be the first to switch to v6. And by "nobody", I mean > nobody that I know. ;-) I assume you get my point though. actually, there are a number of us who have interesting services already avialable on IPv6. The traffic is small, perhaps negligable, but it is there and is growing. But perhaps you are correct, I know of only a handful of people running IPv6 ONLY services. --bill > > Sean > -- > YOU ARE WITNESSING A FRONT THREE-QUARTER VIEW OF TWO ADULTS SHARING A > TENDER MOMENT. -- Gordon Cole, _Twin_Peaks_ > Sean Reifschneider, Member of Technical Staff > tummy.com, ltd. - Linux Consulting since 1995: Ask me about High Availability > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From alh-ietf at tndh.net Thu Mar 22 04:54:21 2007 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:54:21 +0100 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508C@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> References: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508C@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> Message-ID: <035101c76c5f$b0730790$115916b0$@net> While Leo's pricing model may not have any impact on the consumption rate (because we are likely to run out before the price gets high enough), his overall model of escalating prices is probably right as the commercial trade in addresses takes hold. If that price escalation is going to drive small providers out of business, that will happen despite whatever ARIN does. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:05 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] In$entive$ > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf > Of > Leo Bicknell > >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:31 PM > >To: ppml at arin.net > >Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ > > > > > >I'm going to start a thread with an offshoot idea, although it's not > strictly a policy matter. People keep >talking about incenting people > to move to IPv6. What if ARIN were to implement a new fee > >schedule: > > > >Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses > >2007 Existing rates. > >2008 2 * 2007 Rates > >2009 4 * 2007 Rates > >2010 8 * 2007 Rates > >2011 16 * 2007 Rates > >2012 32 * 2007 Rates > >2013 32 * 2007 Rates > >2014 32 * 2007 Rates > >2015 32 * 2007 Rates > >etc > > > >Per http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html, someone with a > single /19 would go from $2,250 a year in >2007 to $72,000 in 2012. > >It's predictable so you can show management, there is a sense of > urgency, and it doesn't happen overnight to >create a run on IPv6 > addresses. It also provides proportional incentive to the largest and > smallest IP's. > > > >As an alternative, so as not to punish existing address space holders > this could be applied to initial >allocations only. > > > >I suspect, "hey boss, our IPv4 space is going to cost us 32x in 6 > years, and we can get IPv6 space for free" >would be a powerful > motivator. > > Meanwhile, every single small business service provider goes out of > business because their IPv4 space costs just escalated to absurd > levels. > > > I hope you note that costs for IP addresses are already > disproportionate > to the number of IPs you are allocated. A /20 costs 55 cents per IP > address. A /13 costs 1.71 cents per IP address. A /8 costs .053 cents > per IP address. Put another way, a small service provider is already > paying 100 times more per IP address than monster enterprise service > provider with a /8 worth of IPs allocated to them. After your proposed > cost increases, small business provider with a /20 will be paying > $17.60 > per IP address, per year and monster enterprise provider will be paying > $.169 per IP address. > > The last thing I need to worry about is ARIN jacking up my rates to > $17.60 per IP address. That would be a veritable death sentence for > my > company. > > -Jay Sudowski > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From alh-ietf at tndh.net Thu Mar 22 05:16:21 2007 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:16:21 +0100 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: <20070321220246.GA15723@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <02a401c76bdd$5bec0f50$13c42df0$@net> <20070321220246.GA15723@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <035201c76c62$c4031680$4c094380$@net> Leo Bicknell wrote: > > ... > > further extending the lifetime of IPv4 is a waste of everyone's time > > and energy. People will need to learn the realities of the new > version of IP, or find another line of work. > > I strongly disagree with that statement. No matter your thoughts on > IPv4 and IPv6 one of ARIN's tasks is to be a steward of IPv4 space /for > as long as people wish to use it./ > > There is a long history of new technology eroding existing markets, but > rarely does it make them go away. More importantly, technology that is > not useful in one market may be huge in another. > > Venezula uses lots of Ethanol, the US does not. This despite a gas > crisis in the 70's, and numerous alternative technologies. Digital > downloads have not stopped people from selling CD's. VoIP has not > forced AT&T and wireline phone providers out of business. There are > companies out there still making steam engines and buggy whips, if only > for much smaller market segments today. Yes, there will be a market for a few IPv4 experts for some time to come, just as centuries after the height of its demand there is still a market for hand-made masquerade masks in Venice. My point was that the market will not sustain the number of IPv4 experts that it does today, just as there are only 2 mask makers left in Venice. Assuming the IPv4 space is fully allocated/assigned by 2010, by 2015 the number of people that can make a living by only knowing IPv4 will be substantially lower than where we are today. By giving preference to IPv6 when it works, by 2015 the amount of IPv4 traffic will be effectively zero from the perspective of today's giddy heights. Yes, IPv4 will persist for decades within organizations (HP printers with embedded IPv4-only controllers will not die), but those islands will be parked in cookie-cutter corners of the network where no expertise is required. Tony From mwest1 at che.org Thu Mar 22 08:53:34 2007 From: mwest1 at che.org (West, Michael) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:53:34 -0400 Subject: [ppml] PPML Digest, Vol 21, Issue 55 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3F42182C46EE2344BCD23EA792759B0813F55F@ITSSSXM01V1.one.ads.che.org> Unsubscribe please -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of ppml-request at arin.net Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:48 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: PPML Digest, Vol 21, Issue 55 Send PPML mailing list submissions to ppml at arin.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ppml-request at arin.net You can reach the person managing the list at ppml-owner at arin.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of PPML digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal (michael.dillon at bt.com) 2. Re: Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal (Ted Mittelstaedt) 3. In$entive$ (Leo Bicknell) 4. Re: IPv4 wind-down (Ted Mittelstaedt) 5. Re: IPv4 wind-down (michael.dillon at bt.com) 6. Re: Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal (Geoff Huston) 7. Re: Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal (MAEMURA Akinori) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:01:11 -0000 From: Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" >...shouldn't we let the market determine the value of IPv4 > addresses? > > Imagine if some central source (ICANN or the RIRs) created a service > where transfers of IP address space could be registered like a county > registrar of deeds. We call this service, ARIN. > In our world we commonly deal with limited resources. For example, > consider land in Florida. There is no chance of switching to land in > Florida v6. Over many years we have developed mature, commonly > understood methods of buying and selling land. We have real estate > agents, title companies, mortgage companies and the county registrar > of deeds. You could have picked any state in the union. Why choose Florida of all places. At one time it had a well-deserved reputation for selling non-existent land, i.e. mangrove swamp. Then, some smart people figured out that instead of ripping of northerners by selling them swampland, they could make more money by manufacturing land by filling in the swamps. IPv4 addresses are not as malleable as Florida land. They are more like the good solid square plots of land found in the Great Plains states. > Some of the problems I can think of are: And that is the basic problem with all of these "selling address" ideas. They change things, in the hopes that it will solve some problem or other, but with the certainty that it will create a host of new problems. > Some of the advantages I can think of are: > 1) This something that CEO on an airplane can understand. Indeed! I can hear him on the phone to his senator now, demanding that the government stop this madness. Remember that CEO made his career in orderly controlled and regulated markets. Think SEC, SOX, FCC, RIAA, ISO-9000 etc. > If you like it, > tell me how to improve it. If you don't, suggest something better. You want something better? The basic problem is that there is not enough publicity about the IPv4 wind-down and therefore not enough debate, in the networking/IT industry, about how to deal with it. Changing ARIN policy is not the right way to deal with a publicity problem and not the right way to engage the networking/IT industry in debate. --Michael Dillon ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:24:03 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal To: "Jim Weyand" , "Leo Bicknell" , Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Weyand [mailto:jweyand at computerdata.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:12 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > >This may violate the spirit of the various Memorandums of >Understanding, etc. but shouldn't we let the market determine the value >of IPv4 addresses? > >Imagine if some central source (ICANN or the RIRs) created a service >where transfers of IP address space could be registered like a county >registrar of deeds. > There are several problem with this approach. First, is that your inviting governmental regulation in where you really do not want it. Governments clearly have authority over buying and selling between people in their countries in every country in the world. They can tell you what you can and cannot buy and sell, they can tell you how to do it, when you can do it, and on and on and on. Governments also go to the mat for wealthy corporations in their borders because corporations fund governments, either by taxes or bribery (ie: political campaign contributions) You would end up with the wealthy networks and wealthy governments using legal means to push the poorer governments and networks out of the running for IPv4 addressing. >In our world we commonly deal with limited resources. For example, >consider land in Florida. There is no chance of switching to land in >Florida v6. Over many years we have developed mature, commonly >understood methods of buying and selling land. We have real estate >agents, title companies, mortgage companies and the county registrar of >deeds. > And you will find in Florida that the most desirable land is owned by the wealthy. That is an acceptable solution for the United States because the society in the US has been conditioned to believe that it is OK for the rich to get the best of everything. However it is not what many societies in the world accept and from a moral standpoint it is a solution rejected by just about every mainstream religion in the world, as well as many secular schools of philosophy. >4) It would be unfair to regions and organizations of modest means. >Maybe, but is it fair to make them upgrade to IPv6? Isn't the fairest >thing to allow them to make their own choice? > IPv4 "sales" and "speculation" and all of that are going to happen, I assure you. And no matter how it happens it is going to be unfair to some people. However there is a huge difference between official support and sanction of the deep pockets by IANA and the RIR's and no official support and sanction. It is very possible for the RIR's to take the high road here. The deep pockets that want to engage in billion dollar /8 sales to each other do not need the help of the numbering authorities to do their deals, they are going to do them if market conditions warrant with or without official sanction. If the RIRs stay the hell out of this then such activity will happen for several years but eventually as conversion to IPv6 continues, such activity will die off. If they get into the thick of things then your going to establish an infractructure that will last far longer than it is needed, and will give a toehold for governments to interfere. >Some of the advantages I can think of are: >1) This something that CEO on an airplane can understand. IPv4 >addresses are a resource. Resources have a cost. Markets determine >costs. > Not for all resources. For example, labor is a resource that as it becomes scarcer and more expensive, costs have less and less effect. If your in the market for ditch diggers you can get all you want by adjusting your costs for them. If your in the market for the 5 people who designed the last AMD processor chip, you may find that no amount of money in the world will obtain their services. They may decide your a jerkoff. If your in the market for a wife.... well I won't go there. In any case, one of the requirements, probably the most important requirement, for IP allocation is defining need. That need is based on what your customers and servers and network gear must have to function. It is not defined by how much IPv4 your planning on selling. All of this is current policy and would have to be swept away to permit IP allocations based on how much IPv4 you want to be able to sell in the future, but really don't need for your own use. Ted ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:30:55 -0500 From: Leo Bicknell Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ To: ppml at arin.net Message-ID: <20070322003055.GA24772 at ussenterprise.ufp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm going to start a thread with an offshoot idea, although it's not strictly a policy matter. People keep talking about incenting people to move to IPv6. What if ARIN were to implement a new fee schedule: Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses 2007 Existing rates. 2008 2 * 2007 Rates 2009 4 * 2007 Rates 2010 8 * 2007 Rates 2011 16 * 2007 Rates 2012 32 * 2007 Rates 2013 32 * 2007 Rates 2014 32 * 2007 Rates 2015 32 * 2007 Rates etc Per http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html, someone with a single /19 would go from $2,250 a year in 2007 to $72,000 in 2012. It's predictable so you can show management, there is a sense of urgency, and it doesn't happen overnight to create a run on IPv6 addresses. It also provides proportional incentive to the largest and smallest IP's. As an alternative, so as not to punish existing address space holders this could be applied to initial allocations only. I suspect, "hey boss, our IPv4 space is going to cost us 32x in 6 years, and we can get IPv6 space for free" would be a powerful motivator. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/attachments/20070321/dc02e339/attac hment-0001.bin ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:40:17 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down To: , Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >michael.dillon at bt.com >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:38 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down > > > >> Horse and buggies are not permitted on freeways, at least not >> in the United States. > >You can buy a brand new bicycle for $14,000 >http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/23/would_you_spend_14 0 >00_for_this_bike/ Please tell me you couldn't find anything as stupid as that in the UK! >but you can't drive that on a freeway. And you can't drive a Segway on >the freeway either. > Actually you can ride bicycles on US highways, at least in some states (maybe all of them?) definitely in the state I'm in. Yes, you too can be within a foot of cars going 65 Mph on a bicycle. Where do I sign up!! >> There are many many examples of abandonded older technologies >> that are completely incompatible with newer technologies, and >> have been obsoleted. As owners of analog-broadcast-recieve >> televisions in the United States are going to soon find out. > >Back in the 1930's, something called radio was developed into a >business. There were popular music programs and radio dramas. Today, in >the UK admittedly, I have a digital radio on which I can listen to >popular music programs and radio dramas. In fact, when I switched from >analog to digital I got a wider choice of stations to listen to. There >is a metaphor in here somewhere, for the IPv4 to IPv6 transition. > Hmm - let's see now, compare the amount of time devoted to commercials on today's radio with 1930's radio... Ted ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:52:33 -0000 From: Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > >> Horse and buggies are not permitted on freeways, at least not > >> in the United States. > >but you can't drive that on a freeway. And you can't drive a > Segway on > >the freeway either. > Actually you can ride bicycles on US highways, at least in some states > (maybe all of them?) definitely in the state I'm in. You can take a horse and buggy on US highways as well, but not on the freeway. You see it all the time in Pennsylvania's Lancaster county. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:39:32 +1100 From: Geoff Huston Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal To: David Conrad , Stephen Sprunk Cc: Public Policy Mailing List Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20070322122445.02d00168 at apnic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:47 AM 22/03/2007, David Conrad wrote: >Hi, > >On Mar 21, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >> People don't like the fact that IPv4 is ending, period. > > IPv4 isn't ending; it's approaching the inherent limits of growth. > >It isn't even that. The IPv4 _FREE POOL as administered by IANA and >the RIRs_ is being exhausted. That's all. > >There is lots of unused address space locked away in legacy (and not >so legacy) allocations. I imagine that address space is increasingly >going to come into play as folks find they are not able to obtain >addresses via "traditional" means. The data on the IPv4 address pools over time appears to show that this might already be happening today. The total size of the address pool that has been allocated by the RIRs but is not visible in the routing table peaked in July 2005 at a pool size that was the equivalent of 49.4 /8's Today that "allocated but unadvertised" pool sits at 47.0 /8's. i.e. over the past 20 months or so the equivalent of 2.4 /8's, or some 40.2M /32s, has come into play in the public Internet as address space advertised as reachable in the routing system. While I have not looked hard at the data to determine the precise profile of allocation dates of this particular pool of address space, it does appear that most of this allocated but unadvertised space that has appeared in the routing system over this period was originally allocated in the period 1990 - 1995, providing a strong hint that its the legacy address space that is reappearing in this manner already. [The reports of IPv4 consumption are at http://ipv4.potaroo.net, and the time series of the size of the "allocated but unadvertised" address pool is graphed in Figure 30b, and allocation date distribution of unadvertised address space is shown in Figure 14.] Geoff ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:46:48 +0900 From: MAEMURA Akinori Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal To: bicknell at ufp.org, ppml at arin.net Message-ID: <200703221046.JJI42726.FBNN at nic.ad.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Leo, Thank you very much for your simplification on our proposal and summarization of the discussion. It is not "over-"simplification but precisely figuring out our motivation and original idea. Regards, Akinori P.S. - I must admit it is very hard for me to catch up all discussion on this mailing list, even in my native language it should be tough. In message <20070320233652.GC37431 at ussenterprise.ufp.org> "Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal" "Leo Bicknell " wrote: | While I think there has been a lot of good discussion generated | from the IPv4 policy, a lot of it has strayed from the original | policy proposal. I'm going to attempt to bring that back around a | bit as we need to tackle the issue of address space exhaustion. | | To that end, I'd like to oversimplify the proposal. Language, | format, and justification aside I believe the proposal can be boiled | down to the following simpler statement: | | The RIR's, in order to assure the orderly shutdown of IPv4 | allocations should do their best to predict the date at which | there will be no more IPv4 addresses available, should announce | a termination date just before the predicted exhaustion, and | should cease allocations on that date even if there is some | address space still available. | | I believe the intent of the authors is to realize a number of potential | benefits: | | - There is a well known date at which no more IPv4 space will be | available, making it easier for those needed addresses to show their | management the need for alternate plans. | | - By the RIR's shutting down distributions of addresses at the same | time it prevents the "last RIR standing" from being swamped by every | international company solely because they still have addresses. | | Of course, there are drawbacks: | | - This requires global coordination. | | - We may leave some IPv4 space unused that could otherwise be put to | good use. | | - This policy itself may cause a run on IP space. | | There are alternatives, Owen DeLong just wrote about what would probably | be considered the opposite viewpoint in another message, I quote: | | I believe that the system will function and that there is no need | to do anything different until ARIN is unable to fulfill requests. | At that time, ARIN should fulfill request it can on a | first-come-first-serve basis and provide a polite apology in | response to requests which cannot be fulfilled. I do not believe | a change of policy is required in order for ARIN staff to do this. | | Last, in an attempt to keep the discussion focused, I'd ask you to | consider if these related topics are relevant to this policy's thread, | along with why I think most are not: | | - Reclamation of unused address space. It doesn't matter if we do this | or not, all predictions are we still run out of address space. All | this does is move the date, which is a valid discussion but the topic at | hand here is what happens when the RIR's have no more space to | allocate. | | - Encouraging people to use less IPv4 addresses, including but not | limited to higher fees, required use of NAT, rejustification of existing | IPs. Same issue, it delays the date we run out, but doesn't change | the problem of what the RIR's should do when they run out. | | - Are the predictions of when we run out correct? Same problem, doesn't | matter if it's 2010, 2020, or 2050, the question is what do we do when | it happens. | | I'd like to see all three of those issues discussed, just in another | thread. | | -- | Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 | PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ | Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org | | | | _______________________________________________ | This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List | (PPML at arin.net). | Manage your mailing list subscription at: | http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml | | | ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml End of PPML Digest, Vol 21, Issue 55 ************************************ From alh-ietf at tndh.net Thu Mar 22 10:29:48 2007 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:29:48 +0100 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <480dad640703220652k4ef11bbi9484287e75422c4d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508C@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> <035101c76c5f$b0730790$115916b0$@net> <480dad640703220652k4ef11bbi9484287e75422c4d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <03a901c76c8e$8d7c2df0$a87489d0$@net> At that point, it is not up to ARIN because they have already handed out everything they can. Asserting that addresses are not tradable property only works as long as people are willing to listen to someone with an alternative. Once the RIR's can't offer an alternative source of addresses, the market will establish the price and the little guys will be forced out. Tony From: heh heh [mailto:dudepron at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:52 PM To: alh-ietf at tndh.net Cc: Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] In$entive$ Isn't this establish/forcing routing policy in a indirect way? I can't afford IPv4 so I have to use IPv6. I don't believe that ARIN would want to set this precedent. Aaron On 3/22/07, Tony Hain wrote: While Leo's pricing model may not have any impact on the consumption rate (because we are likely to run out before the price gets high enough), his overall model of escalating prices is probably right as the commercial trade in addresses takes hold. If that price escalation is going to drive small providers out of business, that will happen despite whatever ARIN does. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:05 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] In$entive$ > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto: ppml-bounces at arin.net ] On Behalf > Of > Leo Bicknell > >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:31 PM > >To: ppml at arin.net > >Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ > > > > > >I'm going to start a thread with an offshoot idea, although it's not > strictly a policy matter. People keep >talking about incenting people > to move to IPv6. What if ARIN were to implement a new fee > >schedule: > > > >Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses > >2007 Existing rates. > >2008 2 * 2007 Rates > >2009 4 * 2007 Rates > >2010 8 * 2007 Rates > >2011 16 * 2007 Rates > >2012 32 * 2007 Rates > >2013 32 * 2007 Rates > >2014 32 * 2007 Rates > >2015 32 * 2007 Rates > >etc > > > >Per http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html, someone with a > single /19 would go from $2,250 a year in >2007 to $72,000 in 2012. > >It's predictable so you can show management, there is a sense of > urgency, and it doesn't happen overnight to >create a run on IPv6 > addresses. It also provides proportional incentive to the largest and > smallest IP's. > > > >As an alternative, so as not to punish existing address space holders > this could be applied to initial >allocations only. > > > >I suspect, "hey boss, our IPv4 space is going to cost us 32x in 6 > years, and we can get IPv6 space for free" >would be a powerful > motivator. > > Meanwhile, every single small business service provider goes out of > business because their IPv4 space costs just escalated to absurd > levels. > > > I hope you note that costs for IP addresses are already > disproportionate > to the number of IPs you are allocated. A /20 costs 55 cents per IP > address. A /13 costs 1.71 cents per IP address. A /8 costs .053 cents > per IP address. Put another way, a small service provider is already > paying 100 times more per IP address than monster enterprise service > provider with a /8 worth of IPs allocated to them. After your proposed > cost increases, small business provider with a /20 will be paying > $17.60 > per IP address, per year and monster enterprise provider will be paying > $.169 per IP address. > > The last thing I need to worry about is ARIN jacking up my rates to > $17.60 per IP address. That would be a veritable death sentence for > my > company. > > -Jay Sudowski > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > ( PPML at arin.net ). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rich at nic.umass.edu Thu Mar 22 10:40:51 2007 From: rich at nic.umass.edu (Rich Emmings) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:40:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > What if ARIN were to implement a new fee schedule: > > Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses > 2007 Existing rates. > 2008 2 * 2007 Rates > Raising prices has the same result + worse on the resource. People will start getting space now if they don't think they need it, rather than waiting 2 years when they'll have to bleed through the nose. There will be a dissensentive to return space. A way to mitigate this, is a policy which takes place right now, not providing time for people to work around it. But rates**year is a little draconian. > Multiple suggestions that we need to push IPv6 The complete raminifications of IPv6 are not well enough understood. Those of us rolling towards it, are running into subtleties and nuances that like getting porcupines to mate. One source shows over 300 /32s out there, with about 2/3rds not in the routing table. As these are /32's, these aren't small mom-and-pop shops. We will get there. We will not get there soon. > Stanford .... Returned their /8. > EBay for IPv4 I don't think the RSA allows for this, as a reallocation requires that the recipient show need. IANA, ARIN and the other RIR's could also contact Ebay and make it clear that auction of numbers is auction of property that the seller doesn't own. That doesn't mean there won't be a black market where IP space can be leased or sold, but like all black markets, you risk getting sold out to the authorities. --- There needs to be an understanding of scarcity. IP addresses are finite. Domain names are not, but there's the good ones, and the 37 random letter ones which are not as desirable. Breatheable air, at this time, is infinite. Controls on the finite, always result in someone getting screwed. An administrator will try to arrange the greatest good for the greatest number, within the constraints applied. (which if you read that sentence, basically it says nothing) Rather than reinterate Economics, I'll leave it to the reader to review the economics text of their choice. --- Early allocations came in three sizes, head-of-a-pin, extra large, and colossal. There is probably some space there. I wouldn't do audits (does ARIN have the time) or mandatory 6 month reups (Do customers have the time) before I'd just send out a letter explaining the problem and asking for space. The first FAX machine was worthless. I had no one else to talk to. If returning IP address space back, so it can be reissued brings more customers onto the network, the the folks who are trying to make a buck gain customers, so maybe there's even some greed that can be appealed to, if needed. ---------- I'm -30- on this thread. From dudepron at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 10:41:24 2007 From: dudepron at gmail.com (heh heh) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:41:24 -0400 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <03a901c76c8e$8d7c2df0$a87489d0$@net> References: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508C@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> <035101c76c5f$b0730790$115916b0$@net> <480dad640703220652k4ef11bbi9484287e75422c4d@mail.gmail.com> <03a901c76c8e$8d7c2df0$a87489d0$@net> Message-ID: <480dad640703220741o309e3f47r48a6db15f48458fc@mail.gmail.com> Well that violates the agreement that the market has with the RIRs. I'm sure that a blackmarket will/has spring up when that point is reached. Curious on how the RIRs will police it. Aaron On 3/22/07, Tony Hain wrote: > > At that point, it is not up to ARIN because they have already handed out > everything they can. Asserting that addresses are not tradable property only > works as long as people are willing to listen to someone with an > alternative. Once the RIR's can't offer an alternative source of addresses, > the market will establish the price and the little guys will be forced out. > > > > Tony > > > > *From:* heh heh [mailto:dudepron at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:52 PM > *To:* alh-ietf at tndh.net > *Cc:* Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC; ppml at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [ppml] In$entive$ > > > > Isn't this establish/forcing routing policy in a indirect way? I can't > afford IPv4 so I have to use IPv6. I don't believe that ARIN would want to > set this precedent. > > Aaron > > On 3/22/07, *Tony Hain* wrote: > > While Leo's pricing model may not have any impact on the consumption rate > (because we are likely to run out before the price gets high enough), his > overall model of escalating prices is probably right as the commercial > trade > in addresses takes hold. If that price escalation is going to drive small > providers out of business, that will happen despite whatever ARIN does. > > Tony > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > > Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC > > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:05 AM > > To: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [ppml] In$entive$ > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto: ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf > > Of > > Leo Bicknell > > >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:31 PM > > >To: ppml at arin.net > > >Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ > > > > > > > > >I'm going to start a thread with an offshoot idea, although it's not > > strictly a policy matter. People keep >talking about incenting people > > to move to IPv6. What if ARIN were to implement a new fee > > >schedule: > > > > > >Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses > > >2007 Existing rates. > > >2008 2 * 2007 Rates > > >2009 4 * 2007 Rates > > >2010 8 * 2007 Rates > > >2011 16 * 2007 Rates > > >2012 32 * 2007 Rates > > >2013 32 * 2007 Rates > > >2014 32 * 2007 Rates > > >2015 32 * 2007 Rates > > >etc > > > > > >Per http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html, someone with a > > single /19 would go from $2,250 a year in >2007 to $72,000 in 2012. > > >It's predictable so you can show management, there is a sense of > > urgency, and it doesn't happen overnight to >create a run on IPv6 > > addresses. It also provides proportional incentive to the largest and > > smallest IP's. > > > > > >As an alternative, so as not to punish existing address space holders > > this could be applied to initial >allocations only. > > > > > >I suspect, "hey boss, our IPv4 space is going to cost us 32x in 6 > > years, and we can get IPv6 space for free" >would be a powerful > > motivator. > > > > Meanwhile, every single small business service provider goes out of > > business because their IPv4 space costs just escalated to absurd > > levels. > > > > > > I hope you note that costs for IP addresses are already > > disproportionate > > to the number of IPs you are allocated. A /20 costs 55 cents per IP > > address. A /13 costs 1.71 cents per IP address. A /8 costs .053 cents > > per IP address. Put another way, a small service provider is already > > paying 100 times more per IP address than monster enterprise service > > provider with a /8 worth of IPs allocated to them. After your proposed > > cost increases, small business provider with a /20 will be paying > > $17.60 > > per IP address, per year and monster enterprise provider will be paying > > $.169 per IP address. > > > > The last thing I need to worry about is ARIN jacking up my rates to > > $17.60 per IP address. That would be a veritable death sentence for > > my > > company. > > > > -Jay Sudowski > > > > _______________________________________________ > > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > > ( PPML at arin.net). > > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Mar 22 11:06:10 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:06:10 -0700 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <480dad640703220741o309e3f47r48a6db15f48458fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508C@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> <035101c76c5f$b0730790$115916b0$@net> <480dad640703220652k4ef11bbi9484287e75422c4d@mail.gmail.com> <03a901c76c8e$8d7c2df0$a87489d0$@net> <480dad640703220741o309e3f47r48a6db15f48458fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7A3D8625-4BB8-4741-B6DD-175247D35606@delong.com> The RIRs cannot, do not, and will not police it. There is no police function here, at least not at the RIR level or the address assignment/ registration level. The RIRs provide a very specific service. They guarantee that whatever numbers they issue to you will not be issued to anyone else by them or by any other RIR. They don't guarantee anyone will route those numbers for you. They don't guarantee you that no one else will use those numbers in their router. They don't promise you that there is no competing parallel address registry. For the RIRs, there's nothing to police other than their own allocation/assignment practices. Now, if you want to talk about how those numbers are used, that's a different story, and, the RIRs are actually not involved. That falls to the ISPs and other peers a given entity may wish to exchange routes with. Until now, the generally connected internets (the semi-contiguous collection of networks speaking IPv4 protocol which, generally provide for the ability of a packet to get from nearly any point A to nearly any point B within the collection (firewalls, policy, etc. notwithstanding)) have functioned because there is general agreement that addresses delegated by RIRs (or applicable subordinate delegation) are legitimate whereas numbers presented by an organization which cannot trace their delegation back to an RIR are considered not legitimate. It is my sincere hope that this model will continue to function for the foreseeable future. If a day comes when a significant portion of the generally connected internets choose not to follow this policy, then the face of IP addressing will change dramatically and in an manner I cannot predict. I do not believe it would be a beneficial change. I guess the key point I'm trying to make here is that there is no tangible asset or value in a number. The value comes in the willingness of others to consider that number uniquely delegated to a given organization. It's very hard for me to imagine a way in which you can barter/trade/sell other people's willingness to do so, absent some form of generally agreed upon marketplace for the trade of such willingness. Since there is significant opposition to the idea of an address commodity market by a substantial portion of the people actually in charge of the routers that would be affected by such an idea, I don't think that the scenarios of black-market address trading are likely to actually prove useful in significant measure. I'm not saying it doesn't happen now or won't happen in the future, just that it is hard for me to picture a world in which such a market controls a significant portion of the address space in the absence of a major attitude/policy shift in the network operations community. As such, I don't believe that IPv4 free-space exhaustion requires any substantive change in RIR policy or conduct. I don't believe that RIRs should start trying to extract addresses from address holders by force. I certainly don't believe that arbitrarily pricing address registrations in such a way to force smaller players out of the market in favor of larger ones is a good idea. Finally, I don't believe that an address market will succeed, nor do I believe that if such a thing were adopted that it would be a good thing for the stability of the internet. Owen From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Mar 22 11:19:24 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:19:24 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal References: <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508A@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> <040e01c76c37$7d989060$443816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F5091@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> Message-ID: <005f01c76c96$18cfe340$413816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC" > > It would be most interesting to know how frequently and under > what circumstances ARIN has elected to utilize these provisions. I agree. Leslie et al, do you have any comments? > That these policies already exist begs the question: what can the > membership can do to get ARIN staff to more actively enforce the > existing policies that speak to address reclamation? > > [ a bunch of reasonable ideas ] > > I didn't intend for this to get so long. Would appreciate your thoughts > and feedback. I am not sure if these standards would be too "Attila the > Hun" for people to tolerate. But if the authority exists for such > actions to be taken in existing policy, and the policies are not > actively used, something should be done to clarify the position the > membership has on this topic. Non-payment or non-responsiveness are areas where I'm sure ARIN is already doing this, but I don't think there's been much effort put into reclaiming space from people who pay their bills quietly, return emails promptly, and never ask for anything new. I've filed a suggestion via the ACSP process to actively start auditing and reclamation in areas it's not already being done. I left the details on what exact criteria to use up to them since I figure it's obvious that one should go for the low-hanging fruit (i.e. allocations/assignments with the highest potential gains for lowest effort) first. I don't think we need to arbitrarily restrict how ARIN goes about it; we just need to make sure they're doing _something_ and that we have policies available for them to cite during an audit. If I turn out to be wrong on that front, or ARIN comes back with a Consultation action in the ACSP, we can clarify the intent by the usual consensus process. Until then, I'd prefer to give them the flexibility to Do The Right Thing(tm) without interference. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From kkargel at polartel.com Thu Mar 22 11:56:26 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:56:26 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20070322085123.04161700@apnic.net> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D35@mail> I see a lot of people discussing what each person thinks the rest of the world should do. How about some discussion about what we each ARE doing so we can provide some ideas and pro-active community. I know that I could use some knowledge and help tuning my strategy. Please feel free to refer me to a more appropriate venue if this is out of scope for this area. I offer this in the spirit of community, and I would greatly appreciate hearing about your individual actual progress toward IPv6. I am sure there are a lot of people out there smarter than I that are doing a better job of it. Please share your insights and experiences. While I have taken steps so that my network WILL survive the IPv4-IPv6 transition (unless IP just implodes) the steps that I have taken are so far very preliminary. I have made sure that all hardware is IPv6 capable as I replace it. I am doing this in a attritious mode and not expending special budget in the name of IPv6. As most business models amortize network hardware on a 2-4 year schedule it is still early enough to plan IPv6 in to a networks future without undue budget strain. If I waited two or three years to start this hardware transition I am afraid I might find myself in a crisis situation which would be much more costly. Inasmuch as possible I am doing the same thing with software, giving preference to vendors whose products have some semblance of IPv6 functionality. I am also actively lobbying with the software vendors whenever I speak to them, letting them know that IPv6 is an important feature and will make a difference in my future purchasing decisions. At this point in time I am finding that software availability with IPv6 built in and actually working is very spotty. I assume this will change as the customer base evolves. I am lobbying with my upstream providers, letting them know that in the near future I will require IPv6 routing, and not just 6 over 4 tunneling.. I tell them in no uncertain terms that this will make a difference in my future purchases. I am socially networking with my peer organizations, building enthusiasm as much as possible. Plans are being developed to implement IPv6 experimental connections and tunnels in a small peer mesh. Luckily I have access to private fiber to some of my peers that we can use for zero risk (well, as close as possible) experimentation. Our hope is to get a proven and working private IPv6 network running before we actually connect it to the world. In what seems like it should have been the first step, but is more appropriately a later step, I have been granted an IPv6 allocation. This will allow us to actually experiment and start constructing our IPv6 network. My goal is to have it in place and working well before my customers get vocal about demanding it. Plus I won't be scrambling at the last minute. I know this doesn't sound like a lot of accomplishment, but I know you all are working under the same constraints I am (under-staffed and under budgeted at least as regards R&D) and day-to-day business must take priority. Kevin $s/worry/happy,g From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 22 12:01:26 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:01:26 -0000 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <7A3D8625-4BB8-4741-B6DD-175247D35606@delong.com> Message-ID: > The RIRs cannot, do not, and will not police it. There is no police > function > here, at least not at the RIR level or the address assignment/ > registration > level. I think that you are wrong. The RIRs do have a police function and they do police the allocations and assignments that they issue. However, there is always a cost-benefit issue to policing and in this case, the RIRs only carry out policing activities that are low marginal cost, mostly because they are incidental to other activities. For instance when an allocee returns for more addresses, they do some level of policing. The first time an applicant asks for addresses, they do some policing. People have a warped idea of policing from the movies. They think that policing means shooting bank robbers, driving real fast and arresting people. In fact, most policing involves hanging around, possibly drinking coffee and eating donuts. That is called "maintaining a police presence" and it is very effective at limiting crime. When you get outside the realm of actual criminal activities and into the realm where ARIN's activities sit, the word policing refers more to the "hanging around" kind of activities and keeping good records, and openness (i.e. whois directory service). > As such, I don't believe that IPv4 free-space exhaustion requires > any substantive change in RIR policy or conduct. I don't believe > that RIRs should start trying to extract addresses from address > holders by force. I certainly don't believe that arbitrarily pricing > address registrations in such a way to force smaller players > out of the market in favor of larger ones is a good idea. Finally, > I don't believe that an address market will succeed, nor do I > believe that if such a thing were adopted that it would be a > good thing for the stability of the internet. I agree. --Michael Dillon From kkargel at polartel.com Thu Mar 22 12:10:24 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:10:24 -0500 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D36@mail> > I'm going to start a thread with an offshoot idea, although > it's not strictly a policy matter. People keep talking about > incenting people to move to IPv6. What if ARIN were to > implement a new fee > schedule: > > Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses > 2007 Existing rates. > 2008 2 * 2007 Rates > 2009 4 * 2007 Rates > 2010 8 * 2007 Rates > 2011 16 * 2007 Rates > 2012 32 * 2007 Rates > 2013 32 * 2007 Rates > 2014 32 * 2007 Rates > 2015 32 * 2007 Rates > etc > > Per http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html, someone > with a single /19 would go from $2,250 a year in 2007 to > $72,000 in 2012. > It's predictable so you can show management, there is a sense > of urgency, and it doesn't happen overnight to create a run > on IPv6 addresses. It also provides proportional incentive > to the largest and smallest IP's. > > As an alternative, so as not to punish existing address space > holders this could be applied to initial allocations only. > > I suspect, "hey boss, our IPv4 space is going to cost us 32x > in 6 years, and we can get IPv6 space for free" would be a > powerful motivator. > > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG > List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org > The problem with this methodology is that it would place the burden on the backs of an already overburdened population. Costs in business are absorbed readily, so long as they are applied evenly across the board. In fact when on a level playing field more outgo translates to more income based on fixed rate markup of expenses passed to the consumer. Big business doesn't mind when their costs go up, as long as the cost for the competition increases proportionally. The real cost is passed to the consumer, who will have little to say about network organization until it is way too late. I would be very afraid that this could place the cost of Internet out of the reach of the common man. I have customers now who can barely afford the $9/month for a basic internet account. If that figure were to double because my cost of doing business went up there would be a lot of people who would be forced to forgo internet in order to be able to buy hamburger. While I agree we must deal with things as they apply to business, let's not forget the vision of the internet and how it applies to real individual people. It is easy to fall in to the mode of thinking of the internet as a commercial product, and forget what it started out to be, a tremendous communication and information medium that could be applied universally as a social tool for the masses. If we lose sight of social responsibility for the sake of financial responsibility then humanity will be much the worse for our mistake. The internet started with total anarchy and community cooperation. Keeping as close as possible to those roots and staying as far from governmental involvement as possible will be what keeps the internet working and accessible for everyone. Please consider this as you develop new strategies. Gee, can ya tell I used to be a hippie? Kevin $s/worry/happy,g From dudepron at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 14:15:10 2007 From: dudepron at gmail.com (heh heh) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:15:10 -0400 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <7A3D8625-4BB8-4741-B6DD-175247D35606@delong.com> References: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508C@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks.com> <035101c76c5f$b0730790$115916b0$@net> <480dad640703220652k4ef11bbi9484287e75422c4d@mail.gmail.com> <03a901c76c8e$8d7c2df0$a87489d0$@net> <480dad640703220741o309e3f47r48a6db15f48458fc@mail.gmail.com> <7A3D8625-4BB8-4741-B6DD-175247D35606@delong.com> Message-ID: <480dad640703221115s64abfdc9o9100845c95123ec9@mail.gmail.com> Actually they can and do. Try getting an allocation (non legacy) updated or transfered without making the payments. The contract that a company signs spells it out that you may not sell the addresses. This is the place where addresses could be reclaimed and current usage is audited. This is were the policing can/should be done. Policing maybe to strong of a word, open to suggestions. This then opens up to litigation. Aaron On 3/22/07, Owen DeLong wrote: > > The RIRs cannot, do not, and will not police it. There is no police > function > here, at least not at the RIR level or the address assignment/ > registration > level. > > The RIRs provide a very specific service. They guarantee that whatever > numbers they issue to you will not be issued to anyone else by them or > by any other RIR. They don't guarantee anyone will route those numbers > for you. They don't guarantee you that no one else will use those > numbers > in their router. They don't promise you that there is no competing > parallel address registry. > > For the RIRs, there's nothing to police other than their own > allocation/assignment practices. > > Now, if you want to talk about how those numbers are used, that's > a different story, and, the RIRs are actually not involved. That falls > to the ISPs and other peers a given entity may wish to exchange routes > with. > > Until now, the generally connected internets (the semi-contiguous > collection of networks speaking IPv4 protocol which, generally provide > for the ability of a packet to get from nearly any point A to nearly any > point B within the collection (firewalls, policy, etc. notwithstanding)) > have functioned because there is general agreement that addresses > delegated by RIRs (or applicable subordinate delegation) are > legitimate whereas numbers presented by an organization which > cannot trace their delegation back to an RIR are considered not > legitimate. It is my sincere hope that this model will continue to > function for the foreseeable future. > > If a day comes when a significant portion of the generally connected > internets choose not to follow this policy, then the face of IP > addressing > will change dramatically and in an manner I cannot predict. I do not > believe it would be a beneficial change. > > I guess the key point I'm trying to make here is that there is no > tangible > asset or value in a number. The value comes in the willingness of > others to consider that number uniquely delegated to a given > organization. It's very hard for me to imagine a way in which you > can barter/trade/sell other people's willingness to do so, absent some > form of generally agreed upon marketplace for the trade of such > willingness. > > Since there is significant opposition to the idea of an address > commodity market by a substantial portion of the people actually > in charge of the routers that would be affected by such an idea, > I don't think that the scenarios of black-market address trading > are likely to actually prove useful in significant measure. > > I'm not saying it doesn't happen now or won't happen in the > future, just that it is hard for me to picture a world in which such > a market controls a significant portion of the address space > in the absence of a major attitude/policy shift in the network > operations community. > > As such, I don't believe that IPv4 free-space exhaustion requires > any substantive change in RIR policy or conduct. I don't believe > that RIRs should start trying to extract addresses from address > holders by force. I certainly don't believe that arbitrarily pricing > address registrations in such a way to force smaller players > out of the market in favor of larger ones is a good idea. Finally, > I don't believe that an address market will succeed, nor do I > believe that if such a thing were adopted that it would be a > good thing for the stability of the internet. > > Owen > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Thu Mar 22 16:00:43 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:00:43 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down Message-ID: <4602e06b.d2.399c.1471@batelnet.bs> ----- Original Message ----- From: Geoff Huston To: "Martin Hannigan" , Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:03:50 +1100 > At 09:37 AM 22/03/2007, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > > > Shortly we will be burning through 2+ /8's per month, > > > so the logistics of reclaiming space will be > > > challenged to keep up, even if there are blocks that > > > add up to that much. > > > >An above ground v4 trade would be helpful. Allowing V4 to > be >treated as property, at least for legacy space, would > be >required. The economics of that are interesting, > > > "interesting" in that "all markets are interesting" or > "intersting in that "this market would be unique in a > number of ways, only some of which are predictable"? > > > > and the > >outcome predictable. > > > Again its not clear to me what you mean by 'predictable." To answer your question, yes, not fully predictable. In order to be able to "trade", we would need to own what we are trading hence IPV4 as "property". Property, as you know, brings with it certain rights including value and transferability. Best, Martin From kkargel at polartel.com Thu Mar 22 15:04:11 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:04:11 -0500 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <480dad640703221115s64abfdc9o9100845c95123ec9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D3E@mail> ________________________________ From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of heh heh Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:15 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: Public Policy Mailing List Subject: Re: [ppml] In$entive$ Actually they can and do. Try getting an allocation (non legacy) updated or transfered without making the payments. The contract that a company signs spells it out that you may not sell the addresses. This is the place where addresses could be reclaimed and current usage is audited. This is were the policing can/should be done. Policing* maybe to strong of a word, open to suggestions. This then opens up to litigation. Aaron * How about "Resource Management", or "Allocation Management" .. or "Resource Administration" Kevin $s/worry/happy,g From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 22 15:24:10 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:24:10 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >michael.dillon at bt.com >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:53 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down > > >> >> Horse and buggies are not permitted on freeways, at least not >> >> in the United States. > >> >but you can't drive that on a freeway. And you can't drive a >> Segway on >> >the freeway either. > >> Actually you can ride bicycles on US highways, at least in some states >> (maybe all of them?) definitely in the state I'm in. > >You can take a horse and buggy on US highways as well, but not on the >freeway. >You see it all the time in Pennsylvania's Lancaster county. > Yep, they made the highways backwards-compatible with horse and buggy, but the new Freeway upgrades broke compatibility. I understand they are working on H&B 2.0, but the marketing team is still arguing over the buggy color, PETA is suing them over including the whip, and Al Gore is worried about the global warming implications of horse-farts. Ted From info at arin.net Thu Mar 22 15:24:57 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:24:57 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN XIX: Act Now and Save Money! Message-ID: <4602D809.4030409@arin.net> ARIN looks forward to your participation at the ARIN XIX Public Policy and Members Meeting, taking place 22-25 April 2007, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Register today to take advantage of the early registration fee of $100 before the increase to $150 on 5 April. Meeting registration and additional ARIN XIX information can be found at http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/. The meeting will take place at the Condado Plaza Hotel, where ARIN XIX attendees are eligible for a special room rate of $160 (USD) if reservations are made before 30 March. Additional hotel and travel information is available through the URL above, and updated agenda information is available at http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/agenda.html. In addition to ARIN policy proposal discussions, the meeting will also feature an informative workshop on Sunday, 22 April titled "Practical Guide to IPv6," that will provide technical, hands-on guidance in using IPv6 on your own computer and provide information on configuring routers for IPv6. Several other special events will be open to all attendees. Sunday, 22 April * A First Timer Lunch from 12:30 - 1:30 PM, where those new to the ARIN community or meetings can meet and talk with members of ARIN's Board, Advisory Council, and staff * A brief session "Introduction to the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process" will begin at 4:00 PM * The Open Policy Hour will begin at 4:30 PM * 8th Annual Foosball Tournament kicks off at 6:30 PM Monday, 23 April * The ARIN XIX Social Event, "An Evening of Enchantment" at the Soleil Beach Club from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM. More information is available at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/social.html If you are interested in any of these activities, simply make your selections on your registration form. If you have already registered, but would like to modify your choice of events to attend, simply click on the "Update Existing Registration" link available through the URL at the top of the page to access your registration information. As always, please contact ARIN Member Services at info at arin.net with any questions regarding this meeting. We look forward to seeing you in Puerto Rico! Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 22 15:55:31 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:55:31 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D35@mail> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Kevin Kargel >Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:56 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down > > >I see a lot of people discussing what each person thinks the rest of the >world should do. How about some discussion about what we each ARE doing >so we can provide some ideas and pro-active community. We have had a strategy of encouraging customers to use NAT ever since 1999, as a result our total IP address need has not changed, since we have been able to answer our own growth needs for more numbers for more customers by taking away larger blocks (/24s and the like) from customers that we originally had assigned to them. Raising the price to very high levels for larger block allocations coupled with free technical assistance in helping customers to renumber works wonders. We have a number of customers for example that use Class-B private IP addresses internally with many /24s in use who only have 6 external public IP addresses. If more organizations did that I do not think we would be so near IPv4 runout. And I am sure now the booing and hissing from the peanut gallery will start at the mention of the N-word. Fine, go F*() yourselves. >I know that I >could use some knowledge and help tuning my strategy. Please feel free >to refer me to a more appropriate venue if this is out of scope for this >area. I offer this in the spirit of community, and I would greatly >appreciate hearing about your individual actual progress toward IPv6. We are still running all IPv4. The thing that has actually concerned me in recent years is the proliferation of these low-cost edge node routers. We used to do things like buy used Cisco routers off Ebay and sell them to customers at cost, just to make sure they used a router that there was some chance of updating. But today, when you can buy a product like the Linksys RV042 for under $150 that will do all the firewalling the customer could want as well as support ipsec vpns as stable as a PIX, we have thrown in the towel on that deal. Another thing that is a concern is the tendency to do NAT in the DSL modems. Time was that both Qwest and Verizon (the DSL carriers we provision though) handed out bridged-only modems. Today you can't buy a new DSL modem from either of them that is bridged only, they all have NATs in them that are on by default, and do not speak IPv6. We do not do PPPoE so fortunately we are not utterly dependent on the client speaking it, but I do not relish the thought of having to spend time walking hundreds of customers through the steps to reset their NAT dsl modems into bridged-only mode then have them go to the store and buy IPv6 ethernet-to-ethernet firewalls, or even more frightening, connecting their Windows Vista systems directly into the public number network. And that is just the retail end users and small business customers. Among our large business customers the thought is even more scary. For example we have one that has a VPN concentrator with 60 lan2lan IPSec vpn's terminated into it from points scattered around the US. And at each of these points is an incredibly unsophisticated local contact that knows nothing about anything, and these sites have all gotten their Internet connectivity from the lowest bidder ISP in their region, there's at least a dozen different ones. And this company contracted us to set this up, about 4 years ago, and have been adding nodes ever since. > >In what seems like it should have been the first step, but is more >appropriately a later step, I have been granted an IPv6 allocation. >This will allow us to actually experiment and start constructing our >IPv6 network. My goal is to have it in place and working well before my >customers get vocal about demanding it. Plus I won't be scrambling at >the last minute. > Unless a "killer app" comes along your customers will never demand it. >I know this doesn't sound like a lot of accomplishment, but I know you >all are working under the same constraints I am (under-staffed and under >budgeted at least as regards R&D) and day-to-day business must take >priority. > My feeling is that as long as the customers have 1 single device that isn't IPv6 compliant, they are going to scream and piss and moan if we ever demand them to switch over, and for customers that everything is compliant, they are going to demand that we reconfigure their connectivity for free. Ted From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Thu Mar 22 16:01:25 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:01:25 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <1582DCBFF968F044A9A910C0AB177C9012FF3D@cliff.cdi.local> Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4054A8197@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Jim Weyand > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:12 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown > Policy Proposal > > Are there organizations that have > voluntarily returned assigned space? I love the fact that > Stanford has a /8. Do you think they could figure out how to > get by on a /20 if the Chinese government offered them a > couple of billion dollars for the /8? It looks to me like Stanford voluntarily returned their /8. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space It also looks like they aren't the only ones. Lee From lsc at prgmr.com Thu Mar 22 16:08:45 2007 From: lsc at prgmr.com (Luke S. Crawford) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:08:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: ...