[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

Mon Apr 15 22:48:01 EDT 2013

On Apr 15, 2013, at 16:26 , Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:

> Matthew,
> 
> Unlike you, I didn't say anyone's comments weren't worth listening to. You're still young yet and I suspect once you start your own business vs what you've been doing the last 4 years (customer service 3yrs & IP management 1yr) you will have a different perspective.
> 
> With that said there are 3 factors you can base pricing on:
> 
> 1. Totally arbitrary number (current model)

If you review John's slides, you will see that the current model is actually much closer to (3) than you wish to admit.
It really isn't (1) no matter how many times you repeat this claim.

> 2. Equally based on blocks assigned
> 3. Based on ARIN time consumed.
> 
> The third one is the one you're suggesting. This model is the second least perfect because it is arbitrary as well. All you can do is average everyone out which means I may be paying for some dude generating tons of tickets while I only created a few tickets in the last few years. This is an unequal yoke.

The world contains many unequal yokes and placing customers into tiered categories and yoking all customers in a given category with the same fees is not at all unusual. Look at unlimited telephone and internet plans, for example. You may use 2 kilobytes a month yet you pay the same price as the guy that downloads several gigs. Such is life.

I'm guessing your the guy that makes the waiter split the check or makes everyone calculate their own individual exact meal costs rather than accepting that div/n works out close enough.

ARIN's model is not arbitrary. It comes close to div/n based on the cost units per tier from ARIN's cost accounting efforts.
(That's the foundation for my earlier comments, btw).

> The only way to guarantee everyone is equally yoked is to base it strictly on blocks assigned and get rid of all the categories altogether.

Except that's a much more unequal yoke than what we have currently. As I said, I would benefit tremendously from this pricing. My employer would probably suffer a little, but not too much.

> I think all of us agree one of the reasons we are out of IPs is because of waste. Making it strictly an allocation based model with no tiers should help combat waste. If I'm assigning /22's to a bunch of T1's and have to request a bunch of POs to get more IPs on a linear cost model I will have to justify that to accounting. At some point your CFO will say what the heck are you doing, this doesn't scale. I can't continue to spend x amount to acquire each customer. 

NO. We ran out of IPs a long time ago, not because of waste, but because there are 3.2 billion unicast IPv4 addresses to serve 6.8 billion people, most of whom will need 3-5 or more addresses each without accounting for smart meters, environmental sensors, routers, switches, servers, HVAC units, building controls, industrial controls, SCADA systems, FADEC systems, et. al.

We created an artificial masking of the fact that we ran out of IP addresses a long time ago by inflicting NAT on the majority of the internet's users and converting most users from members of the internet to second-class citizens.

However, the mask is wearing thinner and thinner. What little (and I do mean little) waste does exist has been variously estimated as between 2 and 3 years worth of address space which would take at least 8-10 years to reclaim. The issue of waste in IPv4 is a red herring whose ship sailed long ago. Nonetheless, it remains a battle cry of those who dislike the status quo merely because it makes an attractive sound bite. Any deeper analysis rapidly reveals it, along with all other IPv4 continuity efforts as expensive, burdensome mechanisms with relatively low yield of useful addresses and/or actual protocol longevity.

