[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

Mon Apr 15 23:41:41 EDT 2013

Hi Jesse,

Please see below:

I didn't say anyone wasn't worth listening to.  I simply said Owen and Lee were worth listening to because you ignored what Owen had said and misconstrued what Lee said to somehow fit your argument.  I just mean you should pay more careful attention to what people are saying.

On the note of my experience, I actually have 8 Year of Network Engineering, including 5 years of IP Address Management.  Not sure how you derived your analysis from my LinkedIn profile.

Your list of the 3 different factors is generally good (apart from characterization as option 1 as "totally arbitrary").  I believe the board and many members would see it as very much tied to the services ARIN performs for its members and community.  I think it is a mistake, however, to assume that it has to be either 2 or 3 and nothing else.  Both give the sense of fairness to opposite stakeholders in the community, which is clearly not balanced.  Although you concluded I was arguing that option 3 be followed, I was rather arguing that option 2 NOT be followed because I believe there are several factors that should be taken into account in the fee structure, not just one factor.

I believe others have adequately pointed out the long term risks of a fee structure entirely based on the aggregate IPv4 space since IPv6 will likely see a more common resource holding in the community.  Certainly the board and community need to address this as IPv4 becomes increasingly removable from customer networks, but I don't think we are well served by putting ARIN's operations at risk with flawed fee structures.

Also as Owen pointed out, the waste arguments are red herrings and not ultimately held up by proper analysis.  I've never heard (ARIN board member) Vint Cerf say he wishes the big ISPs and very early corporate adopters of the Internet Protocol wouldn't waste so much IPv4 space.  I have however heard him say he wishes he had designed IPv4 with more than 32 bits (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/why-ipv6-vint-cerf-keeps-blaming-himself).

mw

From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com]
Sent: April 15, 2013 4:26 PM
To: Matthew Wilder
Cc: Lee Howard; arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

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

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.

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On Apr 15, 2013, at 4:14 PM, "Matthew Wilder" <Matthew.Wilder at telus.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:bjankovich at vaultnetworks.com>>
To: 'Jawaid Bazyar' <Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net<mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>>; arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:Brian.Jankovich at VaultNetworks.com>
skype: brianvaultnet
www.vaultnetworks.com<http://www.vaultnetworks.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Jawaid Bazyar [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net<mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:07 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net> <email:Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net<mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net>>
    <http://www.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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20130415/43741c17/attachment.html>