[arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20
Lee Howard
spiffnolee at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 23 16:39:22 EDT 2009
I've replied to you elsewhere, but I might have missed the real point.
The original suggestion was to study how much address space we could get back. Has
there already been a study of that question published somewhere? I would really like
to see it.
After a few minutes of searching, I dug up an old post of mine:
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-August/011711.html
where I ask, "How much time would we have?" under various assumptions. I think the
best scenario within the realm of realism is a 30% rate of reclamation. If that's about
right, then we gain, at most, a year. Please feel free to question my assumptions or my
methodology. If you don't, then please answer the question: "How much (effort=time=)
money should ARIN spend on reclamation?"
This is, to me, why this debate is a membership question, and not a policy question.
Lee
----- Original Message ----
> From: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC <Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com>
> To: Brent Sweeny <sweeny at indiana.edu>
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:52:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20
>
> Brent,
>
> Sorry if I came across as name calling - that's good feedback. Let me tone it
> down a bit, be a bit more constructive, and go more at the root of the issue,
> i.e. my concern regarding throwing our hands up too easily.
>
> I am stating that, in my humble opinion, the previous study is not based wholly
> on verified facts, but rather on supposition and speculation layered upon
> partially verified data. Further, it included sources who had an interest in
> moving the world forward towards IPv6 at a faster pace (sell new
> hardware/software/services, etc.). This is not (on it's own) a valid basis for
> current decisions about how to smooth an impending rough transition. The stakes
> have been raised and it's time to do our job as a membership and work in the
> interest of the larger community - our eco-system as it were.
>
> There is ample corroborated testimony (to indicate the existence of substantial
> reclamation opportunities) within the postings on this list (over just the last
> 72 hours) to serve as evidence warranting a grand jury. I qualify that
> statement with: provided people would swear to their recent statements, etc.
> So, it seems we should be as inquisitive as the law would when our own interests
> are at stake. This is especially true for the smaller operators that need some
> headroom while this inevitable transition occurs.
>
> I can quote a recent study by a conservative think tank and another from a
> liberal think tank - both on a current hot topic (never mind the issue, don't
> want to bunny trail here). Each offers a diametrically opposed viewpoint of the
> same data. Each effectively presents a favorable subset of the data without
> exposing the weakness of certain suppositions used to arrive at the seemingly
> data based results. In fact, both will assume their viewpoint upon the same
> data and it has to color the result.
>
> Data is objective, analysis is subjective.
>
> It sounds to me like there is a lot of unanalyzed data yet to be given the
> "Colombo"...
>
> "The /8's are too hard to get back without fragmentation and everyone would
> fight to the death to keep their unused space. So let's look at the remaining
> data"
>
> Colombo: "Yes, but Sir, I have just one more question..." which is how we get
> at the missed opportunity for solutions. That's all I want us to do.
>
> Hope that more politely expands upon my point: We are not in a situation where
> inaction is acceptable unless it is based upon aggressively verified data... in
> other words I suggest that ARIN *should* contact the holders of large blocks of
> unused space *anew* and see what their feeling is about being good corporate
> Internet citizens in the face of a crisis headed towards public attention.
> Offer press releases praising them for their good deeds, and honorable mention
> at various events, and you might be quite surprised what a well placed call from
> senior resources could accomplish. I'm an optimist.
>
> Of course, a stick should be behind the back that wears that friendly smile. I
> believe it should have written on it: "The power of the press".
>
> In my opinion, ARIN can reach that stick faster than small operators can on our
> own, but we can band up and reach it if ARIN feels bound or otherwise unable to
> do so. That stick is the data verifier we need. I am not suggesting we fight
> bears, but rather that we be brave enough to make sure they are not just wooly
> caterpillars in an oversized (allocation) bear suit before we checkmark those
> caves as being off limits.
>
> Best regards,
> ~Vaughn
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brent Sweeny [mailto:sweeny at indiana.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:09 AM
> To: Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a
> /20
>
> the fact that someone has already "studied the issue" (precisely as you
> suggest be done) and the data behind the facts of the study disagree with
> your assumption doesn't make them a "naysayer"; it makes them much more
> convincing, and the name-calling doesn't change the facts nor their
> inevitable conclusions. If you assert that ARIN needs to expend resources to
> try to disprove Tony's (and Geoff's) pretty careful analysis, it'd be
> necessary to have more than that you don't like the conclusions as a reason:
> you'd have to have some factual basis for convincing us their analysis is
> flawed and must be redone. Absent that, we have to be grownups, accept the
> facts, and try to use "a group this bright" to do the best we can with the
> facts -- and move forward, not backwards.
>
> On 7/22/2009 8:23 PM, Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote:
> > Wow, so out come the naysayers... "Shut up you little fleas. Don't you
> > know that the experts have spoken? Why study the issue when others have
> > already said it is not worth it."