Owen

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesse Geddis
> LA Broadband LLC
> 
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 4:14 PM, "Matthew Wilder" <Matthew.Wilder at telus.com> wrote:
> 
>> Jesse,
>>  
>> I am sorry that the message was lost.  Here it is again:
>>  
>> ARIN does not spend appreciably more time interacting with me – and I would argue X-Large ISPs in general – than any ISP who regularly requests allocations every 3 months under current policies.  Certainly the amount of effort is very, very far from being proportional to the resource being requested which is what you are arguing if I understand you correctly. 
>>  
>> To put this in more tangible terms; if it takes a small ISP 2 hours of ARIN’s effort to get a /22 allocated, you would suggest it takes 256 man hours of ARIN’s resources to allocate a /16?
>>  
>> I am aware a lot of people think it makes sense to charge per resource, but ARIN’s expenses are not linear in proportion to the resources, and I think you would have an impossible time trying to prove me wrong on this.  The other 2 people who are arguing my point are an ARIN AC member and a past ARIN board member.  I know them both and they have a wealth of experience operating in the ARIN community and their comments are worth listening to.
>>  
>> mw
>>  
>> From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com] 
>> Sent: April 15, 2013 3:48 PM
>> To: Matthew Wilder
>> Cc: Lee Howard; arin-discuss at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
>>  
>> Matthew,
>>  
>> Your personal remarks are unhelpful and childish. Further I have seen about 6 people in the last few hours say the exact same thing as I (regarding making a flat fee) and about 2 people disagreeing.
>>  
>> With regards to your smidgen of useful content I am aware of exactly what Lee said regarding having full time people at the ISPs managing those allocations.  Having been that person I am also aware of the amount of time I've had to spend going back and forth with ARIN in that role and it was exponentially greater compared to the amount of time I've had to consume in the "small" category.
>>  
>> In other words, x-large takes more ARIN time and more provider time. 
>> 
>> Jesse Geddis
>> LA Broadband LLC
>> 
>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 3:39 PM, "Matthew Wilder" <Matthew.Wilder at telus.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Jesse – As much as I hate to feed the troll, I can’t help but point out your incredible non sequitur here.  Lee said the ISP employs someone full time, NOT that ARIN employs someone full time for each Large ISP.
>>  
>> I am one such FTE dedicated to IP Address Management for an X-Large ISP, soon to be XX-Large.  And yet, believe it or not, ARIN only deals with me once every 3 months at most apart from meetings and mailing lists.  That’s the same as they might deal with medium or small ISPs.  We run Referral Whois for our IPv4 resources, so even the registry function is not being taxed, although with IPv6 we are using RESTful-RWS to report our reassignments – all without the operational involvement of any ARIN staff.
>>  
>> So as much as admirable as it is to take Lee’s words and announce that Lee is confirming your assertion that ARIN is burdened by on-going operational activity related only to X-Large ISPs, it is actually not admirable at all.  At best it’s a terrible non sequitur, and at worst it’s putting words in someone’s mouth.  Either way it’s lazy and annoying.
>>  
>> mw
>>  
>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jesse D. Geddis
>> Sent: April 15, 2013 3:15 PM
>> To: Lee Howard
>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
>>  
>> Lee,
>>  
>> You've just inadvertently argued (I'd say accurately) against the repeated assertions by those in this group that the large ISPs consume fewer man hours than small ISPs. Unlike Owen who's largest 'ISP' he's worked at is netcom in the early 90's I have worked at worldcom, uunet, and charter communications I happen to know (as you've rightfully pointed out) that x-large ISPs consume enormous amounts of ARIN man hours compared to everyone else.
>>  
>> A flat fee addresses all these concerns. Everyone pays for what they actually use
>> It discourages many of the ridiculous allocations we all see on a daily basis. Both by ARIN to ISPs and ISPs to customers by the x-large group.
>>  
>> Lee if you think apple needs a /8 to sell iPhones, ford needs a /8 to sell cars, HP needs a /8 to sell printer ink, and Eli Lilly needs a /8 to sell erections you and the rest of us may have very different ideas of what constitutes waste. 
>> 
>> 
>> Jesse Geddis
>> LA Broadband LLC
>> 
>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 2:39 PM, "Lee Howard" <spiffnolee at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> The scrutiny on large ISPs is at least as rigorous as on small ISPs.  Large ISPs have a full time person managing IP address records and ARIN requests, and nothing else.  That is as it should be.
>> 
>> Lee
>>  
>>  
>> From: Brian Jankovich <bjankovich at vaultnetworks.com>
>> To: 'Jawaid Bazyar' <Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>; arin-discuss at arin.net 
>> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
>> 
>> I agree and doubt ARIN is really holding them to the 3mo justification of
>> these IP blocks they are procuring.
>> 
>> Brian Jankovich
>> President | vaultnetworks
>> 
>> 305.735.8098 x210 | Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com
>> skype: brianvaultnet
>> www.vaultnetworks.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net] 
>> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM
>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
>> 
>> Still, it's a fact that the big players are hoarding immense, unused 
>> IPv4 space, which is why none of them care about IPv6.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 04/15/2013 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:51 , rlc at usfamily.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> You ARE new to this.  If you had been around longer, you would have
>> realized
>> >> that large players run the show at ARIN.  Otherwise, the fees would have
>> been
>> >> proportional to the size of the netblocks on IPv4, at least since the
>> time that
>> >> people started to come to grips with the mathematics of IPv4.
>> >>
>> > I don't believe that for a second.
>> >
>> > I have been an active member of this community since before ARIN was
>> formed
>> > and have been active in the ARIN policy process since not long after it
>> was formed.
>> >
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Jawaid Bazyar
>> 
>> President
>> 
>> ph 303.815.1814
>> 
>> fax 303.815.1001
>> 
>> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net <email:Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net>
>>     <http://www.foreThought.net>
>> Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20130415/ea2ee0be/attachment.html>