[arin-discuss] ARIN Travel

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:rs at seastrom.com]
>Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:51 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: John Curran; G.Hiscott; arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ARIN Travel
>
>
>
>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> writes:
>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:rs at seastrom.com]
>>>Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 11:55 AM
>>>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>>>Cc: John Curran; G.Hiscott; arin-discuss at arin.net
>>>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ARIN Travel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> I actually think that right now ARIN should be working more on
>>>> visiting shows that the major networks would have staff attending.
>>>> There are still a great many transit providers out there who
>>>> are not routing IPv6 at the current time.  There is no point in
>>>> getting the customer base stirred up and demanding IPv6 when
>>>> it's not available from their network provider, they will just
>>>> lose interest in it.
>>>
>>>Actually, it is quite the opposite.  Providers who survived the bubble
>>>bursting have learned their lesson about the "if you build it they
>>>will come" mentality; they're only setting up network resources in
>>>direct response to customer demands.
>>
>> I figured someone would say that.
>>
>> I have to disagree on this.  We have had only 1 customer ask about
>> IPv6 and that was 2 years ago, and the guy was a techie on a home
>> DSL line.
>>
>> Yet I have just finished going through channels with our feeds to
>> get an IPv6 adoption plan into place.
>
>It seems that ARIN's outreach to-date (meetings, ppml) has worked in
>your case, and it no doubt helps that you're running an ISP that is
>small enough to have no capex issues with making this happen (I enjoy
>a similar situation with the micro-isp I'm running for my personal
>colo, so I can dig it).  Much bigger issue running a regional or
>national backbone.
>

Not really.  I was looking into IPv6 in 2002.  The problem was
twofold, however.  First we didn't have our own numbers and that was
a lot of work to renumber, in fact the very last device on the old
number set - the primary DNS server, which became unreachable a year
after we got numbers - I finally shut down 2 years after commencing
the renumber.  (we had internal systems that it was easier to just
let them peter off into nothing than to tear into their configs)
Secondly, none of the various feeds we have used over the years natively
routed IPv6.

But the most important thing, which I commented on, on this list about
8-9 months ago, was the IPv6 fees were only under a wavier.  Meaning
that as a waiver could always be lifted, we couldn't possibly justify
obtaining numbering that no customers were asking for, if there was a
chance that after getting it we would have to start paying for it.  Our
existing ARIN fees for IPv4 are not backbreaking - but they are not
chicken feed either.

The new policy - where an org merely pays the larger of the 2 bills,
IPv4 or IPv6 - which the ARIN board put into place sometime this summer,
was the key that was needed to get the IPv6 project into the skunkworks.

Like most admins I find it far easier to get lump sums approved than
to get reocurring expenditures approved.  Basically, any reocurring
expenditure
must be justified as bringing in reocurring revenue.  ISPs as you well know
are masters of getting people locked into reocurring payments - we know
well how much money we can make by doing this - and as a result, most
ISP's try their darndest to have as few reocurring payments themselves.

it took nearly has
always been that none of our feeds that we have used over the years

>> One of them - Time Warner
>> Telecom - I just talked to the network guy in charge of this today.
>> They are planning on going live 3rd quarter 2008 - in direct response
>> to the GSA thing.  The guy told me he gets about 1 query a month from
>> an ISP regarding IPv6 and he's in charge of it for the entire TWT
>> global network.
>
>One guy in charge of it for a whole network the size of TWT sounds
>about right.  They will put more resources behind it when appropriate
>in response to customer demand (see above).  I would say that "ipv6
>one man band" is likely similar in many if not most continental scale
>networks at this juncture.
>
>> TW Telecom is probably very representative of the midlevel transit
>> providers.  They don't do a lot of government work but it's easier
>> to CYA by just getting IPv6 running then you don't have to deal
>> with some saleperson somewhere in the company who gets hamstrung on
>> a bid that is somehow tied to a GSA contract.  I would imagine that
>> a lot of the other transit ASs are starting to look into this
>> issue for the same reasons.  This is the group that ARIN needs to
>> be pushing.
>
>On the contrary, there is no need for ARIN to be pushing them

I didn't say pushing them, I said pushing "that group"  TW is I think
in a minority in that group.  There needs to be an effort to get ALL
midlevel transit ASs to get IPv6 routing going in 2008, because
they will need to be online by Q1 2009 so that an effort to get all
the non-transit end-node AS's online can be made then so that all of
them are going by the 2010 deadline AKA expected end of IPv4 assignments.

The retail ISPs out there that are single-homed and don't have their
own numbering will have no choice but to request IPv6 from their
upstream - and assuming current trends hold and IPv4 runs out in 2011,
for those retail ISPs to continue to grow after 2011 means they must
have routing access to IPv6 as it will be very unlikely that their
feed will have any IPv4 for them.  SO, clearly their feeds - the
midsized transit AS's I'm talking about - must have their act together
with IPv6 pre-IPv4 runout.  Meaning, pre-IPv6 significant-demand.

>
>If you have any suggestions or recommendations for venues in which
>this could occur, please make yourself heard - I'm sure ARIN staff
>would welcome more input in this arena (and hey, nobody will *ever*
>accuse a trip to Portland of being a "junket"!)

In 2003, Transworld Snowboarding magazine readers and editors ranked
Mount Bachelor the fourth best snowboarding resort in North America.
It's also the site of several USSA competitions each year.

Some of the best powder snow skiing in the country is located at
Mt. Bachelor - or so I've been told.  I don't ski myself.  Trust me,
there's just as much junk for people to waste their money on in
OR as anywhere else.

Ted