> >
> > The power of the press and public opinion are pretty powerful. Does a
> > protracted battle against the interests of small ISP types or the
> > "Internet community" really suit HP, Apple, or any of the other space
> > Easters if in the public eye? Think about the good will a few have
> > gotten on this list by committing to return space..
> >
> > You don't get what you don't ask for.
> >
> > Try! Aim high and risk falling short. Aiming low is too easy to
> > succeed at for a group this bright.
> >
> > ~Vaughn
> >
> > Sent from my handheld
> >
> > On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Steve Wagner wrote:
> >>
> >>> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho. The State of Idaho
> >>> has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit behind
> >>> two different firewalls.
> >>>
> >>> Micron technology 137.201.0.0. Sits behind firewalls
> >>>
> >>> And so forth into perpetuity it seems
> >>>
> >>> In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies have,
> >>> particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is
> >>> unjustified. The ones I listed above use Private address space
> >>> behind the firewall i.e. 10.X.X.X etc. So why then would a company
> >>> entity that does this need to retain their public Class A, B, C etc.
> >>> There is no technical or administrative justification I can see.
> >>>
> >>> Nevertheless, there was a comment about pre ARIN and Contract Law.
> >>> Unfortunatley this may play the larger role over common sense.
> >>>
> >>> While this is not the ultimate solution, it certainly can stem the
> >>> tide for many years.
> >>>
> >>> It would be an interesting study to examine the allocated IP address
> >>> space by entity and determine how many of these organizations sit
> >>> behind a NAT firewall, and only use a small portion of their allocation.
> >>>
> >> Reclamation has been repeatedly studied, and, in general, the
> >> conclusion matches the following excerpt from a Cisco Journal article:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html
> >>
> >>> Reclaiming Allocations
> >>> Another debate occasionally resurfaces about reclaiming some of the
> >>> early allocations to further extend the lifetime of IPv4. Hopefully
> >>> this article has shown that the ROI for that approach is going to be
> >>> extremely low. Discussions around the Internet community show there
> >>> is an expectation that it will take several years of substantive
> >>> negotiation (in multiple court systems around the globe) to retrieve
> >>> any /8s. Then following that effort and expense, the likelihood of
> >>> even getting back more than a few /8 blocks is very low. Following
> >>> the allocation growth trend, after several years of litigation the
> >>> result is likely to be just a few months of additional resource added
> >>> to the pool—and possibly not even a whole month. All this assumes
> >>> IANA does not completely run out before getting any back, because
> >>> running out would result in pentup demand that could immediately
> >>> exhaust any returns.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can come up with credible figures indicating that there are at
> >> least 28 /8s worth of reclaimable space out there, then, reclamation
> >> efforts might be more interesting, but, I tend to doubt that is the
> >> case. If you can't reclaim at least 14 /8s, you don't even buy an
> >> additional year.
> >>
> >> Owen
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Steve Wagner
> >>> Vice President of Operations
> >>> Syringa Networks, LLC
> >>> 3795 S Development Ave, Suite 100
> >>> Boise, ID 83705
> >>> Office: 208.229.6104
> >>> Main: 208.229.6100
> >>> Emergency: 1.800.454.7214
> >>> Fax: 208.229.6110
> >>> Email:
> >>> Stwagner at syringanetworks.net
> >>>
> >>> Web: www.syringanetworks.net
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Idaho's Premier Fiber Optic Network"
> >>>
> >>> Privilege and Confidentiality Notice
> >>> The information in this message is intended for the named recipients
> >>> only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
> >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended
> >>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
> >>> distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents
> >>> of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> >>> e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or its contents.
> >>> In such event, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete
> >>> the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> >>> [
> >>> mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
> >>> On Behalf Of John Osmon
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:43 PM
> >>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> >>>
> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to
> >>> RETURN a /20
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> John Osmon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We're aren't going to save the IPv4 world by returning space, but
> >>>>> we *will* make it easier on soe folks that are coming to the table
> >>>>> (relatively) late.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hate to be a downer, but not at the current burn rate.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I agree -- but don't tell the folks that think getting
> >>> a couple of /8s back from HP, Apple, and the DOD is going to significant
> >>> difference in the timing of IPv4 exhaustion. :-)
> >>>
> >>> I still think that anything you aren't using should go back to the
> >>> pool that allows new comers a chance to participate in
> >>> commerce/communication. I don't, however, think that a slew of
> >>> /20s (or /8s) are going to make a big impact.
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> ARIN-Discuss
> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (
> >>> ARIN-discuss at arin.net
> >>> ).
> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >>>
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience
> >>> any issues.
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> ARIN-Discuss
> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net
> >>> ).
> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ARIN-Discuss
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net
> >> ).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience
> >> any issues.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-discuss
mailing list