[arin-discuss] IPv6 Why as justification for IPv4?

Tue Apr 16 00:00:16 EDT 2013

Tim,
I see your dilema,
Let me paste in something I just read that John Curran emailed to the list a little while ago.

It has all to do with first getting your IP stock from your upstream whoever that may be.

It's easier if you're multi-homed, having dual upstreams, but more expensive. More expensive can also mean more stable if one goes 
down you are routing throuth the other. It doesn't even matter if it's two subsidiaries of some huge upstream as long as they 
separate Autonomous systems (paths to the worls) and that's proven by dual AS numbers. Yes, the cost does hurt like a toothache, but 
I was glad when someone went down. Just say you have an arguement with one upstream--- you can unplug them and strike a deal with 
another one. Just keep it stable while going through the process of application. You already know that the AS and an Direct Alloc 
are your walking papers to port from or peer with anyone of that calibre.

With your own AS and Direct Alloc., you're not under the thumb of any upstream and can swing that circuit over to some other 
upstream, even a top tier backbone provider if you so choose and they will have you.

Sometimes it means giving away services to get where you want to get.

Certainly it's like the old question (but in action) what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Need IP's to get customers, but need customers to get IPs'.

Maybe it would have been easier to open a shoe store?

Best to you---

Here's that cut-n-paste from Mr Curran's comment a half hour ago as I see the timestamp on my email.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:00 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:
>
> For me, ARINs policies were my biggest hindrance in starting my own company. Getting customers with no IPs then having to get an 
> allocation for my customers from an upstream provider, using that to justify an ARIN allocation, then renumbering off the 
> temporary address space onto my own doesn't make good business sense.

Jesse -

  The policies you refer to (those which encourage provider-assigned
  and "slow start" ISP addressing for new ISPs) actually pre-date ARIN,
  so I would be careful with attribution...   At this point, however,
  they are indeed subject to change if the community decides that it
  makes sense to do so.  Rather than grousing about the aspects of this
  policy that you disagree with, have you considered submitting a policy
  proposal to change the ISP initial allocation policy?  This is a real
  step that you can take to address the situation and independent of
  any fee schedule structure aspects to be discussed here.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
--------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com>
To: "Tim St. Pierre" <tim at communicatefreely.net>
Cc: <arin-discuss at arin.net>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Why as justification for IPv4?

> Tim,
>
> I think your point is worth emphasising. I had to go through this same thing. It creates a significant barrier for entry to start 
> a business that I don't think needs to be there. I think this fact is completely lost on folks like Matthew who work for an ISP 
> vs. starting one up yourselves. ARIN should be policy or few neutral to both but heavily favours the large ISP and heavily impedes 
> both via policy an fees the person starting a business
>
> For me, ARINs policies were my biggest hindrance in starting my own company. Getting customers with no IPs then having to get an 
> allocation for my customers from an upstream provider, using that to justify an ARIN allocation, then renumbering off the 
> temporary address space onto my own doesn't make good business sense. In fact it's the same argument that folks like Matthew use 
> for being laggards in rolling out ipv6 wholesale on their own networks. It's too much work. This is absurd. On the one hand it's 
> your excuse for not rolling out IPv6 but then on the other it's your argument for telling me everyone else should pay more and 
> deal with a process slanted against them.
>
> Jesse Geddis
> LA Broadband LLC
>
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:50 PM, "Tim St. Pierre" <tim at communicatefreely.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Drake,
>>
>> I think I can explain this a little - and I appreciate the sideways
>> compliment.
>>
>> As much as I would rather run a v6 only network, I can't yet because
>> everyone else is still stuck in IPv4 land.  It was pretty easy for me to
>> get an IPv6 allocation to use to build my network, but I still can't get
>> an IPv4 allocation.
>>
>> I believe the spirit of the nrpm policy is "prove to use you have a real
>> customer base before we give you a meaningful address allocation".  I
>> can't meet the /23 requirement because I can't get a /23, so I'm
>> suggesting that I be able to prove my customer base by making IPv6
>> assignments.
>>
>> I need IPv4 space to support my dual-stack customers that are all behind
>> NAT, but should really have a proper IPv4 assignment.  I'm arguing that
>> by demonstrating an IPv6 deployment, it shows me as worthy to be
>> allocated scarce IPv4 resources to the same network.
>>
>> If I could just fill out some forms and get a /22 from the get-go, then
>> this wouldn't be an issue at all.
>>
>> Hope that makes sense.
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>> On 13-04-15 08:19 PM, Drake Pallister wrote:
>>> Hello folks,
>>>
>>> I don't get this twist on V6 holdings as justification for getting V4
>>> allocations.
>>>
>>> We were in a world of V4 which had to transition to something new
>>> because V4 (that would never run out, as thought 15 years ago) so we
>>> came up with V6.
>>>
>>> If there are some creative intelligent people who built an
>>> infrastructure of all V6, I am amazed. They are Genius with a capital
>>> G because I am in awe of your doings.
>>>
>>> But please tell me why that should be used as a criteria for
>>> dispersion of V4 IP numbers.
>>>
>>> As more and more Genius providers connect more and more V6 customer
>>> base, then the need for V4 should decrease drastically.
>>>
>>> I don't see the logic. Is it a reward for making use of V6?  Are we
>>> new suddenly rolling in newly unused V4 now because V6 is in such
>>> widespread use?
>>>
>>> Time for an analogy?   If I go into a tavern and can successfully
>>> consume.... Well, Nope that analogy goes nowhere.
>>>
>>> The summary of my thought pattern is straight forward.  If you need or
>>> want V6, you requisition for V6. If you need or want V4, you
>>> requisition for V4.
>>>
>>> In the end, I was to believe a strive for a transition over to V6 with
>>> backward compatibility for the tiny quantity of V4 still in use.
>>>
>>> Drake
>>> -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289 225 1220
>>> x5101 tim at communicatefreely.net www.communicatefreely.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> 