[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] [Fwd: ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks]
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> On 2/15/2011 10:21 PM, Eric Westbrook wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 22:36, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
> > <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
> > > If the effort is to entice legacy space holders into joining
> > ARIN, don't
> > > try to penalize them. Give them a positive incentive.
> > I don't see this proposal as involving any penalties. Indeed, it is
> > the absence of this kind of thinking that consistently leads to
> > proposals to force legacy holders into the ARIN regime. The
> > (implied) incentive in 133 is that legacy holders can go to other
> > service providers - assuming of course, that we retain a consistent
> > and integrated whois that works across multiple service providers.
> > Nothing's broken today with respect to the services in question. I can
> > only envision additional costs, rigmarole, and coordination issues to
> > come with a multiple-provider regime.
> > Perhaps what's broken is that legacy holders like me don't pay -- at
> > least, that seems to be the source of some significant outrage here.
> Not to me, and it's never really been that much.
> What I really resent most of all are the legacy-assigned blocks that
> are NOT in use.
> I don't care if you were assigned a legacy block 15 years ago that your
> paying nothing for - and you have 60% or more utilized. If anything,
> you have my support to have at it.
Over 50% but probably not quite 60%
> But I do very much care if you have a legacy block that you got 15
> years ago that is at 1% utilization because your too fat, dumb, and lazy
> to renumber into a /24 within that block and return the rest to
> the RIR.
Since it's already a /24, this paragraph is meaningless.
> > Unfortunately, the LRSA is a non-starter (to me and others I know)
> > because of potential dilution of rights to the resource, as I've
> > articulated before.
> Your resource is only good for accessing others resources, and that
> usefulness is going to go away in the future. 10 years from now nobody
> will give a rat's ass about your "rights to the resource". So all I
> can conclude in reading a statement like this from a legacy holder is
> that either a) your sticking your head in the sand about IPv6 or
> b) Your an old man who plans on retiring long before IPv4 gets abandoned
> or c) your just making up excuses to yourself to justify not paying
> anything because your conscience is bugging you.
Try d) Am already implementing IPv6 (despite complete non-cooperation
from my ISPs and my network being too small, last time I looked, for
an ARIN end-user aIPv6 assignment), but will require IPv4 uniqueness
> None of which I or anyone else really gives a hoot about. In other
> words, we don't give a fig about your precious "rights" to your Legacy
> resource - as long as your USING it.
LRSA, last time I read the fine print, says that I can keep my legacy
assignment as long as I meet the minimum requirements for it, but the
minimum assignment size is a /20, which I definitely don't qualify for.
(I would qualify for a /24, if such were available.)
> Because, ultimately, if you ARE using it, then it's YOUR CUSTOMERS THE
> END USERS who are REALLY the users here. It's THEY I care about
> reaching, NOT YOU.
False premise. I am not an ISP. I am an end user. I'm not providing
transit or reallocation to my customers; I am providing services to
them which require IP. You aren't reaching my customers via my
network and they would scream bloody murder if you could. You might
care about reaching them, but they care very much that you can't,
at least not by transiting my network.
> The rest of us on the Internet have made an exception for your block NOT
> because of your imaginary "rights" but because we care about the USERS
> of your block.
What exception? You aren't carrying my block. All my Internet access
is NATed through my ISPs.
> Barring a change to that, and with no other way in,
> > we're stuck. Were that different, I for one would cheerfully sign, pay,
> > and enjoy more formal participation.
You presume to read my mind and tell me what I would and would not
do? Are you psychic.
> All I can do today is cooperate by
> > keeping my information current.
> > Carrots and sticks are uncompelling to the legacy holder.
> Utter rubbish. Either your a legacy holder who is planning on
> continuing your Internet presense (in which case you have obtained
> IPv6, and are paying for it, and signed an RSA for it)
> or your planning on riding off into the sunset once your IPv4 becomes
> useless. And if it's the latter, then you really have nothing
> constructive to add, IMHO.
You are assuming a shit-load of facts that are just not true, at
least not for me, and since Eric's original post described my
situation to a tee, it probably doesn't apply to him either.
> > $0.02,
> > Eric
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539