[arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
Steven Ryerse
SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Thu Sep 6 14:56:20 EDT 2012
I think most organizations hope that they can replace their non-IPv6 equipment at the normal time and cycle that they normally replace their equipment. As an example, most of my customers replace their servers in 3 or 4 or 5 year cycles. Certainly they would prefer not to have to pay out money to replace a server before the normal cycles that they budget for. This is not only human nature but normal business planning.
The bigger question I have here though, is what business is it of mine or yours or this community to try and dictate by policy when these cycles should occur? With all due respect, it appears to me that this community is actually trying to hoard the remaining IPv4 addresses that are left. That is as much of a problem for getting IPv6 moving forward as whatever any legacy holder or fortune 500 company may be doing. It is time to stop the madness of trying to make IPv4 last forever. It is time to reasonably and prudently allocate IPv4 addresses and when they are gone they are gone. Then a combination of - some of the unused legacy addresses becoming available, and IPv6 migration will solve the exhaustion problem forthwith.
We've already replaced all of our non IPv6 equipment and already have our IPv6 address block. We are trying to implement IPv6 now but one of our upstream providers isn't ready for it yet. We are trying to convince them to work with us to get this working and will probably succeed at some point. These are the real world problems that we all are facing and will all have to solve. Until then IPv4 addresses should be allocated and not withheld by ARIN. Your economic history lesson is interesting but not relevant when the mission of ARIN is to facilitate the advancement of the Internet and not to somehow slow its growth down by creating policies that do slow it down in favor of somehow saving IPv4. I know some folks in this community will get tired of me reiterating this over and over but I plan on doing so until some reason prevails.
Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:22 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
Yes, but in this case, it's equivalent to not only failing to pay $1 now to avoid paying $1,000 later, but also allowing the problem you could easily have addressed for $1 to grow to the point where it will also cost all of your neighbors $1,000 each as well.
It's literally the network equivalent of deciding not to address a backed-up septic tank, but you keep right on adding to said septic tank until it floods your neighborhood in a layer of... well, septic tank contents.
It's a whole lot cheaper to clean out a septic tank early than it is to repair the aftermath of a septic flood.
In the septic flood case, we actually have laws that provide liability and penalties for people that fail to clean out their septic system in time. In the IPv6 migration, we have people arguing that ARIN shouldn't even be characterizing those failing to clean their septic systems as a problem.
Owen
On Sep 6, 2012, at 09:08 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> I think it is just delaying paying the cost to do and everyone delays paying costs when they can. Human nature.
>
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>
> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:41 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>
> As I said previously... Failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community. Failing to get that failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community leads to failing to deploy IPv6 and thus doing something technical that does hurt this community. Q.E.D.
>
> Owen
>
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:32 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
>> With all due respect, how they decide to run their organizations is not any of his or our business. I believe that is the definition of liberty and freedom. As long as they don't do anything technical to hurt this community then it is none of his or this communities concern. This community should only concern itself with ARINs mission and not side issues.
>>
>> Steven Ryerse
>> President
>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>> 770.399.9099- Office
>>
>> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:59 PM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>
>> Paul's point was about the large number of well capitalized organizations he is observing that don't seem to get it.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 16:44 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree we do need to do IPv6.
>>>
>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>> President
>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>
>>> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 7:38 PM
>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>> Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>
>>> Failing to deploy IPv6 will cause serious technical problems for everyone, so, seems to me Paul's comments in this regard are spot on.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 15:14 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it this community's charter to pass judgment on how any organization chooses to run their business - if they don't cause technical problems for the rest of this community? Seems to me Microsoft or whoever is "facilitating the advancement of the Internet", even if they choose to be greedy for their owners or shareholders in the process.
>>>>
>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>> President
>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>
>>>> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:12 PM
>>>> To: Jimmy Hess
>>>> Cc: Steven Ryerse; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>
>>>> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well
>>>> capitalized organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was
>>>> an impending ipv4 exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are by
>>>> and large not treating
>>>> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6 and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all, that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
>>>> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>>>>
>>>> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>>>>
>>>> paul
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>> ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>
>>
>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list