[on marketing IPv4]... > How do you market something that the need of which hasn't even been > proven? I think IPv6 has very real complexity advantages over 'nat hell' - complexity is expensive. the problem is that these benefits are long-term, and you only get them if everyone else switches to IPv6. > It is like trying to sell a bio-diesel car based on the idea that > "one day the oil will run out and biodiesel will be the only thing > you can use as a fuel" Look at the uptake of virtualization. As a "virtualization consultant" I've had several clients that continued to pay quite a lot to virtualize their environment after I (in the role of the "virtualization consultant" hired to be the technical help for the migration) informed them that they would gain little from the rather expensive cutover, and then be exposed to the risks of running 'public beta' quality software. I see evidence the decision makers at most companies are unable to make independant decisions outside of the core company focus. As far as I can tell from talking to them, they make strategic decisions by reading the industry press and watching for trends, rather than by understanding technology and using the best tool for the job. now, the fact that they make more money than I do would indicate that watching trends is in fact a better way of making decisions than actually understanding the technology, but what do I know? I'm just the lowly guy that gets paid to make it work. My point is that the industry has been sold on products that have no immediate benefit before, and on products that have much less long-term value than IPv6. From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 22 16:44:15 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:44:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <20070322081206.967CD6D489@mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: James Jun [mailto:james at towardex.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:15 AM >To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > > >> When ARIN runs out of allocations then you will have a situation where >> some carriers in the US will run out before others, and the problem will >> propagate downwards to their ISP customers. And eventually you will in >> fact have situations were multiple ISP's in the same city, some will be >> able to delay IPv6 switchover. Very likely it will be the deep pocket >> ISPs. So a day will come when the poorer ISPs start telling their >> customers they must switch to IPv6, and their customers, not wanting to >> spend money, will simply drop service and go to the deep pocket ISPs >> who have been able to delay IPv6 switchover, and get a few more years of >> IPv4 service before they will finally be backed into a corner and will >> have to spend money to switch over. > > >I am puzzled by the notion that somehow end-users have to spend notable >amount of money to get IPv6, when end-users often times spend money anyway >to replace their computer and associated hardware, including home/SOHO >routers as often as once every year if not even more often I was not referring to home users there. I was referring to your typical 4-40 person small business. Some of these are in fact setup like home users behind a cheap DSL router, etc. and get all their services from the ISP. Others however have put thousands of bucks into software and licensing and do not want to change. Suppose I go to customer X that has 35 people on a Microsoft Small Business Server. SBS includes Exchange 2003 which is not IPv6 compliant. Exchange 2007 is not IPv6 compliant either - although it will be after Service Pack 1 is out for it. (the damn server product hasn't even shipped yet and they are already talking about what it's service pack will be like) Exchange 2007 is not projected to be in SBS for 2-3 more years meaning SBS will not be IPv6 compliant for several more years. And it requires a 64 bit server. The upshot is that I have to tell these guys if they want to update to IPv6 right now they have to chuck out their Microsoft server and all it's client licenses and switchover to all Microsoft Enterprise stuff, buy a new 64 bit server, and break every 3rd party application they have on the damn thing. With the number of years that Microsoft stuff has to be on the market BEFORE enough service packs and patches have been released for it to be usable in a production network, we are looking at least 4-5 years out before you could replace a Microsoft SBS 2003 server with a stable Microsoft SBS server that supported IPv6. Now, repeat for all the rest of your SOHO business customers. -- all >as part of >their routine home-entertainment/office-use technology upgrades. IPv6 does >not have to be a costly dedicated upgrade in everyone's annual household >budget, or even for many small business budgets. It isn't the home residential users. We probably will put all -them- behind an IPv4-IPv6 proxy NAT anyway. It is the small businesses that have gone down the Microsoft applications road. These customers get sold a big bill of goods by Microsoft and then after their budgets have been ruined and destroyed putting the stuff in and paying people to get it to work right, they do not want to even discuss the subject of replacing their MS servers for at least another 5 years. We still have significant installed base of business customers using Win 2K. It takes 5-8 years for the memories of the horror and pain to fade and be replaced by the usual Microsoft marketing claptrap before they are ready to have their wallets liposuctioned again. Thus, if their dumb-ass ISP comes waddling in and announces 3 years after the last forcable wallet rape that they are going to have to do it all over again to support IPv6, the ISP will be found swinging from the nearest tree. >It can be gradually >migrated into their existing annual spending budgets or next year >budgets as >part of everyone's routine technology upgrades. Yes it can, but that market is nowhere near ready. Give it another decade and the IPv6 support will be slipstreamed into everything important. But not 3-4 years. >Unless of course you are >dealing with certain router vendors that charge extra $$ just for enabling >IPv6 in your firmware/OS code :) But the 'certain router vendors' problem >hasn't occurred to end-user market yet to my knowledge, just within >service-provider area (apparently it is already the carriers who are >suffering the most with IPv6 mess, not the end-users and 'poor' ISPs who >have not even enabled IPv6 yet). > >It is the *vendors*, the home CPE vendors, the software developers (major >props to Microsoft for making Vista a lot more IPv6-friendly), the access >ISPs/MSOs and content providers (youtube/Google, etc) that need to >look into >IPv6 to create a so-called "killer app" for the switch. End-user's regular >cycle of upgrading their computers and software will then >automatically pick >up IPv6 on their next upgrade. All that is needed is a transition strategy >at ISP level that would inter-operate the two protocols while the upgrades >are taking place. > All those people are trying to find the killer app to get end users to start buying television and movies on-demand, and to start buying software on-demand. They are not interested in writing a killer app for us to help IPv6. > >> >> If you want all Interent service concentrated in the >> AOL/Comcast/RoadRunners >> of the world, then I guess you might be in favor of this happening. >> >> A published and advertised T-date can help to equalize things because >> those who run short of IPv4 first, can use the published T-date to >> help educate their customers that IPv6 is inevitable, and moving to >> their competitor down the street that will not require them to switchover >> to IPv6 yet, will not in the long run save them any money. > > > >The idea of equalizing things with a T-date unfortunately again further >exacerbates the IPv4 problem. Because with all due respect, in your >perspective, it simply buys you more time and a shelter to keep reclaiming >IPv4 again and again, just so your marketing department doesn't >have to work >to keep your products competitive. You said it right there when >replying to >my suggestion to enable IPv6 in your network: you prefer to keep reclaiming >IPv4 space. competitive products are products that people want to buy. I have not had one single customer in the last 10 years ask for IPv6. None of our competitors are advertising IPv6 so I can only conclude none of their customers have asked for it either. So what work does our marketing department need to do? This has nothing to do with why we continue to reclaim our own internal IPv4 space. If we didn't reclaim space we would get space for our customers by just getting more allocated. Two different approaches to getting IPv4 for the customers is all that is. We chose the reclaim approach because it is a more responsible approach. Figure out a way to generate customer demand and interest. I have already - use of a T-date. I know how successful that is with people, the global warming people are using it very successful right now. There is nothing like a fixed date to get people's attention. And no I am not saying the T-date needs to be 2007 or something that rediculous. I have maintained from the beginning that IPv4 reclamation must be done before setting a T-date. >have little >or nothing to do with it. Remember that end-users are customers of >Internet; they are the ones who should be getting the least inconvenience. > Customers that pay more will get less inconvenience. That is always how it has worked in the past and how it will work in the future. Remember that in this big Internet scheme thing we have going, the only money that pays for anything comes from the end user customers. If we need to update things internally, the money to do that comes from them, not from us. Nobody else but the customers puts money into what we are doing. Yes, it is perhaps a sad thing that the customers will pay for our cock-up of not designing IP large enough. But in every other industry on the planet, the customers pay for cock-ups in those industries as well. They always have the choice of not buying. Ted From Kavalec at BSWA.com Thu Mar 22 17:56:29 2007 From: Kavalec at BSWA.com (G. Waleed Kavalec) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:56:29 -0600 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ Message-ID: -----Original Message----- The problem with this methodology is that it would place the burden on the backs of an already overburdened population. Costs in business are absorbed readily, so long as they are applied evenly across the board. In fact when on a level playing field more outgo translates to more income based on fixed rate markup of expenses passed to the consumer. Big business doesn't mind when their costs go up, as long as the cost for the competition increases proportionally. The real cost is passed to the consumer, who will have little to say about network organization until it is way too late. I would be very afraid that this could place the cost of Internet out of the reach of the common man. [...] Kevin ========================================= I have to lean towards Leo's take, Kevin. The real-world cost would quickly settle on the "zero" for IPv6. Yes, there would be a 'bump' for a time but that's all. Frankly (and only half tongue-in-cheek) if we really want the Joe Average world to go IPv6 the strategy is simple: put up a massive free live triple-X video and download suite of sites... accessible only via IPv6. -- Greg Kavalec System Architect Baca, Stein, White and Associates, Inc. From brian.knight at us.mizuho-sc.com Thu Mar 22 17:00:56 2007 From: brian.knight at us.mizuho-sc.com (brian.knight at us.mizuho-sc.com) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:00:56 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv6 Workshops? (was Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Cou ntdown Policy Proposal) Message-ID: <10793F3BC5C33C489C69893C14242C0905FA56B4@jupiter.chi.msusa> Hello, > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of James Jun > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:45 PM > To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; 'Rich Emmings'; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown > Policy Proposal > [snip] > Your notion that the only way to adapt to IPv6 is to set a > timeline is wrong. Ask carriers why they are not supporting > IPv6 today, and their response is "show us the money and we > will." How do these carriers make money, by moving bits. > When there is traffic in IPv6, market will adopt, plain and > simple. And to create traffic for IPv6 is to get application > writers and rest of the IT industry to realize, through mass > marketing effort, that shows IPv4 is ending soon and IPv6 is > the preferred industry solution. Is there anyone at all reaching out to the enterprise network operator community, to tell them about IPv6 and to give them some hands-on experience with it? Perhaps that would help speed adoption of v6. I know of at least one IT education firm that has a v6 class, but that's not what I had in mind. I'm thinking of something more along the lines of the IPv6 workshop being held at the ARIN meeting in April. I have in mind something where enterprise operators get an opportunity to learn the nuts and bolts of IPv6 and to play with a functioning IPv6 network. Maybe vendors or major service providers could sponsor such a workshop to be held at an industry conference, where there are many more enterprise operators in attendance. A quick Google shows a few such events were held throughout 2002-2004, but I couldn't find any held since then. -Brian Knight Network Engineer Mizuho Securities USA, Futures Division * Please note that I do not speak for my employer - only for myself. From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 22 17:07:46 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:07:46 -0000 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > And I am sure now the booing and hissing from the peanut gallery will > start at the mention of the N-word. Fine, go F*() yourselves. You won't win any friends by using that kind of language. This is supposed to be a civil discourse about Internet numbering resource policies. --Michael Dillon From kkargel at polartel.com Thu Mar 22 17:08:44 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:08:44 -0500 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D42@mail> > -----Original Message----- > From: G. Waleed Kavalec [mailto:Kavalec at BSWA.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:56 PM > To: Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] In$entive$ > > -----Original Message----- > > The problem with this methodology is that it would place the burden on > the backs of an already overburdened population. Costs in > business are > absorbed readily, so long as they are applied evenly across the board. > In fact when on a level playing field more outgo translates > to more income based on fixed rate markup of expenses passed > to the consumer. > Big business doesn't mind when their costs go up, as long as > the cost for the competition increases proportionally. The > real cost is passed to the consumer, who will have little to > say about network organization until it is way too late. > > I would be very afraid that this could place the cost of > Internet out of the reach of the common man. > [...] > > Kevin > ========================================= > > > I have to lean towards Leo's take, Kevin. > > The real-world cost would quickly settle on the "zero" for > IPv6. Yes, there would be a 'bump' for a time but that's all. > > Frankly (and only half tongue-in-cheek) if we really want the > Joe Average world to go IPv6 the strategy is simple: put up a > massive free live triple-X video and download suite of > sites... accessible only via IPv6. > > > -- > Greg Kavalec > System Architect > Baca, Stein, White and Associates, Inc. > I still maintain it is wrong not do all we can to avoid making the little guy pay for the migration. Let's try and keep access available for those inner city kids and third countries.. The people who really need the information are the same ones who will have a hard time paying for it. I like your smut idea.. maybe if countries would exempt IPv6 from porn and gambling laws for a while.. or if we could get people to realize just how many peer-to-peer file sharing sites they could have with all those IP's.. lol hmm.. lead with the carrot instead of the stick.. with a lot of refinement your idea could actually work.. Kevin $s/worry/happy,g From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 22 17:13:51 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:13:51 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Low cost edge routers, DSL gateways, firewalls, ISP business In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >I know that I > >could use some knowledge and help tuning my strategy. > Please feel free > >to refer me to a more appropriate venue if this is out of > scope for this > >area. I offer this in the spirit of community, and I would greatly > >appreciate hearing about your individual actual progress toward IPv6. > > We are still running all IPv4. The thing that has actually concerned > me in recent years is the proliferation of these low-cost edge node > routers. We used to do things like buy used Cisco routers off Ebay > and sell them to customers at cost, just to make sure they used a > router that there was some chance of updating. But today, > when you can > buy a product like the Linksys RV042 for under $150 that will do all > the firewalling the customer could want as well as support ipsec vpns > as stable as a PIX, we have thrown in the towel on that deal. This kind of topic is probably better discussed on the inet-access list. For subscription info http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list There are still some people on that list who were there 10 years ago in the ISP heyday before lots of them were consolidated or went out of business. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 22 17:26:19 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:26:19 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4054A8197@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: > > Stanford has a /8. Do you think they could figure out how to > > get by on a /20 if the Chinese government offered them a > > couple of billion dollars for the /8? > > It looks to me like Stanford voluntarily returned their /8. > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space And the Chinese government has bought into IPv6 figuratively speaking http://www.edu.cn/cernet%202_1382/ I also looks like they aren't the only ones. http://www.go6.net/ Was that Linksys WRT54G on that page? --Michael Dillon ISP technical discussions - http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 22 17:37:57 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:37:57 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Luke S. Crawford [mailto:lsc at prgmr.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:09 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy >Proposal > >My point is that the industry has been sold on products that have no >immediate benefit before, and on products that have much less long-term >value than IPv6. > By deep pockets. I don't have deep pockets and I suspect neither do you. I haven't seen the deep pockets that I think would gain from IPv6 doing much to sell it. Instead they are selling other things and sticking IPv6 in as an afterthought. (in the case of Microsoft Exchange 2007, an actual afterthought) Your not going to get many people that write for the industry press to pick up on IPv6 with this strategy. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 22 17:40:05 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:40:05 -0700 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D36@mail> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Kevin Kargel >Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:10 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] In$entive$ > > >I would be very afraid that this could place the cost of Internet out of >the reach of the common man. I have customers now who can barely afford >the $9/month for a basic internet account. If they are not running the latest version of Windows or a current Linux/unix version, the costs for them to go to IPv6 will be a lot more than an extra $10 a month. >While I agree we must deal with things as they apply to business, let's >not forget the vision of the internet and how it applies to real >individual people. It is easy to fall in to the mode of thinking of the >internet as a commercial product, and forget what it started out to be, >a tremendous communication and information medium that could be applied >universally as a social tool for the masses. If we lose sight of social >responsibility for the sake of financial responsibility then humanity >will be much the worse for our mistake. > Kill the goose that leys the golden eggs, eh? :-) Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 22 17:43:51 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:43:51 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >michael.dillon at bt.com >Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:08 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down > > >> And I am sure now the booing and hissing from the peanut gallery will >> start at the mention of the N-word. Fine, go F*() yourselves. > >You won't win any friends by using that kind of language. > I don't need to. The sales figures for NAT devices show the majority of the world has already told the NAT-haters to go F themselves. I am only merely the messenger, repeating the message that the market has already said. Ted From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 22 18:48:00 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:48:00 -0000 Subject: [ppml] IPv6 in North America Message-ID: People often paint a very bleak picture of IPv6 in North America, giving the impression that nobody is using it, nobody is planning for it, etc. This is not true... Earthlink, an ARIN member has been doing work on making IPv6 useable for consumer services. http://www.research.earthlink.net/ipv6/ There is a group in Canada organizing companies who are doing trials, planning, research, etc. http://www.ipv6canada.ca There is a North American IPv6 Task Force http://www.nav6tf.org/index.html There is a conference called the US IPv6 Summit http://www.usipv6.com/ The US government has a mandate for agencies to move to IPv6 http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/43181-1.html A Canadian company specializes in IPv6 network gateways http://www.hexago.com/ --Michael Dillon ISP technical discussions here http://inet-access.net/pipermail/list/ From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Mar 22 18:53:05 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:53:05 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv6 Workshops? (was Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4Cou ntdown Policy Proposal) References: <10793F3BC5C33C489C69893C14242C0905FA56B4@jupiter.chi.msusa> Message-ID: <02a501c76cd5$74ede4d0$413816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake > Is there anyone at all reaching out to the enterprise network operator > community, to tell them about IPv6 and to give them some hands-on > experience with it? Perhaps that would help speed adoption of v6. I've submitted an official suggestion via the ACSP that ARIN start community outreach efforts. I didn't mention hands-on events, but that's a good thought to add if ARIN acts on the suggestion (and they might not, or the members might reject it if consulted, due to the high cost of reaching and influencing people who aren't already involved in the discussion). I also question how effective outreach is going to be when we, the people who obviously care the most about this stuff, can't even manage to get IPv6 running in our own networks/homes* and the consensus seems to be "who cares; I'll upgrade a few years after IPv4 runs out". If even Google, with all the talent and cash they have, can't be bothered to turn on IPv6, what does that say about the state of things? (* My monopoly ISP has said they have no plans to _ever_ offer IPv6, and even aftermarket fw for my Linksys router blocks IPinIP if I try 6to4 to their upstream's relay.) > I know of at least one IT education firm that has a v6 class, but that's > not what I had in mind. I'm thinking of something more along the > lines of the IPv6 workshop being held at the ARIN meeting in April. I > have in mind something where enterprise operators get an > opportunity to learn the nuts and bolts of IPv6 and to play with a > functioning IPv6 network. Maybe vendors or major service providers > could sponsor such a workshop to be held at an industry conference, > where there are many more enterprise operators in attendance. If you want to reach enterprise operators, you're going to have to go to events like Networkers, Networld+Interop, etc. because few of them are going to be at "insiders" events like ARIN and NANOG meetings. However, it's not only the operators you need to convince; it's the people who control their budgets. And really, how are we going to convince the CIO of some international conglomerate that they need to convert to IPv6 when 90% of their traffic stays inside the firewall, they have a dozen legacy /16s of their own with plenty of room for growth, they're NATted to the outside world, and all their external communication is web and email traffic? About the only thing they need to upgrade to v6 is their VPN concentrator and they can keep using IPv4 for decades. These people account for a large fraction of the address space usage, but they're not asking for more on a regular basis (or ever!). Growth is coming from eyeballs and, to a lesser extent, hosters. We can't easily put hosters behind NATs, but we _can_ put the eyeballs behind NATs and tell them if they don't like it they can convert to IPv6. That's assuming the content folks ever bother dual-homing -- we need Google, YouTube, Yahoo, MySpace, ITMS, CNN, etc. to get with the program before that'll fly. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From bicknell at ufp.org Thu Mar 22 20:10:46 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:10:46 -0500 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D36@mail> References: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066706D36@mail> Message-ID: <20070323001046.GA4008@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:10:24AM -0500, Kevin Kargel wrote: > The problem with this methodology is that it would place the burden on > the backs of an already overburdened population. Costs in business are > absorbed readily, so long as they are applied evenly across the board. > In fact when on a level playing field more outgo translates to more > income based on fixed rate markup of expenses passed to the consumer. > Big business doesn't mind when their costs go up, as long as the cost > for the competition increases proportionally. The real cost is passed > to the consumer, who will have little to say about network organization > until it is way too late. I simply offered a straw man to get discussion started on if a "fee based stick" was even interesting to the group. I actually don't agree with your result. Right now the cost of IPv6 is higher than the cost of IPv4 as people are up and running with IPv4, and would likely have to upgrade something to get IPv6. Now, if you assume they are going to have to bear that cost eventually the cheapest path is to give them an incentive to do it at the lowest possible cost. Running out of IPv4 with no IPv6 deployment will mean the lowest cost is spending 10's of thousands on the black market for IP's, since you can't get to anything useful on the IPv6 Internet. In contrast, if we raise the cost of IPv4 slowly they will switch to IPv6 as soon as switching is a lower cost option. However, you can easily structure the fees different. If you want to spare the little guy and stick it to the man the fee schedule could stay the same for Extra-Small every year, go up by 1.5x each year for Medium, and go up 2x each year for large. The trick is convincing people that's more fair, or that it eases the transition to IPv6. On one thing we agree, the cost will be passed to the consumer no mater what. I think our effort should be to make that as small as possible; but it will be non-zero. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bicknell at ufp.org Thu Mar 22 20:14:15 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:14:15 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070323001415.GB4008@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 10:40:51AM -0400, Rich Emmings wrote: > > What if ARIN were to implement a new fee schedule: > > > > Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses > > 2007 Existing rates. > > 2008 2 * 2007 Rates > > > > Raising prices has the same result + worse on the resource. People will > start getting space now if they don't think they need it, rather than > waiting 2 years when they'll have to bleed through the nose. There will be > a dissensentive to return space. I did not intend the prices to apply only to new allocations, but to all existing allocations in my straw man idea. Thus there would be no incentive to get it early, you'd still pay the higher rate next year. > The complete raminifications of IPv6 are not well enough understood. Those > of us rolling towards it, are running into subtleties and nuances that like > getting porcupines to mate. One source shows over 300 /32s out there, with > about 2/3rds not in the routing table. As these are /32's, these aren't > small mom-and-pop shops. We will get there. We will not get there soon. Unfortunately, understanding it or not it's the only option on the table. I don't see anyone in the IPX, TUBA, AppleTalk or DECNet camps anymore. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Mar 22 20:43:04 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:43:04 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal References: <20070323001415.GB4008@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <03a801c76ce7$64201da0$413816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Leo Bicknell" > In a message written on Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 10:40:51AM -0400, Rich > > Emmings wrote: > > > What if ARIN were to implement a new fee schedule: > > > > > > Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses > > > 2007 Existing rates. > > > 2008 2 * 2007 Rates > > > > > ... > I did not intend the prices to apply only to new allocations, but > to all existing allocations in my straw man idea. Thus there would > be no incentive to get it early, you'd still pay the higher rate next > year. That's what I assumed you'd meant. We'd also need to start applying annual fees to IPv4 direct assignments as well, or we'd never get the big end users to give up their space. I had roughly the same idea, though with a lower multiplier. However, it's not within the realm of public policy to dictate what the fee schedule looks like. The members may decide to do this, and I encourage them to at least discuss it in their forum, but AFAIK that's off-topic for PPML. ( There's also a question of what ARIN would do with all that new revenue. Funding new staff for reclamation, outreach programs, paying vendors to implement v6 in their products, etc. are all viable possibilities. A radically different idea would be to use it to establish an endowment for ARIN that would keep fees for IPv6 low _forever_. I'm not sure how compatible any of those concepts are with the charter, though, or how palatable they'd be to the members. ) > > The complete raminifications of IPv6 are not well enough > > understood. > > Unfortunately, understanding it or not it's the only option on the > table. I don't see anyone in the IPX, TUBA, AppleTalk or > DECNet camps anymore. Those aren't viable alternatives, no, but you're deluding yourself if you think many companies (both ISPs and end users) won't see widespread NAT as a cheaper and/or easier solution than IPv6 at least in the short run. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Mar 22 21:10:27 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:10:27 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv6 in North America In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >michael.dillon at bt.com >Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:48 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: [ppml] IPv6 in North America > > > >People often paint a very bleak picture of IPv6 in North America, giving >the impression that nobody is using it, nobody is planning for it, etc. By North America I think you mean the US mainly... The problem is in the US people don't pay a lot of attention to top-down approaches, it isn't until the grass roots gets hold of it and you see a bottom-up approach that there is a lot of press about it. I would suspect most of the "let the market decide" proponents who have posted have come from the US. >This is not true... > >Earthlink, an ARIN member has been doing work on making IPv6 useable for >consumer services. >http://www.research.earthlink.net/ipv6/ The linksys firmware is cool but Earthlink should have put the effort into adding in their IPv6 features to the DD-WRT replacement firmware for these routers. What Earthlink did really does not help anybody. To take advantage of it someone will have to try to merge the code in. Really smart... NOT! Ted From jeroen at unfix.org Thu Mar 22 23:06:19 2007 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 03:06:19 +0000 Subject: [ppml] IPv6 in North America In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4603442B.4030105@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: [..] >> Earthlink, an ARIN member has been doing work on making IPv6 useable for >> consumer services. >> http://www.research.earthlink.net/ipv6/ > > The linksys firmware is cool but Earthlink should have put the > effort into adding in their IPv6 features to the DD-WRT replacement > firmware for these routers. What Earthlink did really does not help > anybody. To take advantage of it someone will have to try to merge > the code in. Really smart... NOT! It does something very simple: IPSec tunnel to their server and then gives you an IPv6 address using DHCPv6 (which is pretty fancy I must say, but quite useless from an ops perspective as you know the endpoints anyway) You accomplish the same with for instance OpenVPN, which is available for per DD-WRT: http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php?title=OpenVPN But then you don't have a 'free' server yet of course. Thus by reading: http://wiki.openwrt.org/IPv6_howto which works for DD-WRT too and sort of similar for other platforms (see the FAQ): 8<---------------------------- ipkg install aiccu Edit /etc/aiccu.conf : * get account at www.sixxs.net * put your login/passwd * configure "ipv4_interface" (usually vlan1) * comment the "tunnel_id" line if you have only one tunnel aiccu start --------------------------------->8 Works over NATs if AYIYA is chosen, or you can use heartbeats when the device is facing directly to your ISP with a public address. Of course manual configuration and static tunnels is also possible. Unfortunately only PoPs on the East Coast at the moment, but of course other ISP's are always welcome to join in to provide others, also for their own customers, ask for more details (and it's free as in beer). For people who signup: bonus credits are given for nicely explained signup reasons, so be creative ;) Thirdy, I think that Hexago's tscp tool also runs on *WRT. Greets, Jeroen (who has 2 DD-WRT boxes at home in .nl nicely doing IPv6 ;) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 311 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jrhett at svcolo.com Fri Mar 23 01:08:05 2007 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:08:05 -0700 Subject: [ppml] FW: Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <5CE2B3DB062764AF3F00BE41@hindolveston.reid.org> References: <4F65907C927B624FB5990C1025C4C996017DD079@hermes.nmmcc.com> <5CE2B3DB062764AF3F00BE41@hindolveston.reid.org> Message-ID: <460360B5.5020405@svcolo.com> Brian Reid wrote: > It's called Voluntary Illiteracy. > It's not that a person can't read, it's that they choose not to. ARIN is not the appropriate place for people who cannot read. Perhaps ARIN should initiate IP space recovery for anyone who fails this literacy test? -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri Mar 23 04:12:38 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:12:38 +0100 Subject: [ppml] IPv6 Workshops? (was Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4Cou ntdown Policy Proposal) In-Reply-To: <02a501c76cd5$74ede4d0$413816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: In case you're not yet aware, ARIN has been organizing IPv6 workshops in ARIN(/NANOG) meetings, since about 2 years ago. Next one is in San Juan de Puerto Rico, 22nd April. To register for the meeting: https://app.arin.net/meeting/registration/ I guess it will be very good if folks on this list can propose some ideas for new contents for future workshops. Regards, Jordi > De: Stephen Sprunk > Responder a: > Fecha: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:53:05 -0500 > Para: > CC: ARIN PPML > Asunto: Re: [ppml] IPv6 Workshops? (was Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4Cou > ntdown Policy Proposal) > > Thus spake >> Is there anyone at all reaching out to the enterprise network operator >> community, to tell them about IPv6 and to give them some hands-on >> experience with it? Perhaps that would help speed adoption of v6. > > I've submitted an official suggestion via the ACSP that ARIN start community > outreach efforts. I didn't mention hands-on events, but that's a good > thought to add if ARIN acts on the suggestion (and they might not, or the > members might reject it if consulted, due to the high cost of reaching and > influencing people who aren't already involved in the discussion). > > I also question how effective outreach is going to be when we, the people > who obviously care the most about this stuff, can't even manage to get IPv6 > running in our own networks/homes* and the consensus seems to be "who cares; > I'll upgrade a few years after IPv4 runs out". If even Google, with all the > talent and cash they have, can't be bothered to turn on IPv6, what does that > say about the state of things? > > (* My monopoly ISP has said they have no plans to _ever_ offer IPv6, and > even aftermarket fw for my Linksys router blocks IPinIP if I try 6to4 to > their upstream's relay.) > >> I know of at least one IT education firm that has a v6 class, but that's >> not what I had in mind. I'm thinking of something more along the >> lines of the IPv6 workshop being held at the ARIN meeting in April. I >> have in mind something where enterprise operators get an >> opportunity to learn the nuts and bolts of IPv6 and to play with a >> functioning IPv6 network. Maybe vendors or major service providers >> could sponsor such a workshop to be held at an industry conference, >> where there are many more enterprise operators in attendance. > > If you want to reach enterprise operators, you're going to have to go to > events like Networkers, Networld+Interop, etc. because few of them are going > to be at "insiders" events like ARIN and NANOG meetings. However, it's not > only the operators you need to convince; it's the people who control their > budgets. And really, how are we going to convince the CIO of some > international conglomerate that they need to convert to IPv6 when 90% of > their traffic stays inside the firewall, they have a dozen legacy /16s of > their own with plenty of room for growth, they're NATted to the outside > world, and all their external communication is web and email traffic? About > the only thing they need to upgrade to v6 is their VPN concentrator and they > can keep using IPv4 for decades. > > These people account for a large fraction of the address space usage, but > they're not asking for more on a regular basis (or ever!). Growth is coming > from eyeballs and, to a lesser extent, hosters. We can't easily put hosters > behind NATs, but we _can_ put the eyeballs behind NATs and tell them if they > don't like it they can convert to IPv6. That's assuming the content folks > ever bother dual-homing -- we need Google, YouTube, Yahoo, MySpace, ITMS, > CNN, etc. to get with the program before that'll fly. > > S > > Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything > CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." > K5SSS --Isaac Asimov > > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From stephen at sprunk.org Fri Mar 23 04:32:22 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 03:32:22 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv6 Workshops? (was Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4Cou ntdown Policy Proposal) References: Message-ID: <047601c76d25$d1012840$413816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" > In case you're not yet aware, ARIN has been organizing IPv6 > workshops in ARIN(/NANOG) meetings, since about 2 years ago. > ... > I guess it will be very good if folks on this list can propose some ideas > for new contents for future workshops. I applaud ARIN and NANOG for doing this, but knowing _how_ to do something is just the first step. Engineers do not have the authority to add millions of dollars to an IT budget to make the IPv6 transition. We need to reach out to the CIOs and CFOs that control those budgets, people who in most cases neither know nor care who ARIN and NANOG are. Engineers alone do not drive implementations, as much as we'd like to convince ourselves that we're that important. We can only implement what the business folks give us money to do, so if we want to move to IPv6, we need to make a concerted, visible, and expensive (!)effort to educate the people with control of the purse strings about the necessity of doing so. As I said, I've submitted a suggestion per the ACSP for ARIN to pursue such efforts. Those who agree (or disagree) are welcome to do so as well. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Mar 23 05:25:08 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:25:08 -0000 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <20070323001046.GA4008@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: > However, you can easily structure the fees different. If you want > to spare the little guy and stick it to the man the fee schedule > could stay the same for Extra-Small every year, go up by 1.5x each > year for Medium, and go up 2x each year for large. The trick is > convincing people that's more fair, or that it eases the transition > to IPv6. Really, this kind of discussion doesn't belong on this list. ARIN policy does not deal with fees. That means that fees cannot be used as a policy tool and it means that the public policy process can't change the fees. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Mar 23 05:28:33 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:28:33 -0000 Subject: [ppml] IPv6 in North America In-Reply-To: <4603442B.4030105@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: > You accomplish the same with for instance OpenVPN, which is available > for per DD-WRT: http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php?title=OpenVPN > But then you don't have a 'free' server yet of course. > Jeroen > (who has 2 DD-WRT boxes at home in .nl nicely doing IPv6 ;) This is all great stuff but it really belongs on an ISP mailing list such as inet-access http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list -Michael Dillon From steve.mccollum at hewitt.com Fri Mar 23 07:48:39 2007 From: steve.mccollum at hewitt.com (Steve McCollum) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:48:39 -0500 Subject: [ppml] CN=Steve McCollum/OU=National/O=Hewitt Associates is out of the office. Message-ID: Regarding your message: PPML Digest, Vol 21, Issue 64 I will be out of the office starting 23-Mar-2007 and will not return until 26-Mar-2007. In an emergency, call or SMS 847-343-0827. I can also receive email on my BlackBerry as well as use SameTime. The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Fri Mar 23 08:48:38 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:48:38 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: <45FEE18C.2000809@psg.com> References: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> <45FEE18C.2000809@psg.com> Message-ID: At 20:16 +0100 3/19/07, Randy Bush wrote: >Daniel Corbe wrote: >> What exactly brought the lawsuit on to begin with? What did ARIN >> deny Kreman from doing that Kreman thought it appropriate to take >> legal action? > >and what requirements does folk's not keeping up with old news place on >arin policy? The reason I am responding to this openly is because I think there is a requirement placed upon the policy process because folks don't always have the capability of knowing the history of what happens at ARIN. My first response to this was in the vein of - someone who is new to the process is asking for some orientation to "what's going on?" After seeing a detailed message on the topic, it's perfectly alright to seek further background instead of leaping to conclusions. If there were an "all things ARIN wiki" page, seeking detailed information would be a breeze. During my efforts to just say "the best information on this topic is from the ARIN legal council" I found that it was quite hard to find the information on this on the web site. For instance - without some assistance off-list, I would have never thought to look until the "Media" link for a press release. I looked for "Press Release" or "Announcements" which were either absent or led nowhere. Second I tried the ARIN web site search for "press release" "lawsuit" and "law suit" and got no document hits. Cutting further to the chase, it wasn't until I asked a few folks in person (at the IETF) and got the answer from Member Services that I found the links to the data I wanted to supply as the answer to the above question. This is one case - but - the requirement is that for ARIN to maintain a knowledgeable audience of policy input providers (the folks on PPML) there has to be a way for newcomers to be able to ramp up quickly. Yes, part of ramping up that is question asking is a burden on those of us who already know but that's life. If we don't like it, we have to put more emphasis on having a document store or library or web site that has information at the ready. I want to emphasize that the data I wanted was on the web site, there was no hiding of it. The problem was mine - I couldn't locate it efficiently (meaning, in my "spare" time that I dedicate to performing my duties as a designated member representative). I figure if I, someone with a history of working for and with ARIN has a hard time, either I'm dim-witted or the data isn't all that obvious. Sarcasm aside, I leave it to the reader to decide what the cause may be - but at least you know what my motivation is for saying: The public policy process requires a means for any person to find the data they need to make a judgement on any policy proposal in an efficient manner to the extent that is reasonable. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Fri Mar 23 08:48:38 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:48:38 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: <45FEE18C.2000809@psg.com> References: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> <45FEE18C.2000809@psg.com> Message-ID: At 20:16 +0100 3/19/07, Randy Bush wrote: >Daniel Corbe wrote: >> What exactly brought the lawsuit on to begin with? What did ARIN >> deny Kreman from doing that Kreman thought it appropriate to take >> legal action? > >and what requirements does folk's not keeping up with old news place on >arin policy? The reason I am responding to this openly is because I think there is a requirement placed upon the policy process because folks don't always have the capability of knowing the history of what happens at ARIN. My first response to this was in the vein of - someone who is new to the process is asking for some orientation to "what's going on?" After seeing a detailed message on the topic, it's perfectly alright to seek further background instead of leaping to conclusions. If there were an "all things ARIN wiki" page, seeking detailed information would be a breeze. During my efforts to just say "the best information on this topic is from the ARIN legal council" I found that it was quite hard to find the information on this on the web site. For instance - without some assistance off-list, I would have never thought to look until the "Media" link for a press release. I looked for "Press Release" or "Announcements" which were either absent or led nowhere. Second I tried the ARIN web site search for "press release" "lawsuit" and "law suit" and got no document hits. Cutting further to the chase, it wasn't until I asked a few folks in person (at the IETF) and got the answer from Member Services that I found the links to the data I wanted to supply as the answer to the above question. This is one case - but - the requirement is that for ARIN to maintain a knowledgeable audience of policy input providers (the folks on PPML) there has to be a way for newcomers to be able to ramp up quickly. Yes, part of ramping up that is question asking is a burden on those of us who already know but that's life. If we don't like it, we have to put more emphasis on having a document store or library or web site that has information at the ready. I want to emphasize that the data I wanted was on the web site, there was no hiding of it. The problem was mine - I couldn't locate it efficiently (meaning, in my "spare" time that I dedicate to performing my duties as a designated member representative). I figure if I, someone with a history of working for and with ARIN has a hard time, either I'm dim-witted or the data isn't all that obvious. Sarcasm aside, I leave it to the reader to decide what the cause may be - but at least you know what my motivation is for saying: The public policy process requires a means for any person to find the data they need to make a judgement on any policy proposal in an efficient manner to the extent that is reasonable. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From dcorbe at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 09:32:40 2007 From: dcorbe at gmail.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:32:40 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Understanding the ARIN lawsuit In-Reply-To: References: <735E6901-035A-4EA9-B316-1F470E3D613B@gmail.com> <45FEE18C.2000809@psg.com> Message-ID: I didn't particularly appreciate the tone of Randy's response but he is right. If one finds themselves in a situation where their efforts to locate said background information does not succeed, one is always welcome to look for their answer in the mailing list archives. If said background information had indeed been discussed on the list previously, it would be relatively easy to locate within the archives. Plenty of ways to get archive access to public mailing lists. -Daniel On Mar 23, 2007, at 8:48 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > At 20:16 +0100 3/19/07, Randy Bush wrote: >> Daniel Corbe wrote: >>> What exactly brought the lawsuit on to begin with? What did ARIN >>> deny Kreman from doing that Kreman thought it appropriate to take >>> legal action? >> >> and what requirements does folk's not keeping up with old news >> place on >> arin policy? > > The reason I am responding to this openly is because I think there > is a requirement placed upon the policy process because folks don't > always have the capability of knowing the history of what happens > at ARIN. > > My first response to this was in the vein of - someone who is new > to the process is asking for some orientation to "what's going on?" > After seeing a detailed message on the topic, it's perfectly > alright to seek further background instead of leaping to conclusions. > > If there were an "all things ARIN wiki" page, seeking detailed > information would be a breeze. During my efforts to just say "the > best information on this topic is from the ARIN legal council" I > found that it was quite hard to find the information on this on the > web site. > > For instance - without some assistance off-list, I would have never > thought to look until the "Media" link for a press release. I > looked for "Press Release" or "Announcements" which were either > absent or led nowhere. > > Second I tried the ARIN web site search for "press release" > "lawsuit" and "law suit" and got no document hits. Cutting further > to the chase, it wasn't until I asked a few folks in person (at the > IETF) and got the answer from Member Services that I found the > links to the data I wanted to supply as the answer to the above > question. > > This is one case - but - the requirement is that for ARIN to > maintain a knowledgeable audience of policy input providers (the > folks on PPML) there has to be a way for newcomers to be able to > ramp up quickly. Yes, part of ramping up that is question asking > is a burden on those of us who already know but that's life. If we > don't like it, we have to put more emphasis on having a document > store or library or web site that has information at the ready. > > I want to emphasize that the data I wanted was on the web site, > there was no hiding of it. The problem was mine - I couldn't > locate it efficiently (meaning, in my "spare" time that I dedicate > to performing my duties as a designated member representative). I > figure if I, someone with a history of working for and with ARIN > has a hard time, either I'm dim-witted or the data isn't all that > obvious. Sarcasm aside, I leave it to the reader to decide what > the cause may be - but at least you know what my motivation is for > saying: > > The public policy process requires a means for any person to find > the data they need to make a judgement on any policy proposal in an > efficient manner to the extent that is reasonable. > > -- > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-=-=-=- > Edward Lewis > +1-571-434-5468 > NeuStar > > Sarcasm doesn't scale. From Kavalec at BSWA.com Fri Mar 23 10:36:20 2007 From: Kavalec at BSWA.com (G. Waleed Kavalec) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:36:20 -0600 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ Message-ID: That's why I sain "only half tounge-in-cheek". Put some savvy marketing types together with some techies and I have no doubt a real-world version would emerge. The key being the carrot. (It doesn't have to be X rated.) -- Greg Kavalec System Architect Baca, Stein, White and Associates, Inc. (281) 342-2646 office (281) 344-7515 cell -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:09 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] In$entive$ [...] I like your smut idea.. maybe if countries would exempt IPv6 from porn and gambling laws for a while.. or if we could get people to realize just how many peer-to-peer file sharing sites they could have with all those IP's.. lol hmm.. lead with the carrot instead of the stick.. with a lot of refinement your idea could actually work.. Kevin $s/worry/happy,g From bicknell at ufp.org Fri Mar 23 18:05:58 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:05:58 -0500 Subject: [ppml] In$entive$ In-Reply-To: References: <20070323001046.GA4008@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <20070323220558.GA78815@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:25:08AM -0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > Really, this kind of discussion doesn't belong on this list. ARIN policy > does not deal with fees. That means that fees cannot be used as a policy > tool and it means that the public policy process can't change the fees. I am open to suggestions of more appropriate places. While I agree fees are not a policy matter they come up when discussing this topic and are thus intertwined with policy. While clearly we would send a recommendation to the ARIN consultation policy this seems like a more useful place to have the discussion since there is no firm recommendation to be made at this time. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jafo at tummy.com Fri Mar 23 19:41:30 2007 From: jafo at tummy.com (Sean Reifschneider) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:41:30 -0600 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <20070322082910.GA18488@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20070322080415.GA24667@tummy.com> <20070322082910.GA18488@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <20070323234130.GA11102@tummy.com> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:29:10AM +0000, bmanning at karoshi.com wrote: > data point. from the IETF this week, it was announced that COMCAST > was ready to start the largest v6 rollout (in the US) starting this That is extremely cool. I've contacted my upstreams, and one is expecting to add IPv6 within the next year. The other one is checking with their network engineers, and has been for days and days, so I'm not optimistic that they're right on top of it. ;-) Thanks, Sean -- "Self-taught just means that you don't have to get rid of other people's prejudices as well as your own." -- Sean Reifschneider, 1997 Sean Reifschneider, Member of Technical Staff tummy.com, ltd. - Linux Consulting since 1995: Ask me about High Availability From bmanning at karoshi.com Fri Mar 23 22:09:01 2007 From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:09:01 +0000 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <20070323234130.GA11102@tummy.com> References: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20070322080415.GA24667@tummy.com> <20070322082910.GA18488@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20070323234130.GA11102@tummy.com> Message-ID: <20070324020901.GB3106@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:41:30PM -0600, Sean Reifschneider wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:29:10AM +0000, bmanning at karoshi.com wrote: > > data point. from the IETF this week, it was announced that COMCAST > > was ready to start the largest v6 rollout (in the US) starting this > > That is extremely cool. > > I've contacted my upstreams, and one is expecting to add IPv6 within the > next year. The other one is checking with their network engineers, and has > been for days and days, so I'm not optimistic that they're right on top of > it. ;-) > > Thanks, > Sean no promises... :) --bill From aaron at wholesaleinternet.com Sat Mar 24 09:55:33 2007 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.com (aaron at wholesaleinternet.com) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:55:33 -0600 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <20070323234130.GA11102@tummy.com> References: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20070322080415.GA24667@tummy.com> <20070322082910.GA18488@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20070323234130.GA11102@tummy.com> Message-ID: <20070324075533.242jm679s04k88kw@www.wholesaleinternet.com> Quoting Sean Reifschneider : > > I've contacted my upstreams, and one is expecting to add IPv6 within the > next year. The other one is checking with their network engineers, and has > been for days and days, so I'm not optimistic that they're right on top of > it. ;-) Yea. I contacted one of my upstreams 2 years ago about routing IPv6 and they said they'd get back to me in a few days. I guess a "few" days is about 700. Aaron From RJohnson at newedgenetworks.com Mon Mar 26 13:55:02 2007 From: RJohnson at newedgenetworks.com (Johnson, Ron) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:55:02 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... Message-ID: >>Quoting Sean Reifschneider : >> I've contacted my upstreams, and one is expecting to add IPv6 within the >> next year. The other one is checking with their network engineers, and has >> been for days and days, so I'm not optimistic that they're right on top of >> it. ;-) > Yea. I contacted one of my upstreams 2 years ago about routing IPv6 > and they said they'd get back to me in a few days. I guess a "few" > days is about 700. > Aaron Ok, I am going to put on my smarty pants... Since the release of RFC-1918 and CIDR, the pressure on address space has decreased significantly. For the most part we are able to live within our means. We make our downstreams justify address requests, we press for 1918 use with NAT when ever possible, and we recycle disconnected customer blocks regularly. As a mid-sized ISP, we just don't feel the drive to change our entire address scheme for no good reason. My management certainly does not want large scale disruptions in service to perform what is seen as unnecessary renumbering. If ARIN were in fact offering an exchange program where we would receive vastly increased sized IPv6 allocations for a greatly reduced fee over the IPv4 blocks. A case could be made on the economics of changing to v6. Otherwise, the folks that actually run our businesses that we work in, (Well some of us anyways) have no justification to act upon this whole new fangled IP address scheme. Remember, that people making the business decisions for the most part do not understand the technical, so technical arguments for network modifications requires an economic reason. Right now, the conversion with management over IPv6 goes like this: ENG: Hey, err, we are considering renumbering the backbone to support IPv6. MGT: Why? ENG: Because IPv4 is going to run out, and we need to be ready for the future. MGT: When exactly is this drop dead date of address space running out? ENG: Well, sometime soon, perhaps in the next 5 years. MGT: What does this entail? ENG: Renumbering all the backbone IP addresses, training all the operations and support staff to understand the new IP scheme. A number of change windows, a allocation fee from ARIN, a audit to ensure all devices support the new Scheme... Etc... MGT: Come back in four years. Ron Johnson New Edge Networks. From dcorbe at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 14:06:25 2007 From: dcorbe at gmail.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:06:25 -0400 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C8F46B2-9F96-49A4-B9C6-877892F2EB32@gmail.com> An IPv6 allocation (even an end user allocation) is already vastly larger than the typical IPv4 allocation On Mar 26, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Johnson, Ron wrote: > >>> Quoting Sean Reifschneider : > > >>> I've contacted my upstreams, and one is expecting to add IPv6 within > the >>> next year. The other one is checking with their network engineers, > and has >>> been for days and days, so I'm not optimistic that they're right on > top of >>> it. ;-) > > >> Yea. I contacted one of my upstreams 2 years ago about routing IPv6 >> and they said they'd get back to me in a few days. I guess a "few" >> days is about 700. > >> Aaron > > > Ok, I am going to put on my smarty pants... > Since the release of RFC-1918 and CIDR, the pressure on address space > has decreased significantly. > For the most part we are able to live within our means. > We make our downstreams justify address requests, we press for 1918 > use > with NAT when ever possible, > and we recycle disconnected customer blocks regularly. > > As a mid-sized ISP, we just don't feel the drive to change our entire > address scheme for no good > reason. My management certainly does not want large scale > disruptions in > service to perform what is > seen as unnecessary renumbering. > > If ARIN were in fact offering an exchange program where we would > receive > vastly increased sized IPv6 allocations > for a greatly reduced fee over the IPv4 blocks. A case could be > made on > the economics of changing > to v6. Otherwise, the folks that actually run our businesses that we > work in, (Well some of us anyways) have no > justification to act upon this whole new fangled IP address scheme. > Remember, that people making the business > decisions for the most part do not understand the technical, so > technical arguments for network modifications > requires an economic reason. > > Right now, the conversion with management over IPv6 goes like this: > ENG: Hey, err, we are considering renumbering the backbone to support > IPv6. > MGT: Why? > ENG: Because IPv4 is going to run out, and we need to be ready for the > future. > MGT: When exactly is this drop dead date of address space running out? > ENG: Well, sometime soon, perhaps in the next 5 years. > MGT: What does this entail? > ENG: Renumbering all the backbone IP addresses, training all the > operations and support staff to understand the new IP scheme. A number > of change windows, a allocation fee from ARIN, a audit to ensure all > devices support the new Scheme... Etc... > MGT: Come back in four years. > > > Ron Johnson > New Edge Networks. > > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From info at arin.net Mon Mar 26 14:26:14 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:26:14 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN XIX - Policy Proposals Message-ID: <46081046.3030300@arin.net> The following policy proposals have been under discussion on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List. 2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria 2007-1: Reinstatement of PGP Authentication Method 2007-2: Documentation of the Mail-From Authentication Method 2007-3: Documentation of the X.509 Authentication Method 2007-4: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "interim" consideration 2007-5: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification 2007-6: IPv4 PI minimum size change 2007-7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications 2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy 2007-10: End Site Immediate Need Policy 2007-11: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal The full text for each proposal can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html The proposals will be presented for consideration at the upcoming ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on 23-24 April 2007. Also on the agenda will be two panel discussions. On Monday will be the 'Legacy Address Space Panel' and on Tuesday, the 'IPv4 Discussion Panel.' Information about these panels can be found at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/legacy_panel.html http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/ipv4_panel.html There is still time to register for ARIN XIX; information is available at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/ Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From stephen at sprunk.org Mon Mar 26 15:30:33 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:30:33 -0500 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... References: Message-ID: <01f001c76fde$00f83d80$4f3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Johnson, Ron" > Ok, I am going to put on my smarty pants... > Since the release of RFC-1918 and CIDR, the pressure on > address space has decreased significantly. > For the most part we are able to live within our means. > We make our downstreams justify address requests, we press > for 1918 use with NAT when ever possible, and we recycle > disconnected customer blocks regularly. I'd say "good for you", but you don't have a choice ... all of the above is required by the v4 policies :) > As a mid-sized ISP, we just don't feel the drive to change our entire > address scheme for no good reason. My management certainly > does not want large scale disruptions in service to perform what > is seen as unnecessary renumbering. > > If ARIN were in fact offering an exchange program where we > would receive vastly increased sized IPv6 allocations for a greatly > reduced fee over the IPv4 blocks. A case could be made on > the economics of changing to v6. Adding v6 to your network isn't just "renumbering". You add it on top of v4. Current ARIN policies/fees basically boil down to "if you have v4, you can get v6 for free", plus the v6 blocks are positively huge compared to the v4 blocks you're spending endless man-hours shoehorning yourself into. Unfortunately, until there's a good way for v6-only hosts to talk to v4-only hosts, or everyone goes dual-stack (ha!), you can't turn off IPv4. And that's a major part of the problem: going to v6 today means you have to maintain two protocols, which means instead of the reduced cost and complexity that v6 should bring, you see your costs double. In the long term, getting up to speed on v6 now will save you money and headaches, but for managers who are oriented towards this quarter's profits and ignore anything after that (sadly, most of them), it makes no sense to do it until the death of IPv4 is imminent. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Mar 26 18:42:05 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:42:05 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN XIX - Policy Proposals In-Reply-To: <46081046.3030300@arin.net> References: <46081046.3030300@arin.net> Message-ID: 13 policies + 2 panels in 2 days. I can visualize Mr. Curran now: "the lines at the mic are closed." At 14:26 -0400 3/26/07, Member Services wrote: >The following policy proposals have been under discussion on the ARIN >Public Policy Mailing List. > >2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria >2007-1: Reinstatement of PGP Authentication Method >2007-2: Documentation of the Mail-From Authentication Method >2007-3: Documentation of the X.509 Authentication Method >2007-4: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "interim" consideration >2007-5: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification >2007-6: IPv4 PI minimum size change >2007-7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments >2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications >2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy >2007-10: End Site Immediate Need Policy >2007-11: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy >2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal > >The full text for each proposal can be found at: >http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html > >The proposals will be presented for consideration at the upcoming ARIN >XIX Public Policy Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on 23-24 April 2007. > >Also on the agenda will be two panel discussions. On Monday will be the >'Legacy Address Space Panel' and on Tuesday, the 'IPv4 Discussion >Panel.' Information about these panels can be found at: >http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/legacy_panel.html >http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/ipv4_panel.html > >There is still time to register for ARIN XIX; information is available at: >http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/ > >Regards, > >Member Services >American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > >_______________________________________________ >This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List >(PPML at arin.net). >Manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From bmanning at karoshi.com Mon Mar 26 21:23:54 2007 From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:23:54 +0000 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070327012354.GB8009@vacation.karoshi.com.> > Ok, I am going to put on my smarty pants... > Since the release of RFC-1918 and CIDR, the pressure on address space > has decreased significantly. > For the most part we are able to live within our means. > We make our downstreams justify address requests, we press for 1918 use > with NAT when ever possible, > and we recycle disconnected customer blocks regularly. > > As a mid-sized ISP, we just don't feel the drive to change our entire > address scheme for no good > reason. My management certainly does not want large scale disruptions in > service to perform what is > seen as unnecessary renumbering. reasonable, prudent, exemplary actions. bravo. > If ARIN were in fact offering an exchange program where we would receive > vastly increased sized IPv6 allocations > for a greatly reduced fee over the IPv4 blocks. A case could be made on > the economics of changing hum... i think ARIN has a very liberal IPv6 policy in place at the moment. Pragmatically, you can get the functional equivalent of the -ENTIRE- IPv4 space for the annual registration cost of... (wait for it) zero dollars does that qualify as vastly increased size and greatly reduced fees? > to v6. Otherwise, the folks that actually run our businesses that we > work in, (Well some of us anyways) have no > justification to act upon this whole new fangled IP address scheme. > Remember, that people making the business > decisions for the most part do not understand the technical, so > technical arguments for network modifications > requires an economic reason. > ok... lets take a peek at this in a mo. > Right now, the conversion with management over IPv6 goes like this: > ENG: Hey, err, we are considering renumbering the backbone to support > IPv6. > MGT: Why? > ENG: Because IPv4 is going to run out, and we need to be ready for the > future. > MGT: When exactly is this drop dead date of address space running out? > ENG: Well, sometime soon, perhaps in the next 5 years. > MGT: What does this entail? > ENG: Renumbering all the backbone IP addresses, training all the > operations and support staff to understand the new IP scheme. A number > of change windows, a allocation fee from ARIN, a audit to ensure all > devices support the new Scheme... Etc... > MGT: Come back in four years. this conversation is why ENG are not MGT... wrong justification. :) (well its the right justification but addressing (pun) the wrong problem). If I am use the analogy here. The energy market. California in the early 2000's. Market deregulated, many players, costs wer suposed to go down, so the state (and others) did not want to get into long term contracts. The spot market would consistantly give better deals.... Until the supplies ran out (plant shutdowns). Energy costs skyrocketed. the right argument to make to mgmt is, "small, incremental costs now will give us a seemless, smooth transition when the event occurs since we will have had the time to work outthe prolems. Waiting till the last momeny/year will cause the costs to be much higher and the transition much worse - causing our customers to re-evaluate their use of our services." or something like that. > > > Ron Johnson > New Edge Networks. > > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From Alain_Durand at cable.comcast.com Mon Mar 26 23:23:48 2007 From: Alain_Durand at cable.comcast.com (Durand, Alain) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:23:48 -0400 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <20070327012354.GB8009@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: > the right argument to make to mgmt is, "small, > incremental costs now will give us a seemless, > smooth transition when the event occurs > since we will have had the time to work out the prolems. > Waiting till the last momeny/year will cause the costs to be > much higher and the transition much worse - causing our customers to > re-evaluate their use of our services." Or, in other words, risk management and business continuity. - Alain. From leo.vegoda at icann.org Tue Mar 27 06:28:11 2007 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:28:11 +0100 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <01f001c76fde$00f83d80$4f3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <01f001c76fde$00f83d80$4f3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: On Mar 26, 2007, at 8:30 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Thus spake "Johnson, Ron" >> Ok, I am going to put on my smarty pants... >> Since the release of RFC-1918 and CIDR, the pressure on >> address space has decreased significantly. >> For the most part we are able to live within our means. >> We make our downstreams justify address requests, we press >> for 1918 use with NAT when ever possible, and we recycle >> disconnected customer blocks regularly. > > I'd say "good for you", but you don't have a choice ... all of the > above is > required by the v4 policies :) I'm confused, I didn't think ARIN's IPv4 policy promoted the use of NAT. Did I misunderstand? -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison From stephen at sprunk.org Tue Mar 27 10:12:50 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:12:50 -0500 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... References: <01f001c76fde$00f83d80$4f3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <005e01c7707e$df448b70$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Leo Vegoda" > I'm confused, I didn't think ARIN's IPv4 policy promoted the use of NAT. > Did I misunderstand? The only direct mention of private addressing is 4.3.5, but the justification requirements -- and the difficulty of getting customers to provide the necessary information -- effectively promote the use of NAT. Several ISPs I've gotten connectivity from will automatically assign a /24 or smaller (business) or /32 (residential), regardless of customer need, based on the assumption you're going to be using NAT; if you want more than that, they make you fill out endless paperwork, pay additional fees, etc. There appears to be an unspoken assumption that if you give people small enough blocks, that's automatically "efficient utilization" because you can't use a block "inefficiently" if it's so small it's only useful for NAT. While that isn't ARIN policy per se, it's the logical effect of the policies and fee schedule, and I think that it's at least somewhat intentional. We are encouraging NAT by our actions, if not by our words. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Tue Mar 27 11:52:47 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:52:47 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN XIX - Policy Proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB405529178@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Edward Lewis > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 6:42 PM > To: Member Services > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN XIX - Policy Proposals > > 13 policies + 2 panels in 2 days. I can visualize Mr. Curran now: > "the lines at the mic are closed." An excellent reason to express your opinion now, before the rush at the mike. Lee From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Tue Mar 27 12:07:07 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:07:07 -0400 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4055291B9@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Johnson, Ron > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 1:55 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... > > If ARIN were in fact offering an exchange program where we > would receive vastly increased sized IPv6 allocations for a > greatly reduced fee over the IPv4 blocks. A case could be > made on the economics of changing to v6. How vast? How great? http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html ARIN has been waiving fees for IPv6 allocations for members [1] for several years. That waiver expires at the end of this year. Fees for IPv6 assignments are all-but-waived, at $500; same expiration. As an ISP, the minimum allocation you would receive is a /32 [2]; as an end-user, the minimum assignment would be a /48 [3]. What more can we do? Lee [1] Members mean organizations with allocations, or people/ organizations who pay a $500 annual membership fee. [2] 2^32 subnets (each subnet being 2^64 addresses). [3] 2^16 subnets (each subnet being 2^64 addresses). From aaron at wholesaleinternet.com Tue Mar 27 12:23:17 2007 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.com (Aaron Wendel) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:23:17 -0500 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4055291B9@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4055291B9@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: <033601c7708c$3a1eae10$ae5c0a30$@com> Unfortunately this is an issue that's going to have to be forced. Either by a major government or the major RIRs. It's like HDTV. Stations are all flocking to convert channels to HDTV not because it's somehow better but because the FCC mandated it several years ago. The same will have to happen with IPv6. The industry is to widespread and fragmented to make a concerted effort on its own. If the RIRs gave everyone 10 years to convert or lose your ability to route packets you would see a transition much like the TV industry, IPv6 starting to pop up with IPv4 and eventually taking over as IPv4 became irrelevant and everyone converted to meet new requirements. Aaron From christopher.morrow at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 12:44:51 2007 From: christopher.morrow at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:44:51 -0400 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <20070323234130.GA11102@tummy.com> References: <20070320233652.GC37431@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20070322080415.GA24667@tummy.com> <20070322082910.GA18488@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20070323234130.GA11102@tummy.com> Message-ID: <75cb24520703270944k14066ce4ib27ca22ce83cad5b@mail.gmail.com> On 3/23/07, Sean Reifschneider wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:29:10AM +0000, bmanning at karoshi.com wrote: > > data point. from the IETF this week, it was announced that COMCAST > > was ready to start the largest v6 rollout (in the US) starting this > > That is extremely cool. note that as near as comcast has saidin public meetings the v6 rollout they are talking about is ONLY for their management capabilities, it does NOT include user-v6 access... (aside from existing 6-over-4 tunnels that any providers don't inhibit already). -chris From bmanning at karoshi.com Tue Mar 27 12:52:36 2007 From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:52:36 +0000 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <033601c7708c$3a1eae10$ae5c0a30$@com> References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4055291B9@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> <033601c7708c$3a1eae10$ae5c0a30$@com> Message-ID: <20070327165236.GB16085@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 11:23:17AM -0500, Aaron Wendel wrote: > > Unfortunately this is an issue that's going to have to be forced. Either by > a major government or the major RIRs. forced? are you willing to hand over your router enable pswds to ARIN or your local LEO's? Even if you are, I'm not persuaded ARIN would be willing to take them. The forcing function must come from other vectors. --bill > Aaron > From stephen at sprunk.org Tue Mar 27 13:18:31 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:18:31 -0500 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4055291B9@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com><033601c7708c$3a1eae10$ae5c0a30$@com> <20070327165236.GB16085@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <016901c77093$fc6cca40$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 11:23:17AM -0500, Aaron Wendel wrote: >> Unfortunately this is an issue that's going to have to be forced. >> Either by a major government or the major RIRs. > > forced? are you willing to hand over your router enable pswds to ARIN > or your local LEO's? Even if you are, I'm not persuaded ARIN would > be willing to take them. The forcing function must come from > other vectors. You know that's not how it would work. The FCC has jurisdiction over "information services", including the Internet. All it would take is for them to issue one regulation applying substantial fines for anyone who offers IPv4 service without also offerring IPv6 service, and everyone would magically find the time and money necessary to enable IPv6 in order to avoid those fines. However, the FCC has (for better or worse) clearly stated their position is that the anarchy and chaos of letting the market decide how the Internet is run is preferable to heavy-handed regulation that would stifle creativity and growth. This remarkable (and rare) example of regulatory restraint has been a boon to all of us, and we should do everything we can to avoid convincing the FCC that they are wrong. As far as ARIN, well, there's really nothing ARIN can do except make it impossible (or ridiculously expensive) to receive/renew IPv4 allocations/assignments, and the debate about the "count-down" proposal seems to indicate that there is no clear consensus supporting that today. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Tue Mar 27 13:42:47 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:42:47 +0100 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <75cb24520703270944k14066ce4ib27ca22ce83cad5b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Just a side note ... I guess you mean 6in4 (protocol 41) or 6to4 (also protocol 41, but using a 6to4 prefix), or both. 6over4 is a different transition technology which requires IPv4 multicast, which typically is not the case. Regards, Jordi > De: Christopher Morrow > Responder a: > Fecha: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:44:51 -0400 > Para: Sean Reifschneider > CC: > Asunto: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... > > On 3/23/07, Sean Reifschneider wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:29:10AM +0000, bmanning at karoshi.com wrote: >>> data point. from the IETF this week, it was announced that COMCAST >>> was ready to start the largest v6 rollout (in the US) starting this >> >> That is extremely cool. > > note that as near as comcast has saidin public meetings the v6 rollout > they are talking about is ONLY for their management capabilities, it > does NOT include user-v6 access... (aside from existing 6-over-4 > tunnels that any providers don't inhibit already). > > -chris > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 27 15:25:09 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:25:09 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <20070327012354.GB8009@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >bmanning at karoshi.com >Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 6:24 PM >To: Johnson, Ron >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... > > > > the right argument to make to mgmt is, "small, incremental costs > now will give us a seemless, smooth transition when the event occurs > since we will have had the time to work outthe prolems. Waiting > till the last momeny/year will cause the costs to be much >higher and the > transition much worse - causing our customers to re-evaluate their > use of our services." > As a manager I would say: "With technology moving so fast the incremental additional costs your proposing right now for rolling in IPv6 are going to end up wasted, because the stuff your buying on increment, will be obsolete in 5 years. Let's just wait 5 years, we all know that technology gets cheaper over time and by then what you want will cost next to nothing." As a salesman I would say: "Until our competitors start telling their customers that they have to switch over to IPv6, I cannot go to our customers and either tell them they have to switch, or get more money from them for switching. So if we have to switch over to IPv6 earlier than our competitors, we are going to have to eat the costs" Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 27 15:30:58 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:30:58 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <005e01c7707e$df448b70$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Stephen Sprunk >Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:13 AM >To: Leo Vegoda >Cc: ARIN PPML; Johnson, Ron >Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... > > > >While that isn't ARIN policy per se, it's the logical effect of >the policies >and fee schedule, and I think that it's at least somewhat intentional. We >are encouraging NAT by our actions, if not by our words. > Rubbish and rot. The biggest thing that encourages NAT from a corporate point of view is that unless the customer is large enough to qualify for a direct assignment from a RIR, they are stuck if they take an allocation from an ISP, use it internally, then later on decide the ISP is run by greedy incompetents and they want to switch to a new ISP. 40 years from now if the Internet has completely switched over to IPv6, there will still be translation boxes in use at the interface between the customer and the ISP, for this reason. NAT is not ever going to go away. Sorry to burst your bubble, but ISPs cannot depend on locking customers in by addressing. Unless all IP addressing is as portable as a domain name, customers are going to use NAT. And addressing will never be portable unless we want to have a route entry for every user on the Internet in the BGP table. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 27 15:39:22 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:39:22 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <033601c7708c$3a1eae10$ae5c0a30$@com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Aaron Wendel >Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:23 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... > > > >Unfortunately this is an issue that's going to have to be forced. >Either by >a major government or the major RIRs. > >It's like HDTV. Stations are all flocking to convert channels to HDTV not >because it's somehow better but because the FCC mandated it several years >ago. The same will have to happen with IPv6. The industry is to >widespread >and fragmented to make a concerted effort on its own. > >If the RIRs gave everyone 10 years to convert or lose your ability to route >packets you would see a transition much like the TV industry, IPv6 starting >to pop up with IPv4 and eventually taking over as IPv4 became >irrelevant and >everyone converted to meet new requirements. > I poposed exactly this last week on this list and was shouted down. The problem is that very few of the people who have obtained numbering from an RIR are willing to give the RIR's the authority to dictate how the global routing table is setup. Of course, they conveniently ignore that basically by default they have already done this by accepting numbering from an RIR but people want to maintain the illusion that they are still "free" to do as they please. If the RIR's withdrew all management of IPv4 then it would rapidly become an IPv4 anarchy out there with no recourse if someone else started using IPv4 that you were previously "assigned" That alone would force all responsible ISPs to switchover to IPv6. The simple threat of withdrawing management (whois, and the like) of IPv4 should be enough to be able to set a drop-dead date for cutting over to IPv6, it would also provide rock-solid justification for techies to go to upper maangement and tell them they have to spend money to update. But you see, this is a political solution and the technologists on this message list find that political solutions to technical problems give them severe stomach aches, and so will not countenance them. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 27 16:02:47 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:02:47 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4055291B9@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Howard, W. Lee >Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:07 AM >To: Johnson, Ron; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Johnson, Ron >> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 1:55 PM >> To: ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... >> >> If ARIN were in fact offering an exchange program where we >> would receive vastly increased sized IPv6 allocations for a >> greatly reduced fee over the IPv4 blocks. A case could be >> made on the economics of changing to v6. > >How vast? How great? > >http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html > >ARIN has been waiving fees for IPv6 allocations for members [1] >for several years. That waiver expires at the end of this year. >Fees for IPv6 assignments are all-but-waived, at $500; same >expiration. > >As an ISP, the minimum allocation you would receive is a /32 [2]; >as an end-user, the minimum assignment would be a /48 [3]. > >What more can we do? > >Lee > Lee, ARIN and the other RIR's need to admit a huge mistake was made over the IPv6 allocations and then go forward with correcting it. What you should have done was for ALL ipv4 assignments you should have AUTOMATICALLY made an IPv6 assignment of a number block. This would have eliminated the silly "fee for IPv4" and "fee for IPv6" different rate schedules. There would only be one fee for "IP addressing" that would never go away and never change whether you were using IPv4 or IPv6 or both. It would have allowed people that wanted to experiment to just look up their IPv6 allocation and start announcing them, without the bother of contacing a number authority and going through an allocation scheme. For example when the telephone companies switched from 7 digit to 10 digit dialing in this area, they just told everyone to start dialing the area code. So you immediately knew what both your 7 digit and your 10 digit telephone number was. What the RIRs did was basically equivalent to the telephone company announcing that due to the need to go to 10 digit dialing, they were going to change every telephone number in the book to something completely unlike what the prior number was. It is no wonder that there's so little interest in switching over. What ARIN and the other registries did was change the focus on trying to propagandize people into requesting IPv6 allocations, instead of where it should be - telling every single organization that has IPv4 that Bang, you automatically have IPv6, and then propagandizing people into USING the IPv6 allocations. NOTE (substitute "marketing" "encouraging" "advertising" or your preferred politically correct synonym in place of "propagandizing", same difference) The best thing going forward would be for ARIN and the other RIR's to drop the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules (the wavier is a joke anyway, what is the point of an IPv6 fee schedule with a fee of $0) and replace it with a single IP allocation fee schedule that applies to both kinds of numbering, then for all current IPv4 holders that the numbering authorities have assigned numbering for, just go ahead and assign IPv6 allocations at a 1 to 1 ratio. (for every single IPv4 address you get an IPv6 address) It's not like there's any shortage of IPv6. You could probably do that in a year. Then what you do is get rid of the separate IPv4 and IPv6 numbering requests and replace them with a single numbering request that is used for both IPv4 and IPv6. Then just adjust the justification requirements so that IPv6 hardly has any, and IPv4 has harder requirements - that way, organizations that only need IPv6 will just leave the IPv4 justification requirements blank, and only get IPv6. Ted From George.Kuzmowycz at aipso.com Tue Mar 27 16:05:17 2007 From: George.Kuzmowycz at aipso.com (George Kuzmowycz) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:05:17 -0400 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... Message-ID: >>> "Ted Mittelstaedt" 03/27/2007 3:30:58 PM >>> >The biggest thing that encourages NAT from a corporate point of view is I won't get into "biggest" or "next biggest", but certainly a major factor in encouraging NAT in the corporate world is a generation of CIO's raised in the belief that NAT is a major component of an effective security policy. If the IP stack on the PC of Joe in Accounting has a 1918 address, then that evil packet from Romania won't get there. The absence of "end-to-end" in this view is not a design flaw, it is a desirable feature. For these purposes v4 vs v6 is irrelevant; they don't want a globally-routable address of either flavor on the vast majority of their machines. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Tue Mar 27 16:00:50 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:00:50 -0400 Subject: [ppml] the transfer proposal was Re: In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <7A3D8625-4BB8-4741-B6DD-175247D35606@delong.com> References: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508C@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks. com> <035101c76c5f$b0730790$115916b0$@net> <480dad640703220652k4ef11bbi9484287e75422c4d@mail.gmail.com> <03a901c76c8e$8d7c2df0$a87489d0$@net> <480dad640703220741o309e3f47r48a6db15f48458fc@mail.gmail.com> <7A3D8625-4BB8-4741-B6DD-175247D35606@delong.com> Message-ID: At 8:06 -0700 3/22/07, Owen DeLong wrote: >The RIRs provide a very specific service. They guarantee that whatever >numbers they issue to you will not be issued to anyone else by them or >by any other RIR. They don't guarantee anyone will route those numbers >for you. They don't guarantee you that no one else will use those >numbers in their router. They don't promise you that there is no competing >parallel address registry. I want to switch to the proposed transfer policy for a moment and see how that crosses with this. So if company runs a service that justifies a /19 from ARIN and then sells that service to another, the buying company can then justify a /19 worth of space. Does the selling company "have" to give up the /19? I mean, will ARIN reclaim the space at any time or are we relying on the selling company to voluntarily free the space and/or transfer it to the buying company? I asking out of a little confusion. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From owen at delong.com Tue Mar 27 16:28:28 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:28:28 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 27, 2007, at 1:05 PM, George Kuzmowycz wrote: > > >>>> "Ted Mittelstaedt" 03/27/2007 3:30:58 PM >>> > >> The biggest thing that encourages NAT from a corporate point of view > is > > I won't get into "biggest" or "next biggest", but certainly a major > factor in encouraging NAT in the corporate world is a generation of > CIO's raised in the belief that NAT is a major component of an > effective > security policy. If the IP stack on the PC of Joe in Accounting has a > 1918 address, then that evil packet from Romania won't get there. The > absence of "end-to-end" in this view is not a design flaw, it is a > desirable feature. For these purposes v4 vs v6 is irrelevant; they > don't > want a globally-routable address of either flavor on the vast majority > of their machines. > You are, unfortunately, correct about the CIO/other management and even some IT professionals misconception of the role of NAT in this process. The reality is that what they care about is stateful inspection, and, you can't have overloaded NAT without stateful inspection, so, most people don't truly understand the distinction. The reality is that NAT can be implemented without stateful inspection (as long as it isn't overloaded, or, even if overloaded, you at least have some control over which services are reachable), just as easily as stateful inspection can be implemented without NAT. So, NAT provides NO security benefit directly, and, is not required for stateful inspection which actually does provide the security benefit. The global uniqueness or not of the address on a particular host is actually irrelevant to security, but, there is an unfortunately large body of religion who does not understand or accept this basic fact. Hopefully, they will eventually discover that Galileo was right and the world is round. Owen From owen at delong.com Tue Mar 27 16:31:38 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:31:38 -0700 Subject: [ppml] the transfer proposal was Re: In$entive$ In-Reply-To: References: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508C@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks. com> <035101c76c5f$b0730790$115916b0$@net> <480dad640703220652k4ef11bbi9484287e75422c4d@mail.gmail.com> <03a901c76c8e$8d7c2df0$a87489d0$@net> <480dad640703220741o309e3f47r48a6db15f48458fc@mail.gmail.com> <7A3D8625-4BB8-4741-B6DD-175247D35606@delong.com> Message-ID: <0F9F1FCB-5818-41DF-9EAA-4E4356EC7534@delong.com> On Mar 27, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: > At 8:06 -0700 3/22/07, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> The RIRs provide a very specific service. They guarantee that >> whatever >> numbers they issue to you will not be issued to anyone else by >> them or >> by any other RIR. They don't guarantee anyone will route those >> numbers >> for you. They don't guarantee you that no one else will use those >> numbers in their router. They don't promise you that there is no >> competing >> parallel address registry. > > I want to switch to the proposed transfer policy for a moment and > see how that crosses with this. > > So if company runs a service that justifies a /19 from ARIN and > then sells that service to another, the buying company can then > justify a /19 worth of space. Does the selling company "have" to > give up the /19? I mean, will ARIN reclaim the space at any time > or are we relying on the selling company to voluntarily free the > space and/or transfer it to the buying company? > It depends. If the entire service is sold, the generally accepted practice would be for the purchaser to initiate a transfer through the ARIN transfer process with the cooperation of the seller and the addresses would transfer with the service, preventing the need to renumber. Obviously, if it was agreed as a condition of the sale that the addresses would not transfer, then, the original address holder could theoretically retain them, and the current reality is that it is unlikely ARIN would or could reclaim them under current policy. However, if the original party stopped paying maintenance fees on them, or, subsequent policy changes allowed more aggressive reclamation of address space, the RSA does provide for that to be done. Does that answer your question? Owen From owen at delong.com Tue Mar 27 16:34:46 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:34:46 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16A8D63D-FBF0-47B6-BCB4-3EDA78A9495F@delong.com> > Lee, ARIN and the other RIR's need to admit a huge mistake was made > over the IPv6 allocations and then go forward with correcting it. > Ted, ARIN and the RIRs are not the ones who made this mistake. This was originally in the plan and the IETF scrapped it from IPv6 for reasons I still don't understand (some alleged privacy concerns). Frankly, I still think that we should have a protocol where there is an IPv6 /96 reserved (this isn't really a big deal, is it?) that allows any network to attach to the v6 world via a bilingual gateway which has the ability to support v6-only, dual-stack, and v4-only interfaces. That way, all v4 addresses could simply be encapsulated into that /96 prefix in the v6 world (yes, the v6 backbone would be carrying the entire v4 routing table as specifics of that /96, so what... They wouldn't have to still carry it as a separate v4 table the way it is today). This would mean that v4 hosts would still have the same ability to reach v4 hosts that they have today, and, v6 to v4 connectivity would be nearly transparent for the v6 users. > What you should have done was for ALL ipv4 assignments you should have > AUTOMATICALLY made an IPv6 assignment of a number block. This > would have > eliminated the silly "fee for IPv4" and "fee for IPv6" different rate > schedules. There would only be one fee for "IP addressing" that would > never go away and never change whether you were using IPv4 or IPv6 > or both. > It would have allowed people that wanted to experiment to just look > up their > IPv6 allocation and start announcing them, without the bother of > contacing > a number authority and going through an allocation scheme. > Short of a reserved v6 prefix which maps to v4 numbering, this doesn't make sense to me. If we're going to go to the trouble of maintaining separate registrations, then, not everyone who has v4 needs v6 and there's no reason for the RIRs to provide free registration services on this basis. > For example when the telephone companies switched from 7 digit to 10 > digit dialing in this area, they just told everyone to start > dialing the > area code. So you immediately knew what both your 7 digit and your 10 > digit telephone number was. The difference is that all that changed was how you dialed. You didn't get a new 10 digit telephone number, you always had a 10 digit telephone number but you used to be able to get away with only specifying the last 7 digits. While I agree with you that IETF should have done something like this for v6, I don't think the RIRs have any control over this issue. > What the RIRs did was basically equivalent to the telephone company > announcing that due to the need to go to 10 digit dialing, they were > going to change every telephone number in the book to something > completely unlike what the prior number was. > Again, you really need to learn where the distinction is drawn between what the RIRs do (register associations between numbers and organizations and assure uniqueness of such registrations) and what the IETF does (architctural decisions and protocol development). The IETF made the decision you criticize in your previous paragraph. The RIRs are just along for the ride. > > The best thing going forward would be for ARIN and the other RIR's to > drop the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules (the wavier is a joke anyway, > what > is the point of an IPv6 fee schedule with a fee of $0) and replace it > with a single IP allocation fee schedule that applies to both kinds of > numbering, then for all current IPv4 holders that the numbering > authorities > have assigned numbering for, just go ahead and assign IPv6 allocations > at a 1 to 1 ratio. (for every single IPv4 address you get an IPv6 > address) > It's not like there's any shortage of IPv6. > That's not feasible with the IPv6 architecture. To take this a bit further, the minimum allocation unit in IPv6 is a /64 network. The RIR minimum is a /48 with very few exceptions. A /64 is approximately 4 billion times the number of IP addresses in the entire IPv4 internet, so, a 1:1 assignment ratio simply isn't possible even at the smallest possible network block. A single /64 would be more IPv6 addresses than ANY IPv4 holder currently has. However, many IPv4 holders really need the ability to create multiple distinct networks. IPv6 (for better or worse, and, this is the IETF and not the RIRs decision) has returned to classful addressing, at least to some extent. The new format has been set up as NNNN:NNNN:OOOO:SSSS:HHHH:HHHH:HHHH:HHHH:HHHH where NNNN:NNNN is a 32 bit network number, mostly intended to represent the LIR. OOOO is 16 bits which would generally represent which Organization the LIR assigned the subordinate addresses. SSSS is 16 bits for the organization to use for subnetting. The remaining 64 bits are host address because for some reason, the IETF thought that having really sparse host assignments on a subnet was somehow valuable. > You could probably do that in a year. > > Then what you do is get rid of the separate IPv4 and IPv6 numbering > requests > and replace them with a single numbering request that is used for > both IPv4 > and IPv6. Then just adjust the justification requirements so that > IPv6 > hardly has any, and IPv4 has harder requirements - that way, > organizations > that only need IPv6 will just leave the IPv4 justification > requirements > blank, and only get IPv6. Given the significant differences in address structure, subnet size, and implementation, i just don't see that as a feasible plan. Owen From Kavalec at BSWA.com Tue Mar 27 17:39:25 2007 From: Kavalec at BSWA.com (G. Waleed Kavalec) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:39:25 -0600 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... Message-ID: ----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:03 PM To: Howard, W. Lee; Johnson, Ron; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... [...] What the RIRs did was basically equivalent to the telephone company announcing that due to the need to go to 10 digit dialing, they were going to change every telephone number in the book to something completely unlike what the prior number was. [...] ---------------------------------------------------------------- Except that the old numbers AREN'T going away. Like I have my 800-123-4567 phone.V.10 number, but if I want more I can get a block of new improved phove.V.20 numbers... 888888-112233-44000000 thru 888888-112233-44999999 ...real cheap. Of course you'll have to go through a special service to call any of your old friends with old phones. -- Greg Kavalec System Architect Baca, Stein, White and Associates, Inc. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Tue Mar 27 16:40:56 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:40:56 -0400 Subject: [ppml] the transfer proposal was Re: In$entive$ In-Reply-To: <0F9F1FCB-5818-41DF-9EAA-4E4356EC7534@delong.com> References: <20070322003055.GA24772@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <7EC421F755E45242A47938C3B6F634B19F508C@hnetavail1.exchange.handynetworks. com> <035101c76c5f$b0730790$115916b0$@net> <480dad640703220652k4ef11bbi9484287e75422c4d@mail.gmail.com> <03a901c76c8e$8d7c2df0$a87489d0$@net> <480dad640703220741o309e3f47r48a6db15f48458fc@mail.gmail.com> <7A3D8625-4BB8-4741-B6DD-175247D35606@delong.com> <0F9F1FCB-5818-41DF-9EAA-4E4356EC7534@delong.com> Message-ID: At 13:31 -0700 3/27/07, Owen DeLong wrote: >Does that answer your question? Yes it does. The tailing question to be - should we make a policy that the resources no longer needed by the seller be reclaimed unless otherwise justified. That's more of a rhetorical question at this point. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale. From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 27 16:41:40 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:41:40 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:28 PM >To: George Kuzmowycz >Cc: tedm at ipinc.net; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... > > > >On Mar 27, 2007, at 1:05 PM, George Kuzmowycz wrote: > >> >> >>>>> "Ted Mittelstaedt" 03/27/2007 3:30:58 PM >>> >> >>> The biggest thing that encourages NAT from a corporate point of view >> is >> >> I won't get into "biggest" or "next biggest", but certainly a major >> factor in encouraging NAT in the corporate world is a generation of >> CIO's raised in the belief that NAT is a major component of an >> effective >> security policy. If the IP stack on the PC of Joe in Accounting has a >> 1918 address, then that evil packet from Romania won't get there. The >> absence of "end-to-end" in this view is not a design flaw, it is a >> desirable feature. For these purposes v4 vs v6 is irrelevant; they >> don't >> want a globally-routable address of either flavor on the vast majority >> of their machines. >> >You are, unfortunately, correct about the CIO/other management and even >some IT professionals misconception of the role of NAT in this process. > >The reality is that what they care about is stateful inspection, and, >you >can't have overloaded NAT without stateful inspection, so, most people >don't truly understand the distinction. The reality is that NAT can be >implemented without stateful inspection (as long as it isn't overloaded, >or, even if overloaded, you at least have some control over which >services are reachable), just as easily as stateful inspection can be >implemented without NAT. So, NAT provides NO security benefit >directly, and, is not required for stateful inspection which actually >does provide the security benefit. > >The global uniqueness or not of the address on a particular host >is actually irrelevant to security, but, there is an unfortunately large >body of religion who does not understand or accept this basic >fact. > It makes no difference to a customer that is using, for example, a /22 internally if the ISP comes along and assigns him a /22 of IPv4 or a /29 of IPv4. He is STILL GOING TO PUT a NAT in there. Sure, he amy configure the NAT to go 1:1 in the first case and he may configure the NAT to go 1:1024 in the second case, but in either case he's going to use a NAT, so that he can easily move his connection to his ISP to some other ISP if he wants to without renumbering his internal numbers. Sure, he wants stateful inspection also. And sure he can get stateful inspection in either the 1-to-1 instance or the overload instance. But he does not want to be tied to a specific ISP, and the only thing out there that is going to allow him to move his stuff when he pleases is if he is running NAT. >Hopefully, they will eventually discover that Galileo was right and >the world is round. > Does it really matter? Frankly, who cares if the stateful inspection is implemented in the translator or not? Your going to have the translator for portability requirements, regardless, unless the org is large enough to justify a direct allocation and/or and AS number, so why is it so important to you to correct some incorrect assumption in some non-networking managers pointed head? Ted From aaron.dewell at woods.net Tue Mar 27 16:48:29 2007 From: aaron.dewell at woods.net (Aaron Dewell) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:48:29 -0600 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <16A8D63D-FBF0-47B6-BCB4-3EDA78A9495F@delong.com> References: <16A8D63D-FBF0-47B6-BCB4-3EDA78A9495F@delong.com> Message-ID: <1175028509.4613.7.camel@gogo.woods.net> On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 13:34 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > Frankly, I still think that we should have a protocol where there is > an IPv6 /96 reserved (this isn't really a big deal, is it?) that > allows any > network to attach to the v6 world via a bilingual gateway which has > the ability to support v6-only, dual-stack, and v4-only interfaces. > > That way, all v4 addresses could simply be encapsulated into > that /96 prefix in the v6 world (yes, the v6 backbone would be carrying > the entire v4 routing table as specifics of that /96, so what... They > wouldn't > have to still carry it as a separate v4 table the way it is today). > > This would mean that v4 hosts would still have the same ability > to reach v4 hosts that they have today, and, v6 to v4 connectivity > would be nearly transparent for the v6 users. I thought this was originally planned and implemented as ::? The so-called "IPv4 compatibility address." Perhaps I'm behind the times and that got scrapped along the way... Aaron From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Tue Mar 27 16:51:03 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:51:03 -0400 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4055B7083@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:03 PM > To: Howard, W. Lee; Johnson, Ron; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] those pesky users... > > Lee, ARIN and the other RIR's need to admit a huge mistake > was made over the IPv6 allocations and then go forward with > correcting it. There's still a basic pronoun problem. The RIRs do what the public dictates in the form of policy passed by community consensus. The exception (for ARIN, I assume for the other RIRs too) is that fees are set by members. If we have made a mistake, then it's "we" the "community of internet number wonks," not "we" the "people behind the curtain at ARIN." > What you should have done was for ALL ipv4 assignments you > should have AUTOMATICALLY made an IPv6 assignment of a number > block. That would be possible. Should everyone get a /32 or a /48 or some other number? > The best thing going forward would be for ARIN and the other > RIR's to drop the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules (the wavier is > a joke anyway, what is the point of an IPv6 fee schedule with > a fee of $0) The point was to let people know what the fee would be, someday, so they could plan for it. > and replace it with a single IP allocation fee > schedule that applies to both kinds of numbering, then for Noted for future FinCom discussion, as with your earlier suggestion to increase fees "parabolically." > all current IPv4 holders that the numbering authorities have > assigned numbering for, just go ahead and assign IPv6 > allocations at a 1 to 1 ratio. (for every single IPv4 > address you get an IPv6 address) It's not like there's any > shortage of IPv6. Er, sorry. A /21 in IPv4 translates to a /117 in IPv6? Or is that /53? Should we ignore nybble boundaries? > Then what you do is get rid of the separate IPv4 and IPv6 > numbering requests and replace them with a single numbering > request that is used for both IPv4 and IPv6. Then just > adjust the justification requirements so that IPv6 hardly has > any, and IPv4 has harder requirements - that way, > organizations that only need IPv6 will just leave the IPv4 > justification requirements blank, and only get IPv6. The justification for additional address space in IPv6 requires a much lower host density than IPv4 (if we take "host density" to be analogous to "assignments"). See the Number Resource Policy Manual, specifically http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six52 http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six7 This was based on a recommendation from the IETF, though adjusted last year to be slightly tighter (policy proposal 2005-5): http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_5.html And I have to tip my hat again to the Member Services staff who maintain the NRPM for making it easy for me to find (using the change log) what policy proposal changed the policy and when. I'm having trouble envisioning a combined justification form. Would you be willing to cobble one together, based on existing templates? > Ted Lee From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 27 17:04:15 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:04:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <16A8D63D-FBF0-47B6-BCB4-3EDA78A9495F@delong.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:35 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Howard, W. Lee; Johnson, Ron; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... > > >> Lee, ARIN and the other RIR's need to admit a huge mistake was made >> over the IPv6 allocations and then go forward with correcting it. >> >Ted, > ARIN and the RIRs are not the ones who made this mistake. This >was originally in the plan and the IETF scrapped it from IPv6 for >reasons >I still don't understand (some alleged privacy concerns). > My mistake for blaming the RIR's then. So I take it you do agree that it was a mistake to not put in the assumption of easy upgrade into IPv6. That was my point. >> >Short of a reserved v6 prefix which maps to v4 numbering, this doesn't >make sense to me. If we're going to go to the trouble of maintaining >separate >registrations, then, not everyone who has v4 needs v6 Not now, but in the future IF we switch to IPv6 then everyone WILL need IPv6 who has IPv4 assigned. > and there's no >reason for the RIRs to provide free registration services on this basis. Exactly, that is why this wavier on IPv6 is a bad idea. Every year it is going to get renewed, in the name of "encouraging" people to switch to IPv6, and every year more and more IPv6-only freeloaders will be out there. By the time that we have reached the point that there is more IPv6 assigned than IPv4, there will be heavy political pressure to not get rid of the wavier. It's better now to just get rid of it. I believe there is sufficient proof that monetary incentives have not encouraged much growth in IPv6 assignments. Just assign everyone IPv6 and be done with it. > >> >> The best thing going forward would be for ARIN and the other RIR's to >> drop the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules (the wavier is a joke anyway, >> what >> is the point of an IPv6 fee schedule with a fee of $0) and replace it >> with a single IP allocation fee schedule that applies to both kinds of >> numbering, then for all current IPv4 holders that the numbering >> authorities >> have assigned numbering for, just go ahead and assign IPv6 allocations >> at a 1 to 1 ratio. (for every single IPv4 address you get an IPv6 >> address) >> It's not like there's any shortage of IPv6. >> >That's not feasible with the IPv6 architecture. To take this a bit >further, the >minimum allocation unit in IPv6 is a /64 network. The RIR minimum is a >/48 with very few exceptions. A /64 is approximately 4 billion times >the >number of IP addresses in the entire IPv4 internet, so, a 1:1 assignment >ratio simply isn't possible even at the smallest possible network block. >A single /64 would be more IPv6 addresses than ANY IPv4 holder >currently has. However, many IPv4 holders really need the ability >to create multiple distinct networks. IPv6 (for better or worse, and, >this is the IETF and not the RIRs decision) has returned to classful >addressing, at least to some extent. The new format has been set >up as NNNN:NNNN:OOOO:SSSS:HHHH:HHHH:HHHH:HHHH:HHHH >where NNNN:NNNN is a 32 bit network number, mostly intended >to represent the LIR. OOOO is 16 bits which would generally >represent which Organization the LIR assigned the subordinate >addresses. SSSS is 16 bits for the organization to use for >subnetting. The remaining 64 bits are host address because for >some reason, the IETF thought that having really sparse host >assignments on a subnet was somehow valuable. > Excellent analysis. So, given all the above, what ratio do you think it appropriate? > >Given the significant differences in address structure, subnet size, and >implementation, i just don't see that as a feasible plan. > Owen, what do you want? Do you want the Internet to stay IPv4 forever? Or do you want it to go to IPv6? If you want it to go to IPv6 then your going to have to come to grasp with the FACT that IF the Internet goes to IPv6 that eventually EVERY IPv4 holder WILL HAVE AN IPv6 ASSIGNMENT. You are saying it isn't feasable now to assign all IPv4 holders IPv6. Well if it isn't feasible now, it won't be feasible in the future, either. Ted From RJohnson at newedgenetworks.com Tue Mar 27 17:12:59 2007 From: RJohnson at newedgenetworks.com (Johnson, Ron) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:12:59 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4055291B9@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: Lots of above commentary truncated: >Lee, ARIN and the other RIR's need to admit a huge mistake was made over the IPv6 allocations and then go forward with >correcting it. > >What you should have done was for ALL ipv4 assignments you should have AUTOMATICALLY made an IPv6 assignment of a number >block. This would have eliminated the silly "fee for IPv4" and "fee for IPv6" different rate schedules. There would >only be one fee for "IP addressing" that would never go away and never change whether you were using IPv4 or IPv6 or >both. >It would have allowed people that wanted to experiment to just look up their >IPv6 allocation and start announcing them, without the bother of contacing a number authority and going through an >allocation scheme. Lot's of Ted's email elided, for brevity. This is a proposal that I could get my management on board with. The Bottom line is NO INCREMENTAL COST FOR SERVICES. Even getting a $500.00 P.O. cut for the "registration fee" is a non-starter. The waiver of maintainer fees smells the same as a adjustable rate mortgages to accounting types. The deal looks good going in, but is subject to fluctuations that changes the terms over time, unfavorably. That old phrase, that it is easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission, is oh so very true in the commercial business world. Technically we could implement an IPv6 scheme, and if we had no incremental or reoccurring costs to obtain our new address allocation, no asking permission from the money side of the house. Eventually our need for IPv4 would evaporate as v6 adopted, and our fee structure would remain the same. ARIN continues to get fees, we get new addresses, and wide adopting of v6 in the U.S. occurs years sooner than it would otherwise. Ron Johnson From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 27 17:42:37 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:42:37 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4055B7083@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Howard, W. Lee >Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:51 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:03 PM >> To: Howard, W. Lee; Johnson, Ron; ppml at arin.net >> Subject: RE: [ppml] those pesky users... >> >> Lee, ARIN and the other RIR's need to admit a huge mistake >> was made over the IPv6 allocations and then go forward with >> correcting it. > >There's still a basic pronoun problem. The RIRs do what the >public dictates in the form of policy passed by community >consensus. The exception (for ARIN, I assume for the other RIRs >too) is that fees are set by members. If we have made a mistake, >then it's "we" the "community of internet number wonks," not "we" >the "people behind the curtain at ARIN." > :-) Well, I could have said "we need to admit" but I wanted people to actually read through the trial balloon before talking about it. Too many folks brains knee-jerk shut down when told that they need to admit they made a mistake. It's easier to use a straw man, then let the people come to the conclusion that you were talking about them, later on. >> What you should have done was for ALL ipv4 assignments you >> should have AUTOMATICALLY made an IPv6 assignment of a number >> block. > >That would be possible. Should everyone get a /32 or a /48 or >some other number? > That is a good question, and I think any proposal to do an allocation like I mentioned is going to have to set a figure. I deliberatly said 1:1 because I knew it was probably not workable and it would get some people to pipe up. Of course it will be subject to lots of arguments, no doubt. > >> The best thing going forward would be for ARIN and the other >> RIR's to drop the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules (the wavier is >> a joke anyway, what is the point of an IPv6 fee schedule with >> a fee of $0) > >The point was to let people know what the fee would be, someday, >so they could plan for it. > I disagree, I think the real point was to attempt to influence IPv6 uptake by adjusting fees. You can argue all you want on this point but it is silly to claim that anyone can predict what ARIN's or anyone elses costs are going to be in the future. Without knowing the future costs how can you claim that you know now what the fee is going to be, someway. Come on, now. In some things, fee adjustment does cause behaviour change, but I think the existence of the wavier proved it didn't in this case. >> and replace it with a single IP allocation fee >> schedule that applies to both kinds of numbering, then for > >Noted for future FinCom discussion, as with your earlier >suggestion to increase fees "parabolically." > >> all current IPv4 holders that the numbering authorities have >> assigned numbering for, just go ahead and assign IPv6 >> allocations at a 1 to 1 ratio. (for every single IPv4 >> address you get an IPv6 address) It's not like there's any >> shortage of IPv6. > >Er, sorry. A /21 in IPv4 translates to a /117 in IPv6? Or >is that /53? Should we ignore nybble boundaries? > Let me think about this and see what the responses are to the trial balloon. Keep in mind that adopting such a proposal carries very far reaching implications. If we adopt it we are essentially saying that IPv6 is the future, and it also knocks out much of the justificaton for IPv4 reclamation efforts. But also on the dark since, while it will immediately and drastically increase the IPv6 uptake, it also is going to really stretch out the IPv4 rundown. Look at it this way. We all agree to say that next year, bang - everyone has IPv6. So that means from that date, IPv4 by definition, is going to be in a "rundown" state. > > >> Then what you do is get rid of the separate IPv4 and IPv6 >> numbering requests and replace them with a single numbering >> request that is used for both IPv4 and IPv6. Then just >> adjust the justification requirements so that IPv6 hardly has >> any, and IPv4 has harder requirements - that way, >> organizations that only need IPv6 will just leave the IPv4 >> justification requirements blank, and only get IPv6. > >The justification for additional address space in IPv6 requires >a much lower host density than IPv4 (if we take "host density" >to be analogous to "assignments"). > >See the Number Resource Policy Manual, specifically >http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six52 >http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six7 > >This was based on a recommendation from the IETF, though adjusted >last year to be slightly tighter (policy proposal 2005-5): >http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_5.html > >And I have to tip my hat again to the Member Services staff who >maintain the NRPM for making it easy for me to find (using the >change log) what policy proposal changed the policy and when. > > >I'm having trouble envisioning a combined justification form. >Would you be willing to cobble one together, based on existing >templates? > Yes, I would. I'll include a sample in a proposal. The ideal thing would be a simple formula that would spit out an IPv6 allocation, unless the IPv4 requestor would want for some reason to request a small amount of IPv4 and a large amount of IPv6 at the same time. Ted From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Tue Mar 27 18:57:02 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 23:57:02 +0100 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Ted, This is not up to ARIN, is up to us (including you). I think you should write down a policy proposal for this and seek the community consensus. The RIRs only implement what the community decide. There are also technical implications. Remember that IPv4 and IPv6 are NOT "compatible". I'm not saying it is impossible, but we can't just translate IPv4 into IPv6, there are upper layer implications, and that's why NAT/PT is being deprecated/historic at IETF. It doesn't work very well, same as NAT in IPv4 only works in certain cases (basically it works fine for client-server apps, unless you do something in the application to take care of the NAT implications, which in turn means a huge extra app development cost). We may consider an automatic tunneling mechanism instead of a translation, and in fact this is how I see the future. More and more networks which will become only IPv6 in the core and access (once IPv6 traffic is dominant vs. IPv4) and keeping dual stack in the edge (LANs), then having the edge routers encapsulating automatically IPv4 (even behind NAT) in IPv6 for those old apps that don't do IPv6 or when talking to IPv4 only hosts. This is what we call softwires, which basically is a new way to use L2TP (already available in many networks, so not a big deal). The only missing part is "embedding" the IPv4 address in the IPv6 one. This could have worked with something such as softwires, but it seems to me that it is a more expensive transition path for the ISPs, because it means enforcing a complete network (core/access) transition before being able to use it. Instead, the actual softwires definition (not doing the "embedding" part), allows the ISPs to do incremental transition, or even not do the transition at all and allow the customers to use IPv6 from the edge. This has been a main concern in the IETF when developing IPv6: Making sure that the transition can be done without forcing the ISPs to change their network, and instead allowing an incremental path, each step at your own pace. Regards, Jordi > De: Ted Mittelstaedt > Responder a: > Fecha: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:02:47 -0700 > Para: "Howard, W. Lee" , "Johnson, Ron" > , > Asunto: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >> Howard, W. Lee >> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:07 AM >> To: Johnson, Ron; ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >>> Behalf Of Johnson, Ron >>> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 1:55 PM >>> To: ppml at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... >>> >>> If ARIN were in fact offering an exchange program where we >>> would receive vastly increased sized IPv6 allocations for a >>> greatly reduced fee over the IPv4 blocks. A case could be >>> made on the economics of changing to v6. >> >> How vast? How great? >> >> http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html >> >> ARIN has been waiving fees for IPv6 allocations for members [1] >> for several years. That waiver expires at the end of this year. >> Fees for IPv6 assignments are all-but-waived, at $500; same >> expiration. >> >> As an ISP, the minimum allocation you would receive is a /32 [2]; >> as an end-user, the minimum assignment would be a /48 [3]. >> >> What more can we do? >> >> Lee >> > > Lee, ARIN and the other RIR's need to admit a huge mistake was made > over the IPv6 allocations and then go forward with correcting it. > > What you should have done was for ALL ipv4 assignments you should have > AUTOMATICALLY made an IPv6 assignment of a number block. This would have > eliminated the silly "fee for IPv4" and "fee for IPv6" different rate > schedules. There would only be one fee for "IP addressing" that would > never go away and never change whether you were using IPv4 or IPv6 or both. > It would have allowed people that wanted to experiment to just look up their > IPv6 allocation and start announcing them, without the bother of contacing > a number authority and going through an allocation scheme. > > For example when the telephone companies switched from 7 digit to 10 > digit dialing in this area, they just told everyone to start dialing the > area code. So you immediately knew what both your 7 digit and your 10 > digit telephone number was. > > What the RIRs did was basically equivalent to the telephone company > announcing that due to the need to go to 10 digit dialing, they were > going to change every telephone number in the book to something > completely unlike what the prior number was. > > It is no wonder that there's so little interest in switching over. What > ARIN and the other registries did was change the focus on trying to > propagandize people into requesting IPv6 allocations, instead of where > it should be - telling every single organization that has IPv4 that > Bang, you automatically have IPv6, and then propagandizing people into > USING the IPv6 allocations. > > NOTE (substitute "marketing" "encouraging" "advertising" or your preferred > politically correct synonym in place of "propagandizing", same difference) > > The best thing going forward would be for ARIN and the other RIR's to > drop the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules (the wavier is a joke anyway, what > is the point of an IPv6 fee schedule with a fee of $0) and replace it > with a single IP allocation fee schedule that applies to both kinds of > numbering, then for all current IPv4 holders that the numbering authorities > have assigned numbering for, just go ahead and assign IPv6 allocations > at a 1 to 1 ratio. (for every single IPv4 address you get an IPv6 address) > It's not like there's any shortage of IPv6. > > You could probably do that in a year. > > Then what you do is get rid of the separate IPv4 and IPv6 numbering requests > and replace them with a single numbering request that is used for both IPv4 > and IPv6. Then just adjust the justification requirements so that IPv6 > hardly has any, and IPv4 has harder requirements - that way, organizations > that only need IPv6 will just leave the IPv4 justification requirements > blank, and only get IPv6. > > Ted > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Tue Mar 27 19:36:09 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:36:09 -0400 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4055B7159@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > >> drop the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules (the wavier is a joke anyway, > >> what is the point of an IPv6 fee schedule with a fee of $0) > > > >The point was to let people know what the fee would be, someday, so > >they could plan for it. > > > > I disagree, I think the real point was to attempt to influence > IPv6 uptake by adjusting fees. The Board set a fee schedule so that people would know what the fee would be. The waiver was so as not to inhibit IPv6 adoption. > You can argue all you want on > this point but it is silly to claim that anyone can predict > what ARIN's or anyone elses costs are going to be in the > future. Without knowing the future costs how can you claim > that you know now what the fee is going to be, someway. Come on, now. That's absolutely true, the Board can change fees at any time. I don't believe the Board would change fees capriciously. I do believe the Board sees value in predictable fees. The Board, with information from the President, looks at the services ARIN provides and expects to provide in the future, and tries to set fees at an appropriate level for the long term. The fees are not a stab in the dark, they are an extension of the structure ARIN has had for the past seven or so years. If the members provide direction toward a different structure, the Board will pay close attention. > >> all current IPv4 holders that the numbering authorities > have assigned > >> numbering for, just go ahead and assign IPv6 allocations > at a 1 to 1 > >> ratio. (for every single IPv4 address you get an IPv6 > address) It's > >> not like there's any shortage of IPv6. > > > >Er, sorry. A /21 in IPv4 translates to a /117 in IPv6? Or is that > >/53? Should we ignore nybble boundaries? > > Let me think about this and see what the responses are to the > trial balloon. Keep in mind that adopting such a proposal > carries very far reaching implications. No problem, that seems reasonable. > >I'm having trouble envisioning a combined justification form. > >Would you be willing to cobble one together, based on existing > >templates? > > > > Yes, I would. I'll include a sample in a proposal. Great! > The ideal thing would be a simple formula that would spit out > an IPv6 allocation, unless the IPv4 requestor would want for > some reason to request a small amount of IPv4 and a large > amount of IPv6 at the same time. > > Ted Just in case I haven't disclosed it recently, I'm on the Board, and I'm the Treasurer. I do not speak for the entire Board, of course. Lee From stephen at sprunk.org Tue Mar 27 19:16:56 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:16:56 -0500 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... References: Message-ID: <029901c770ca$50b7b570$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Ted, First of all let me make a request of you: please rate-limit your postings to PPML. It is not necessary to reply to every single message, and repeated postings, to the tune of several per hour, is going to make even people who agree with you tune the whole discussion out. Wait a few hours, consolidate your responses to similar messages into a single reply, and let others have their share of the (very large) audience's limited time. Now, on to my one response of the day... > From: "Owen DeLong" >>Short of a reserved v6 prefix which maps to v4 numbering, this >>doesn't make sense to me. There is such a prefix, i.e. ::/96. However, it's pretty much useless for addressing packets since both ends would need be IPv6-capable hosts with IPv4 addresses, in which case they might as well use v4 and save a few header bytes. Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" > Not now, but in the future IF we switch to IPv6 then everyone WILL > need IPv6 who has IPv4 assigned. Um, duh? IPv4-only and IPv6-only hosts can't talk to each other. The transition model, which has been well-documented for over a decade now, has _always_ been that everyone goes to dual-stack, and when that's done everyone goes back and turns off IPv4. There has never been a plan in place to go directly from one to the other without dual-stacking. ( One might argue that's a flaw, possibly a fatal one. However, that is definitely off-topic here and should be taken up with the IETF. ) > Exactly, that is why this wavier on IPv6 is a bad idea. Every year it > is going to get renewed, in the name of "encouraging" people to > switch to IPv6, and every year more and more IPv6-only freeloaders > will be out there. The IPv6 fee waiver requires that orgs either have IPv4 allocations, in which case they're paying substantial fees already, or they're a general member, in which case they're paying $500/yr for that status. There will be no freeloaders. If a significant number of IPv6-only networks appear, which has not happened yet, the waiver could be modified or not extended. For instance, I doubt many would object to changing the waiver such that members only have to pay either their IPv4 fees or their IPv6 fees, whichever is greater. There's no point making that change today, though, since it'd have the same effect as the existing waiver. Note that the cost to ARIN for IPv6 initial allocations/assignments is negligible if the applicant is already a member in good standing. It's not like IPv4 (today) where staff must spend time requesting and reviewing justifications, utilization, etc. for every request and LIRs must make incremental requests every few months, in turn causing staff to repeat that effort over and over and over. It's not until an org needs a second block (or enlargement of their existing block) that those hassles kick in for IPv6, and it should be a long, long time (if ever) before most folks need that kind of space. And, since ARIN's fees are a direct result of the amount of work needed to provide services, resources that require less work to register naturally mean lower fees. This is not an accident; policies were steered to this result by design. > By the time that we have reached the point that there is more IPv6 > assigned than IPv4, there will be heavy political pressure to not get > rid of the wavier. ARIN members have to make sure that ARIN meets its operating costs; if the members decide IPv6 should remain free as long as IPv4 fees can support operations, so be it. If IPv4 really does go away, the waiver cannot be sustained and the members will be forced to drop it. If they don't, as you suggest will happen, the BoT is obligated to override them in order to maintain financial viability. I don't think we, as a community, are so stupid as to let that happen, though. > It's better now to just get rid of it. I believe there is sufficient > proof that monetary incentives have not encouraged much growth in > IPv6 assignments. Just assign everyone IPv6 and be done with it. So you're simultaneously proposing that ARIN allocate/assign resources to people who haven't requested them _and_ that ARIN then bill people for having those resources? I really doubt that combination would pass muster with legal counsel. You can't have it both ways. > Excellent analysis. So, given all the above, what ratio do you think > it appropriate? We already have policies on how much space to give people who ask for it. I suggest you go read the NRPM and the IRPEP docs, as many of your arguments show a general lack of understanding of existing policy as well as how ARIN functions. > If you want it to go to IPv6 then your going to have to come to grasp > with the FACT that IF the Internet goes to IPv6 that eventually > EVERY IPv4 holder WILL HAVE AN IPv6 ASSIGNMENT. Some will have assignments, some will have allocations; I don't think anyone has ever debated the necessity of having one or the other, though. We all grasp it just fine. > You are saying it isn't feasable now to assign all IPv4 holders IPv6. > Well if it isn't feasible now, it won't be feasible in the future, either. Of course it's feasible. But does it make sense? I say no. Existing policy makes it absolutely trivial for anyone with an existing IPv4 allocation or assignment to get their first IPv6 allocation or assignment. All they have to do is want one enough to fill out a form. The fact is that even with zero cost and effectively infinite supply, there is simply no demand worth speaking about. Fix the demand first before you start worrying about policies and fees, as we've already done everything possible within ARIN's processes to make those obstacles nonexistent (to the point we have factions arguing that things are _too_ easy and need to be tightened). S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 27 20:28:16 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:28:16 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4055B7159@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com] >Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:36 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] those pesky users... > > >> >> drop the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules (the wavier is a joke anyway, >> >> what is the point of an IPv6 fee schedule with a fee of $0) >> > >> >The point was to let people know what the fee would be, someday, so >> >they could plan for it. >> > >> >> I disagree, I think the real point was to attempt to influence >> IPv6 uptake by adjusting fees. > >The Board set a fee schedule so that people would know what the >fee would be. The waiver was so as not to inhibit IPv6 adoption. > >> You can argue all you want on >> this point but it is silly to claim that anyone can predict >> what ARIN's or anyone elses costs are going to be in the >> future. Without knowing the future costs how can you claim >> that you know now what the fee is going to be, someway. Come on, now. > >That's absolutely true, the Board can change fees at any time. >I don't believe the Board would change fees capriciously. Fundamentally if you look at IPv6 as a replacement technology for IPv4 then when the transition is complete, and nobody is using IPv4 anymore, then why would the fees be any different? It's still the same number of hosts on the Internet and the same number of networks and ISP's that need to be kept track of. I think the wavier idea includes the assumption that there are additional fees for IPv6, we just aren't charging now, but we will in the future. So why would anyone want to get IPv6 under a wavier that may disappear? What if it disappears before I'm done with IPv4? Then I will have to pay extra - but, once more, there's still the same number of hosts on the Internet, and the same number of networks and ISP's that need to be kept track of. Why does it cost double for ARIN to keep track of 2 data elements for my AS, my IPv4 allocation and my IPv6 allocation, instead of keeping track of only one data element - my IPv4 allocation? The whole thing was a mistake on separate fee structures for IPv4 and IPv6 IMHO. It really looks like an intent to set an artifically high fee for IPv4 and artifically low fee for IPv6 with the expectation that it would cause people to switch over. It appears that people haven't switched over. So, give them both and then ARIN and the RIR's can simply concentrate on tracking ALL numbering that is out there. If ARIN and the RIR's are supposed to be neutrals on the idea of IPv4 runout and such, then they shouldn't be trying to alter IPv4 and IPv6 utilization by setting fees that are skewed one way or the other. They should simply be concentrating on tracking numbering and making absolutely sure that for ALL IPv4 and IPv6 handed out, that some legitimate contact is listed that knows that they have it. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Mar 27 20:55:55 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:55:55 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <029901c770ca$50b7b570$463816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org] >Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:17 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users... > > >Um, duh? > >IPv4-only and IPv6-only hosts can't talk to each other. The transition >model, which has been well-documented for over a decade now, has _always_ >been that everyone goes to dual-stack, and when that's done everyone goes >back and turns off IPv4. There has never been a plan in place to go >directly from one to the other without dual-stacking. > Yes I know which is why I said in the future IF we switch to IPv6 then everyone WILL IPv6 who has IPv4 assigned. Sure I am ignoring internal use of IPv4 here for hosts that only connect to stuff inside IPv4 networks and will never go outside of those networks. Ultimately those internal IPv4 networks will get smaller and smaller and be replaced by IPv6 once the Internet is over on IPv6, those hosts will not go away, though. > >> It's better now to just get rid of it. I believe there is sufficient >> proof that monetary incentives have not encouraged much growth in >> IPv6 assignments. Just assign everyone IPv6 and be done with it. > >So you're simultaneously proposing that ARIN allocate/assign resources to >people who haven't requested them _and_ that ARIN then bill people for >having those resources? I really doubt that combination would pass muster >with legal counsel. > No, I am saying essentially go through all documents that have the word "IPv4 address" and "IPv6 address" and replace it with "IP address" You are enormously hung up on the idea that IPv4 and IPv6 are technically different and this matters from a tracking standpoint. What ARIN and the RIR's do is track IP addresses. IPv4 and IPv6 are IP addresses. They do not matter one bit from a tracking standpoint, there are merely "stuff to track" > >Of course it's feasible. But does it make sense? I say no. Existing >policy makes it absolutely trivial for anyone with an existing IPv4 >allocation or assignment to get their first IPv6 allocation or assignment. >All they have to do is want one enough to fill out a form. The >fact is that >even with zero cost and effectively infinite supply, there is simply no >demand worth speaking about. > Then if there is infinite supply then why argue with just assigning it? Why is it even necessary to have the problem of IPv6 adoption related in any way to the RIR's? If the migration for IPv4 to IPv6 is to dual-stack everything, then just assign both IPv4 and IPv6 when the RIR's hand out IPv4 addresses. So what if the requestor doesen't have any need for IPv6 right now. Eventually he will and then he will have the stuff assigned already. >Fix the demand first before you start worrying about policies and fees, as >we've already done everything possible within ARIN's processes to >make those >obstacles nonexistent (to the point we have factions arguing that >things are >_too_ easy and need to be tightened). > No, what we have are people saying to create demand and the problem will solve itself. But what creates demand is a lot of people using IPv6. But what gets a lot of people using IPv6 is demand. It's a classic catch-22 and people who are arguing in favor of keeping the catch-22 going are merely arguing to keep the status quo. Boiled down, you have no solution to propose for getting people migrated so your going to argue that we all do nothing. It's someone elses problem. It's not my problem, it's the other guy who is supposed to be out there creating demand. No, I don't know how he's going to create demand, that's his problem. Ted From ljb at merit.edu Wed Mar 28 14:00:31 2007 From: ljb at merit.edu (Larry J. Blunk) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:00:31 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv6 Workshops? (was Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4Cou ntdown Policy Proposal) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460AAD3F.8050903@merit.edu> Internet2 also regularly hosts 2 day hands-on IPv6 workshops. The next IPv6 workshop is scheduled for April 17-18. http://ipv6.internet2.edu/workshops/index.shtml -Larry Blunk Merit JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > In case you're not yet aware, ARIN has been organizing IPv6 workshops in > ARIN(/NANOG) meetings, since about 2 years ago. Next one is in San Juan de > Puerto Rico, 22nd April. To register for the meeting: > > https://app.arin.net/meeting/registration/ > > I guess it will be very good if folks on this list can propose some ideas > for new contents for future workshops. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > >> De: Stephen Sprunk >> Responder a: >> Fecha: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:53:05 -0500 >> Para: >> CC: ARIN PPML >> Asunto: Re: [ppml] IPv6 Workshops? (was Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4Cou >> ntdown Policy Proposal) >> >> Thus spake >> >>> Is there anyone at all reaching out to the enterprise network operator >>> community, to tell them about IPv6 and to give them some hands-on >>> experience with it? Perhaps that would help speed adoption of v6. >>> >> I've submitted an official suggestion via the ACSP that ARIN start community >> outreach efforts. I didn't mention hands-on events, but that's a good >> thought to add if ARIN acts on the suggestion (and they might not, or the >> members might reject it if consulted, due to the high cost of reaching and >> influencing people who aren't already involved in the discussion). >> >> I also question how effective outreach is going to be when we, the people >> who obviously care the most about this stuff, can't even manage to get IPv6 >> running in our own networks/homes* and the consensus seems to be "who cares; >> I'll upgrade a few years after IPv4 runs out". If even Google, with all the >> talent and cash they have, can't be bothered to turn on IPv6, what does that >> say about the state of things? >> >> (* My monopoly ISP has said they have no plans to _ever_ offer IPv6, and >> even aftermarket fw for my Linksys router blocks IPinIP if I try 6to4 to >> their upstream's relay.) >> >> >>> I know of at least one IT education firm that has a v6 class, but that's >>> not what I had in mind. I'm thinking of something more along the >>> lines of the IPv6 workshop being held at the ARIN meeting in April. I >>> have in mind something where enterprise operators get an >>> opportunity to learn the nuts and bolts of IPv6 and to play with a >>> functioning IPv6 network. Maybe vendors or major service providers >>> could sponsor such a workshop to be held at an industry conference, >>> where there are many more enterprise operators in attendance. >>> >> If you want to reach enterprise operators, you're going to have to go to >> events like Networkers, Networld+Interop, etc. because few of them are going >> to be at "insiders" events like ARIN and NANOG meetings. However, it's not >> only the operators you need to convince; it's the people who control their >> budgets. And really, how are we going to convince the CIO of some >> international conglomerate that they need to convert to IPv6 when 90% of >> their traffic stays inside the firewall, they have a dozen legacy /16s of >> their own with plenty of room for growth, they're NATted to the outside >> world, and all their external communication is web and email traffic? About >> the only thing they need to upgrade to v6 is their VPN concentrator and they >> can keep using IPv4 for decades. >> >> These people account for a large fraction of the address space usage, but >> they're not asking for more on a regular basis (or ever!). Growth is coming >> from eyeballs and, to a lesser extent, hosters. We can't easily put hosters >> behind NATs, but we _can_ put the eyeballs behind NATs and tell them if they >> don't like it they can convert to IPv6. That's assuming the content folks >> ever bother dual-homing -- we need Google, YouTube, Yahoo, MySpace, ITMS, >> CNN, etc. to get with the program before that'll fly. >> >> S >> >> Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything >> CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." >> K5SSS --Isaac Asimov >> From info at arin.net Wed Mar 28 15:22:45 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:22:45 -0400 Subject: [ppml] NRPM version 2007.1 - New Policy Implementation Message-ID: <460AC085.1090102@arin.net> On 16 November 2006, the ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process had been followed, adopted the following policy proposal: 2006-3: Capturing Originations in Templates This policy proposal has been incorporated into version 2007.1 of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) which is effective 28 March 2007. NRPM version 2007.1 supersedes previous versions. See Appendix A of the NRPM for information regarding changes to the manual. Origin AS information for a network can be supplied to ARIN using version 4.1 of the following templates: * ISP Network Request * End-user Network Request * Network Modification * Reallocate * Reassign - Simple * Reassign - Detailed * IPv6 ISP Request * IPv6 End-user Request * IPv6 Modify * IPv6 Reallocate * IPv6 Reassign * Resource Transfer Template Origin AS information cannot be added using previous template versions. ARIN will continue to accept the previous versions of these templates for at least one year so that customers using scripts will have sufficient time to update their software. Origin AS information will be visible via ARIN's WHOIS directory service and available in list format at: ftp://ftp.arin.net/pub/originAS/ The NRPM can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html Appendix A can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm_changelog.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed Mar 28 16:30:41 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:30:41 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Accommodating IPv6 Address RRs for the Root of the Domain Name System Message-ID: http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/counter.php?id=2743 ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Thu Mar 29 13:52:47 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:52:47 +0200 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... Message-ID: <460bfcef.ee.11f1.4901@batelnet.bs> > Not now, but in the future IF we switch to IPv6 then > everyone WILL need IPv6 who has IPv4 assigned. It's not a switch. It's a transition. It's not "if", it's how fast. -M< From randy at psg.com Thu Mar 29 14:19:12 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:19:12 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <460bfcef.ee.11f1.4901@batelnet.bs> References: <460bfcef.ee.11f1.4901@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: <460C0320.6090906@psg.com> [ shame one can not tell to whom you are responding ] >> Not now, but in the future IF we switch to IPv6 then >> everyone WILL need IPv6 who has IPv4 assigned. > It's not a switch. It's a transition. It's not "if", it's > how fast. really slowly. really really slowly. really really really slowly. to repeat o ipv6-only networks can not reach the real internet o so everyone will need ipv4 space, period (and please do not waste our time with "well, many folk will be happy with X," where X is not the real internet) o as it gets scarce, there will be a market in ipv4 space o as prices rise it will be bought and sold in smaller and smaller pieces o and ipv4 nat will be pervasive so people can use the small spaces o and we will be routing ipv4 /27s and /32s not a pretty picture. i do not particularly like it. but we need to face reality, not marketing fantasy. if we want to change this reality, make it so ipv6-only sites can reach the internet. otherwise, ipv6 will only be useful in some internal hidden uses, and for ipv6-ipv6 connectivity, which will grow slowly. did i say really slowly? randy From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Thu Mar 29 16:16:10 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:16:10 +0200 Subject: [ppml] Accommodating IPv6 Address RRs for the Root of the Domain Name System Message-ID: <460c1e8a.143.15a4.24960@batelnet.bs> What I want to know is what is going to happen to the extra bytes in the V6 dns priming response? What is the procedure for me to apply for z.root-servers.net? I'd like to see those bytes reserved for a "local option", the option to run your own root in conjunction with the 13 others. (no, not altroot) -M< ----- Original Message ----- From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: Subject: [ppml] Accommodating IPv6 Address RRs for the Root of the Domain Name System Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:30:41 +0100 > http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/counter.php?id=2743 > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! > http://www.ipv6day.org > > This electronic message contains information which may be > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to > be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you > are not the intended recipient be aware that any > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents > of this information, including attached files, is > prohibited. > > > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Thu Mar 29 16:14:14 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:14:14 +0200 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... Message-ID: <460c1e16.381.1585.12242@batelnet.bs> [ note, i was responding to a statement, not a person, but I am respond to you now so of course I am cc'ing you ] > >> Not now, but in the future IF we switch to IPv6 then > >> everyone WILL need IPv6 who has IPv4 assigned. > > It's not a switch. It's a transition. It's not "if", > > it's how fast. > really slowly. really really slowly. really really > really slowly. That's obvious. What's not obvious is what is going to happen when exhaustion does happen. There is no doubt. Exhaustion is going to happen. -M< From randy at psg.com Thu Mar 29 15:57:11 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:57:11 -0700 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <460c1e16.381.1585.12242@batelnet.bs> References: <460c1e16.381.1585.12242@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: <5651-SnapperMsgDF20CFBFC231CABE@[10.172.211.129]> Read my message again. Integers are not being revoked. How you get them is in process off change from RIR to market. That's all. randy ___ sent from a handheld, so even more terse than usual :-) From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 29 16:36:34 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:36:34 +0100 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... In-Reply-To: <460C0320.6090906@psg.com> Message-ID: > o ipv6-only networks can not reach the real internet Not so in in the real world. In the real Internet, people connect to services by means of domain names. It is entirely possible for someone (like Akamai) to offer some sort of proxy services for websites etc. that cannot implement IPv6 easily. The website owner would insert AAAA records in their DNS zone pointing towards the proxy operator's addresses. The proxy operator would then manage the data transfer between the IPv4 and IPv6 network, or if the content is static, they'll just serve it from a copy. A lot like Akamai currently does now. > if we want to change this reality, make it so ipv6-only sites > can reach > the internet. Precisely! There are stupid technical tricks that can be used to make v6-to-v4 connectivity work. You will never find these tricks documented in an RFC but you will find people who build a business around selling magic boxes and proxy/gateway services as described above. It has happened before with route optimization and with WAN optimization and app-in-a-box, etc. It will happen again with IPv6. --Michael Dillon From jeroen at unfix.org Thu Mar 29 17:32:34 2007 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:32:34 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Accommodating IPv6 Address RRs for the Root of the Domain Name System In-Reply-To: <460c1e8a.143.15a4.24960@batelnet.bs> References: <460c1e8a.143.15a4.24960@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: <460C3072.5060009@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > What I want to know is what is going to happen to the extra > bytes in the V6 dns priming response? > > What is the procedure for me to apply for z.root-servers.net? Ask ICANN (people,website, mailinglists). RIR's do (IP|AS) numbers, not (DNS) names. > I'd like to see those bytes reserved for a "local option", the option > to run your own root in conjunction with the 13 others. (no, not > altroot) If you want to run your own "root server" then simply alias the 13 IP addresses on one machine, inject /32 routes for them into your IGP towards that machine and you are done. With a bit of trickery you can even use this box to forward the queries on to the real machines, but caching them locally. The rest of the world doesn't have to be bothered how you run your local network. But that is my personal opinion of course ;) Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 311 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Mar 29 20:39:59 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:39:59 -0500 Subject: [ppml] those pesky users... References: Message-ID: <01b701c77267$7cb7b280$4b3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> [ Responses to a half-dozen similar messages consolidated. ] Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" > Why does it cost double for ARIN to keep track of 2 data elements > for my AS, my IPv4 allocation and my IPv6 allocation, instead of > keeping track of only one data element - my IPv4 allocation? ARIN charges fees based on the estimated cost of handling the registration of the resource, and the reality is that different resources cost ARIN different amounts to handle. The reason is that ARIN doesn't just "track" resources as you've claimed; ARIN also determines whether there is a need that justifies the resource per existing policy, and the cost of doing that varies widely depending on the request, the requestor, etc. > The whole thing was a mistake on separate fee structures for IPv4 > and IPv6 IMHO. It really looks like an intent to set an artifically > high fee for IPv4 and artifically low fee for IPv6 with the expectation > that > it would cause people to switch over. It appears that people > haven't switched over. So, give them both and then ARIN and the > RIR's can simply concentrate on tracking ALL numbering that is out > there. IPv4 costs ARIN more than IPv6 will, just like bigger blocks cost ARIN more than smaller blocks; the fees reflect those variable costs. The members/BoT have decided to waive the IPv6 fees because either (a) they feel encouraging IPv6 is worth more to the community than the money they'd collect, and/or (b) the current total cost of IPv6 registration is so minimal it's not currently worth the effort to collect fees. That will undoubtedly change. > Suppose I go to customer X that has 35 people on a [random > product] which is not IPv6 compliant [ and ] will not be IPv6 > compliant for several more years. And it requires a 64 bit server. > > The upshot is that I have to tell these guys if they want to update > to IPv6 right now they have to ... ... do absolutely nothing other than turn it on. Enabling IPv6 does not make IPv4 stop working, though that mistaken idea does pop up from time to time. You turn on v6 where it's supported, and you start using it. When you no longer need v4, you turn it off. Note that there will likely be at least a decade between these steps for most networks unless there's some serious changes made in the transition plan. > These customers get sold a big bill of goods by [vendor] We all love to bash [vendor] as much as the next guy, but it really isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. > All those people are trying to find the killer app to get end users > to start buying television and movies on-demand, and to start > buying software on-demand. > They are not interested in writing a killer app for us to help IPv6. When exhaustion starts forcing users through v4-v6 NAT devices, the killer apps for v6 will emerge because v4 will no longer offer end-to-end connectivity. For instance, tell people they can't use BitTorrent to pirate movies on v4 anymore and they'll figure out how to get v6 running. That alone will get a few tens of millions of people (and half the Internet's usage) switched over... > Figure out a way to generate customer demand and interest. I > have already - use of a T-date. I know how successful that is with > people, the global warming people are using it very successful > right now. Um, no, they're not. The public reaction to global warming has mostly been "that's nice, but I'm not giving up my SUV." However, I suppose that's a good analogy, because IPv6 advocacy has been about as successful so far. > We have had a strategy of encouraging customers to use NAT > ever since 1999, as a result our total IP address need has not > changed, since we have been able to answer our own growth > needs for more numbers for more customers by taking away > larger blocks (/24s and the like) from customers that we originally > had assigned to them. Congratulations; you've managed to paint yourself into a corner. When exhaustion occurs, your competitors will start recycling their existing, plentiful addresses to keep growing, but you'll have to go to IPv6 to keep growing, paying that transition cost long before they have to. Doing what's best for the community at your own expense is generally not good for business. That's why we have community policies that limit how greedy people can be: to enforce our desired level of altruism with a level playing field. If you choose to tilt the field toward your competitors, I'm sure they'll be thankful for that. > And I am sure now the booing and hissing from the peanut gallery will > start at the mention of the N-word. Fine, go F*() yourselves. Please be professional. There are plenty of places you can go if you want to swear at people; this isn't one of them. > It makes no difference to a customer that is using, for example, a > /22 internally if the ISP comes along and assigns him a /22 of IPv4 > or a /29 of IPv4. He is STILL GOING TO PUT a NAT in there. And? IPv6 will give you the opportunity to sell him a new NAT box that is capable of translating between v4 and v6 -- assuming vendors get around to making such boxes. If not, everything will just keep working as it does today except he won't be able to reach new IPv6-only hosts until he dual-stacks. Big deal. > No, I am saying essentially go through all documents that have the > word "IPv4 address" and "IPv6 address" and replace it with "IP > address" > > You are enormously hung up on the idea that IPv4 and IPv6 are > technically different and this matters from a tracking standpoint. > > What ARIN and the RIR's do is track IP addresses. IPv4 and > IPv6 are IP addresses. They do not matter one bit from a > tracking standpoint, there are merely "stuff to track" Again, you misunderstand what RIRs do; see above. There _are_ critical differences between IPv4 and IPv6 that necessitate different policies. Pretending they're the same doesn't make it so. > Why is it even necessary to have the problem of IPv6 adoption > related in any way to the RIR's? If the migration for IPv4 to IPv6 > is to dual-stack everything, then just assign both IPv4 and IPv6 > when the RIR's hand out IPv4 addresses. So what if the > requestor doesen't have any need for IPv6 right now. Eventually > he will and then he will have the stuff assigned already. There is a _cost_ in allocating/assigning IPv6 blocks to people, and it is fiscally irresponsible to incur costs serving people who don't want to be served. And, when IPv6 use becomes non-trivial, ARIN will need to recover the costs of people who _do_ want/need IPv6 registry services, and we'll need to start billing for that service, especially since IPv4 revenue will start to wind down unless (or, depending on your views, because) the members/BoT decide to follow one of the various rate-hike proposals to get people off IPv4. > Boiled down, you have no solution to propose for getting people > migrated so your going to argue that we all do nothing. It's > someone elses problem. It's not my problem, it's the other guy > who is supposed to be out there creating demand. No, I don't > know how he's going to create demand, that's his problem. I'm working on solutions, but none of them are relevant to ARIN or RIR policies in general. Don't mistake "ARIN isn't the right place to solve this" for "let someone else solve it." Many of the folks here wear many hats and _are_ working on solving the problems in other fora that are more appropriate. You'll see the same names pop up in many community groups like ARIN, NANOG, IETF, etc. but each of those groups has a specific charter. Just because you've stumbled apon the ARIN list doesn't mean that it's a catch-all for every problem or even every aspect of one particular problem. