[arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20

Thu Jul 23 18:43:49 EDT 2009

Lee Wrote:

> ...If you don't, then please answer the question: "How much (effort=time=) 
> money should ARIN spend on reclamation?"...

Well... as much as can be reasonably allocated to the effort starting on Monday.  1 year of additional time might make the difference between survival and/or implosion for service providers trapped under other providers that are not making proper progress.  I don't want to see some of us (even if I am in "the club") make it through at the expense of others who are asking for help - that is reasonable, possible, and equitable.

How many members need to be saved from failure for it to be worth the effort?

1?  2?  5? 100?... 

A nice certified letter went out a month or two ago (3?), that alerted the community to the seriousness of the issue at hand.  The result (well done by the way ARIN) is increased participation and awareness.  So now that we have critical mass building, do we have enough time for a smooth transition?

I hope so, but I don't bet that way when lives or livelihoods of others are at stake, at least not when I see the odds like I do on this one.

To me, every day we can buy by asking (not forcing) others to be responsible is worth the effort required.

I believe the cordiality of many is better than exhibited on this list (including by myself at times lately), and given the opportunity to do the right thing in the public eye, I believe we might be pleasantly surprised at the philanthropy available.  Yes, I am suggesting some public pressure on organizations to be accountable and equitable, but that is not so draconian, is it?

Best,
~Vaughn

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Howard [mailto:spiffnolee at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:39 PM
To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Brent Sweeny
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20

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.