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Thu Mar 29 22:55:24 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:55:24 +0200 Subject: [ppml] Accommodating IPv6 Address RRs for the Root of the Domain Name System Message-ID: <460c7c1c.251.1bee.29780@batelnet.bs> > > What I want to know is what is going to happen to the > > extra bytes in the V6 dns priming response? > > > > What is the procedure for me to apply for > z.root-servers.net? > > Ask ICANN (people,website, mailinglists). > RIR's do (IP|AS) numbers, not (DNS) names. This isn't ICANN's issue. ICANN executes policy. They don't create it. > > I'd like to see those bytes reserved for a "local > > option", the option to run your own root in conjunction > > with the 13 others. (no, not altroot) > > If you want to run your own "root server" then simply > alias the 13 IP addresses on one machine, inject /32 > routes for them into your IGP towards that machine and you > are done. With a bit of trickery you can even use this box > to forward the queries on to the real machines, but > caching them locally. > > The rest of the world doesn't have to be bothered how you > run your local network. > > But that is my personal opinion of course ;) Well, of course! :-) But seriously, and I am being serious, there is some space in the V6 response and there should be some innovation on how that space is used. ICANN executes policy, not creates it, so I fail to see the relevance of seeking some sort of response there. There is no procedure for "adding" another root server, but that's not relevant here. It's a naming issue. I mentioned to someone that I thought perhaps we should put the long/lat of the host in those bytes. Better yet, a local option, "Z" (which was monikered by others) would make a lot of sense. Why not include a local root with a corresponding reserved addr in the packet since we have some space? Trying to get back on to the policy topic, perhaps the reserved addr could be carved out of...? -M< From drc at virtualized.org Fri Mar 30 03:01:10 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:01:10 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Accommodating IPv6 Address RRs for the Root of the Domain Name System In-Reply-To: <460c7c1c.251.1bee.29780@batelnet.bs> References: <460c7c1c.251.1bee.29780@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: <51DCF156-97AF-4A86-B2E8-DE542CE6C412@virtualized.org> Martin, On Mar 30, 2007, at 3:55 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > This isn't ICANN's issue. ICANN executes policy. They don't create it. Err, no. Unless you're saying the gNSO, ccNSO, GAC, et al ad nauseam aren't part of ICANN. Rgds, -drc From randy at psg.com Fri Mar 30 03:05:42 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:05:42 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Accommodating IPv6 Address RRs for the Root of the Domain Name System In-Reply-To: <51DCF156-97AF-4A86-B2E8-DE542CE6C412@virtualized.org> References: <460c7c1c.251.1bee.29780@batelnet.bs> <51DCF156-97AF-4A86-B2E8-DE542CE6C412@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <460CB6C6.3050804@psg.com> > Err, no. Unless you're saying the gNSO, ccNSO, GAC, et al ad nauseam > aren't part of ICANN. don't get my hopes up From drc at virtualized.org Fri Mar 30 03:46:44 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:46:44 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Accommodating IPv6 Address RRs for the Root of the Domain Name System In-Reply-To: <460CB6C6.3050804@psg.com> References: <460c7c1c.251.1bee.29780@batelnet.bs> <51DCF156-97AF-4A86-B2E8-DE542CE6C412@virtualized.org> <460CB6C6.3050804@psg.com> Message-ID: <3625BFE9-83E7-4C1A-83E3-57F6018B35A3@virtualized.org> >> Err, no. Unless you're saying the gNSO, ccNSO, GAC, et al ad nauseam >> aren't part of ICANN. > don't get my hopes up But that'd take all the fun out of it for you when you're on ICANN's board... :-) Rgds, -drc From randy at psg.com Fri Mar 30 03:49:09 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:49:09 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Accommodating IPv6 Address RRs for the Root of the Domain Name System In-Reply-To: <3625BFE9-83E7-4C1A-83E3-57F6018B35A3@virtualized.org> References: <460c7c1c.251.1bee.29780@batelnet.bs> <51DCF156-97AF-4A86-B2E8-DE542CE6C412@virtualized.org> <460CB6C6.3050804@psg.com> <3625BFE9-83E7-4C1A-83E3-57F6018B35A3@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <460CC0F5.4030905@psg.com> >>> Err, no. Unless you're saying the gNSO, ccNSO, GAC, et al ad nauseam >>> aren't part of ICANN. >> don't get my hopes up > But that'd take all the fun out of it for you when you're on ICANN's > board... :-) my being on the icann board is as likely as the [ref above] not being part of icann. in fact, there is likely a correlation. randy From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Fri Mar 30 06:54:26 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:54:26 +0200 Subject: [ppml] Accommodating IPv6 Address RRs for the Root of the Domain Name System Message-ID: <460cec62.81.1dbc.20569@batelnet.bs> > Martin, > > On Mar 30, 2007, at 3:55 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > This isn't ICANN's issue. ICANN executes policy. They > don't create it. > > Err, no. Unless you're saying the gNSO, ccNSO, GAC, et al > ad nauseam aren't part of ICANN. Relative point. Thanks. Based on the history, the topic, and the author, the clarification would be that staff do not make policy. My interpretation of 'go ask ICANN' was such. What list would arguing about adding root-servers be relevant? I'd like to wake up Dean Anderson for this. :-) -M< From jweyand at computerdata.com Fri Mar 30 17:34:50 2007 From: jweyand at computerdata.com (Jim Weyand) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:34:50 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4 Address Countdown Message-ID: <1582DCBFF968F044A9A910C0AB177C9012FF96@cliff.cdi.local> It seems like it is time to start the relatively hard work of actually developing alternative policy proposals to deal with the IPv4 Address Exhaustion Issue. It is too late to prepare proposals for the April meeting but we have about 5 months before the cutoff for the October meeting. I have never written a proposal to any of the governing bodies but my guess it will take at least that long to: gather a group of like-minded individuals; negotiate the details of what to propose; write the proposal; seek feedback; rewrite the proposal; etc, etc until the proposal is either accepted or made irrelevant by another proposal. I find myself struggling with how to convert the suggestions and comments on this list into actual policy proposals. I think it is useful at this point to list the different trial balloons and proposals that have been suggested and discussed regarding IPv4 address exhaustion. If you have a favorite that I have missed, send it to me privately and I will send out a revised summary in a week or so. 1) Policy Proposal 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal - I believe this is the only proposal that can be voted on at the upcoming meeting in April. The full text can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_12.html. This proposal will, "Set the date for termination of (IPv4) allocations and the date of announcement". This proposal specifically does not address IP address recycling except to say that, "Recovery of unused address space should be discussed separately." 2) An informal proposal to not make any changes to current policy until absolutely necessary 3) An informal proposal to encourage address recycling by increasing ARIN dues 4) Several similar informal proposals to encourage recycling by empowering ARIN to more actively police the use of IPv4 addresses by various means 5) An informal proposal to change the nature of assigned IPv4 addresses to something similar to real property 6) An informal proposal to ask holders of unused address IPv4 addresses to voluntarily return the addresses 7) Several variants of informal proposals to start assigning IPv6 space with IPv4 8) An informal proposal to get endusers to demand access to IPv6 networks by creating a media storm similar to Y2K. It is time to make up your mind, roll up your sleeves and get to work. The current policies for dealing with IPv4 Addresses are not causing a crisis... yet. It is however an urgent issue and extremely important. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com Fri Mar 30 18:21:30 2007 From: marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:21:30 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4 AddressCountdown Message-ID: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A023EF6DD@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Jim- Thank you for taking time on this issue and trying to organize the thoughts a bit. Right now I view alot of the sujbect matter that makes up this issue as being resolved by evolution. That said there is one thing on your list below that we could write policy for and one thing that is not on your list that needs to be discussed and possibly policy written for. The one thing that you dont have below that I think does need to be answered by our community is...should we have a reserve of IPv4 space? If yes, who/what would qualify for the reserved address space? Are there truely entities that will never be able to transition to IPv4? Who can do the research to create a list of valid qualifications? The item on your list below that could use policy is Recycling IPv4 addresses after we have ran out. How is the RIR to handle this? Do they put them on a wait list? Is the wait list first come first serve? Is it prioritized somehow? Or if we voted to have a reserve are the returned IPv4 addresses added to the reserve and all that dont qualify under reserve standards are told switch to IPv6? Ok. That is my two cents. Thank you for your time Marla Azinger Frontier Communications [Azinger, Marla] -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim Weyand Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:35 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4 AddressCountdown It seems like it is time to start the relatively hard work of actually developing alternative policy proposals to deal with the IPv4 Address Exhaustion Issue. It is too late to prepare proposals for the April meeting but we have about 5 months before the cutoff for the October meeting. I have never written a proposal to any of the governing bodies but my guess it will take at least that long to: gather a group of like-minded individuals; negotiate the details of what to propose; write the proposal; seek feedback; rewrite the proposal; etc, etc until the proposal is either accepted or made irrelevant by another proposal. I find myself struggling with how to convert the suggestions and comments on this list into actual policy proposals. I think it is useful at this point to list the different trial balloons and proposals that have been suggested and discussed regarding IPv4 address exhaustion. If you have a favorite that I have missed, send it to me privately and I will send out a revised summary in a week or so. 1) Policy Proposal 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal - I believe this is the only proposal that can be voted on at the upcoming meeting in April. The full text can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_12.html. This proposal will, "Set the date for termination of (IPv4) allocations and the date of announcement". This proposal specifically does not address IP address recycling except to say that, "Recovery of unused address space should be discussed separately." 2) An informal proposal to not make any changes to current policy until absolutely necessary 3) An informal proposal to encourage address recycling by increasing ARIN dues 4) Several similar informal proposals to encourage recycling by empowering ARIN to more actively police the use of IPv4 addresses by various means 5) An informal proposal to change the nature of assigned IPv4 addresses to something similar to real property 6) An informal proposal to ask holders of unused address IPv4 addresses to voluntarily return the addresses 7) Several variants of informal proposals to start assigning IPv6 space with IPv4 8) An informal proposal to get endusers to demand access to IPv6 networks by creating a media storm similar to Y2K. It is time to make up your mind, roll up your sleeves and get to work. The current policies for dealing with IPv4 Addresses are not causing a crisis... yet. It is however an urgent issue and extremely important. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Fri Mar 30 22:15:16 2007 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:15:16 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4AddressCountdown References: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A023EF6DD@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Message-ID: I too thank Jim and I will be happy to work with you as you see fit to engage this topic and the industry's perspectives. And what of reclaimation? It seems if we are going to play the end game, then we need to establish policy that states clearly that ARIN can and will reclaim space. Let the litigation begin and let's get on with it. Bill Darte ARIN AC -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Azinger, Marla Sent: Fri 3/30/2007 5:21 PM To: Jim Weyand; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4AddressCountdown Jim- Thank you for taking time on this issue and trying to organize the thoughts a bit. Right now I view alot of the sujbect matter that makes up this issue as being resolved by evolution. That said there is one thing on your list below that we could write policy for and one thing that is not on your list that needs to be discussed and possibly policy written for. The one thing that you dont have below that I think does need to be answered by our community is...should we have a reserve of IPv4 space? If yes, who/what would qualify for the reserved address space? Are there truely entities that will never be able to transition to IPv4? Who can do the research to create a list of valid qualifications? The item on your list below that could use policy is Recycling IPv4 addresses after we have ran out. How is the RIR to handle this? Do they put them on a wait list? Is the wait list first come first serve? Is it prioritized somehow? Or if we voted to have a reserve are the returned IPv4 addresses added to the reserve and all that dont qualify under reserve standards are told switch to IPv6? Ok. That is my two cents. Thank you for your time Marla Azinger Frontier Communications [Azinger, Marla] -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim Weyand Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:35 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4 AddressCountdown It seems like it is time to start the relatively hard work of actually developing alternative policy proposals to deal with the IPv4 Address Exhaustion Issue. It is too late to prepare proposals for the April meeting but we have about 5 months before the cutoff for the October meeting. I have never written a proposal to any of the governing bodies but my guess it will take at least that long to: gather a group of like-minded individuals; negotiate the details of what to propose; write the proposal; seek feedback; rewrite the proposal; etc, etc until the proposal is either accepted or made irrelevant by another proposal. I find myself struggling with how to convert the suggestions and comments on this list into actual policy proposals. I think it is useful at this point to list the different trial balloons and proposals that have been suggested and discussed regarding IPv4 address exhaustion. If you have a favorite that I have missed, send it to me privately and I will send out a revised summary in a week or so. 1) Policy Proposal 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal - I believe this is the only proposal that can be voted on at the upcoming meeting in April. The full text can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_12.html. This proposal will, "Set the date for termination of (IPv4) allocations and the date of announcement". This proposal specifically does not address IP address recycling except to say that, "Recovery of unused address space should be discussed separately." 2) An informal proposal to not make any changes to current policy until absolutely necessary 3) An informal proposal to encourage address recycling by increasing ARIN dues 4) Several similar informal proposals to encourage recycling by empowering ARIN to more actively police the use of IPv4 addresses by various means 5) An informal proposal to change the nature of assigned IPv4 addresses to something similar to real property 6) An informal proposal to ask holders of unused address IPv4 addresses to voluntarily return the addresses 7) Several variants of informal proposals to start assigning IPv6 space with IPv4 8) An informal proposal to get endusers to demand access to IPv6 networks by creating a media storm similar to Y2K. It is time to make up your mind, roll up your sleeves and get to work. The current policies for dealing with IPv4 Addresses are not causing a crisis. yet. It is however an urgent issue and extremely important. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 30 23:12:01 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:12:01 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing withIPv4AddressCountdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RE: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4AddressCountdownReclamation is item #4 Ted -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill Darte Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:15 PM To: Azinger, Marla; Jim Weyand; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing withIPv4AddressCountdown I too thank Jim and I will be happy to work with you as you see fit to engage this topic and the industry's perspectives. And what of reclaimation? It seems if we are going to play the end game, then we need to establish policy that states clearly that ARIN can and will reclaim space. Let the litigation begin and let's get on with it. Bill Darte ARIN AC -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Azinger, Marla Sent: Fri 3/30/2007 5:21 PM To: Jim Weyand; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4AddressCountdown Jim- Thank you for taking time on this issue and trying to organize the thoughts a bit. Right now I view alot of the sujbect matter that makes up this issue as being resolved by evolution. That said there is one thing on your list below that we could write policy for and one thing that is not on your list that needs to be discussed and possibly policy written for. The one thing that you dont have below that I think does need to be answered by our community is...should we have a reserve of IPv4 space? If yes, who/what would qualify for the reserved address space? Are there truely entities that will never be able to transition to IPv4? Who can do the research to create a list of valid qualifications? The item on your list below that could use policy is Recycling IPv4 addresses after we have ran out. How is the RIR to handle this? Do they put them on a wait list? Is the wait list first come first serve? Is it prioritized somehow? Or if we voted to have a reserve are the returned IPv4 addresses added to the reserve and all that dont qualify under reserve standards are told switch to IPv6? Ok. That is my two cents. Thank you for your time Marla Azinger Frontier Communications [Azinger, Marla] -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim Weyand Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:35 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4 AddressCountdown It seems like it is time to start the relatively hard work of actually developing alternative policy proposals to deal with the IPv4 Address Exhaustion Issue. It is too late to prepare proposals for the April meeting but we have about 5 months before the cutoff for the October meeting. I have never written a proposal to any of the governing bodies but my guess it will take at least that long to: gather a group of like-minded individuals; negotiate the details of what to propose; write the proposal; seek feedback; rewrite the proposal; etc, etc until the proposal is either accepted or made irrelevant by another proposal. I find myself struggling with how to convert the suggestions and comments on this list into actual policy proposals. I think it is useful at this point to list the different trial balloons and proposals that have been suggested and discussed regarding IPv4 address exhaustion. If you have a favorite that I have missed, send it to me privately and I will send out a revised summary in a week or so. 1) Policy Proposal 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal - I believe this is the only proposal that can be voted on at the upcoming meeting in April. The full text can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_12.html. This proposal will, "Set the date for termination of (IPv4) allocations and the date of announcement". This proposal specifically does not address IP address recycling except to say that, "Recovery of unused address space should be discussed separately." 2) An informal proposal to not make any changes to current policy until absolutely necessary 3) An informal proposal to encourage address recycling by increasing ARIN dues 4) Several similar informal proposals to encourage recycling by empowering ARIN to more actively police the use of IPv4 addresses by various means 5) An informal proposal to change the nature of assigned IPv4 addresses to something similar to real property 6) An informal proposal to ask holders of unused address IPv4 addresses to voluntarily return the addresses 7) Several variants of informal proposals to start assigning IPv6 space with IPv4 8) An informal proposal to get endusers to demand access to IPv6 networks by creating a media storm similar to Y2K. It is time to make up your mind, roll up your sleeves and get to work. The current policies for dealing with IPv4 Addresses are not causing a crisis. yet. It is however an urgent issue and extremely important. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Mar 30 23:23:06 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:23:06 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4AddressCountdown In-Reply-To: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A023EF6DD@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Message-ID: Marla, the evolution thing is already listed, it is item #2 As for reserve space, that would only be relevant if the Internet were to not ever switch over to IPv6. Once we hit the 80-90th percentile of sites on the Internet reachable via IPv6, your going to see a lot of people beginning to block out ALL IPv4 route advertisements merely to save space in their routing tables. I do not see how on an Internet that is IPv6, that you could have any support for a legacy block of routed IPv4. It would become a ghetto that would be used by spammers and all manner of criminals to launch network attacks. No, the sites that feel they cannot switch over to IPv6 will simply have to disconnect once most of the rest of the world is IPv6. Personally I might not mind drivng a car in the US that has a 150 inch width but the rest of the world isn't going to widen it's roads for me. Thus it will be for the sites that want to stay IPv4 forever. Ted -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Azinger, Marla Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:22 PM To: Jim Weyand; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4AddressCountdown Jim- Thank you for taking time on this issue and trying to organize the thoughts a bit. Right now I view alot of the sujbect matter that makes up this issue as being resolved by evolution. That said there is one thing on your list below that we could write policy for and one thing that is not on your list that needs to be discussed and possibly policy written for. The one thing that you dont have below that I think does need to be answered by our community is...should we have a reserve of IPv4 space? If yes, who/what would qualify for the reserved address space? Are there truely entities that will never be able to transition to IPv4? Who can do the research to create a list of valid qualifications? The item on your list below that could use policy is Recycling IPv4 addresses after we have ran out. How is the RIR to handle this? Do they put them on a wait list? Is the wait list first come first serve? Is it prioritized somehow? Or if we voted to have a reserve are the returned IPv4 addresses added to the reserve and all that dont qualify under reserve standards are told switch to IPv6? Ok. That is my two cents. Thank you for your time Marla Azinger Frontier Communications [Azinger, Marla] -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim Weyand Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:35 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4 AddressCountdown It seems like it is time to start the relatively hard work of actually developing alternative policy proposals to deal with the IPv4 Address Exhaustion Issue. It is too late to prepare proposals for the April meeting but we have about 5 months before the cutoff for the October meeting. I have never written a proposal to any of the governing bodies but my guess it will take at least that long to: gather a group of like-minded individuals; negotiate the details of what to propose; write the proposal; seek feedback; rewrite the proposal; etc, etc until the proposal is either accepted or made irrelevant by another proposal. I find myself struggling with how to convert the suggestions and comments on this list into actual policy proposals. I think it is useful at this point to list the different trial balloons and proposals that have been suggested and discussed regarding IPv4 address exhaustion. If you have a favorite that I have missed, send it to me privately and I will send out a revised summary in a week or so. 1) Policy Proposal 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal ? I believe this is the only proposal that can be voted on at the upcoming meeting in April. The full text can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_12.html. This proposal will, ?Set the date for termination of (IPv4) allocations and the date of announcement? . This proposal specifically does not address IP address recycling except to say that, ?Recovery of unused address space should be discussed separately.? 2) An informal proposal to not make any changes to current policy until absolutely necessary 3) An informal proposal to encourage address recycling by increasing ARIN dues 4) Several similar informal proposals to encourage recycling by empowering ARIN to more actively police the use of IPv4 addresses by various means 5) An informal proposal to change the nature of assigned IPv4 addresses to something similar to real property 6) An informal proposal to ask holders of unused address IPv4 addresses to voluntarily return the addresses 7) Several variants of informal proposals to start assigning IPv6 space with IPv4 8) An informal proposal to get endusers to demand access to IPv6 networks by creating a media storm similar to Y2K. It is time to make up your mind, roll up your sleeves and get to work. The current policies for dealing with IPv4 Addresses are not causing a crisis yet. It is however an urgent issue and extremely important. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kavalec at BSWA.com Sat Mar 31 19:49:11 2007 From: Kavalec at BSWA.com (G. Waleed Kavalec) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:49:11 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4 AddressCountdown Message-ID: Item 8-B is implied in 8: create an actual content "carrot" to attract the communitu to an IPV6 site or sites. Should it be a separate proposal? -- Greg Kavalec System Architect Baca, Stein, White and Associates, Inc. (281) 342-2646 office (281) 344-7515 cell -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim Weyand Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:35 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4 AddressCountdown It seems like it is time to start the relatively hard work of actually developing alternative policy proposals to deal with the IPv4 Address Exhaustion Issue. It is too late to prepare proposals for the April meeting but we have about 5 months before the cutoff for the October meeting. I have never written a proposal to any of the governing bodies but my guess it will take at least that long to: gather a group of like-minded individuals; negotiate the details of what to propose; write the proposal; seek feedback; rewrite the proposal; etc, etc until the proposal is either accepted or made irrelevant by another proposal. I find myself struggling with how to convert the suggestions and comments on this list into actual policy proposals. I think it is useful at this point to list the different trial balloons and proposals that have been suggested and discussed regarding IPv4 address exhaustion. If you have a favorite that I have missed, send it to me privately and I will send out a revised summary in a week or so. 1) Policy Proposal 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal - I believe this is the only proposal that can be voted on at the upcoming meeting in April. The full text can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_12.html. This proposal will, "Set the date for termination of (IPv4) allocations and the date of announcement". This proposal specifically does not address IP address recycling except to say that, "Recovery of unused address space should be discussed separately." 2) An informal proposal to not make any changes to current policy until absolutely necessary 3) An informal proposal to encourage address recycling by increasing ARIN dues 4) Several similar informal proposals to encourage recycling by empowering ARIN to more actively police the use of IPv4 addresses by various means 5) An informal proposal to change the nature of assigned IPv4 addresses to something similar to real property 6) An informal proposal to ask holders of unused address IPv4 addresses to voluntarily return the addresses 7) Several variants of informal proposals to start assigning IPv6 space with IPv4 8) An informal proposal to get endusers to demand access to IPv6 networks by creating a media storm similar to Y2K. It is time to make up your mind, roll up your sleeves and get to work. The current policies for dealing with IPv4 Addresses are not causing a crisis... yet. It is however an urgent issue and extremely important. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: