[ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 7:25 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: RE: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders
>
>
>On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com]
>> >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 3:59 PM
>> >To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>> >Cc: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net
>> >Subject: RE: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders
>> >
>> >
>> >On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On
>Behalf Of
>> >> >John Santos
>> >> >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 6:47 PM
>> >> >To: Leo Bicknell
>> >> >Cc: ppml at arin.net
>> >> >Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Under these circumstances, I can't see any sense in doing anything
>> >> >else but what we are doing now, continuing as a legacy, non-RSA-
>> >> >signing holder.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I guess you think your pretty smart in that you have outlined a
>> >> situation you think isn't solvable in IPv4.
>> >>
>> >> So, when all your customers have switched over to IPv6 and are
>> >> demanding that you do the same, it appears to me you will be still
>> >> in exactly the same circumstances.  You customers will still
>be natting
>> >> under IPv6 - if you don't think so, go ask them now.
>
>You don't know my customers.  They strongly believe in "if it ain't
>broke, don't fix it."
>

Yeah, sounds exactly like mine too.  Believe it or not I've been told
"the reason we don't apply Microsoft security patches is because if
it ain't broke, don't fix it"  (this was when talking to a customer
that their line was clogged with outbound spam because their exchange
server had been cracked into)

>(In case you totally have the wrong end of the stick, my customers
>are *NOT* buying any sort of internet service from us.  We use the
>internet as a tool for supporting our customers.  They typically
>have enormous internal networks, and may eventually implement v6
>on them, but there is no prospect they'll be turning off v4 for
>decades.  Switching to v6 for this function would be a pointless
>waste of time for both us and them.)
>

No, I understood this. We have dealt with similar private-to-private
interconnects ourselves
and I'm aware that it is very seductive to use legal numbers for such
interconnects to avoid clashes with private number space.

 One of the main drivers for going to IPv6
is, of course, it gives so much numbering that it should make no difference
if
a bit of the public numbering goes away into these kinds of connections
forever.

I will also point out that staying with IPv4 for your
interconnect is also a solution, if the other parties don't want to
update.  Once the Internet switches over to
IPv6 the IPv4 you have in the interconnect will be worthless anyway,
so there's a great argument to leaving it alone, and nobody will
care if it's legacy or not.  Obviously you will have problems sourcing
traffic from it into the rest of the world but generally most
interconnects of these types aren't sourcing anyway.

However, the mistake you made is trying to apply your situation to
the global problem with legacy numbering.  You set up a fairly narrow
situation, and in this post you have added even more conditions to
narrow it even further.  Doubtless if we were to discuss it further
and discuss the usual solutions used for this situation, you would bring
reasons why you can't do them which would even further narrow the
scope of the example.  Eventually so many solutions would have been
brought up and shot down that it would be obvious to anyone that
your situation is so unique it's completely inapplicable to the
larger discussion of legacy number holders, and you would have succeeded
in invalidating the original analogy you tried to make in the first
place.

>
>Totally bogus analogies.  Why don't you propose the police go back
>to their records and charge with drunk driving anyone they stopped
>with a breathalyzer reading below what was then the threshold but
>is now above the threshold?
>

Nobody is arguing that in 1993 your now-legacy assignment was assigned
incorrectly or that you shouldn't have had it in 1993, or 1994 or
so on.  But the point that has been repeatedly made over and over on
this list is that the IP numbering SCHEME is a SHARED scheme.

You cannot deny that the Internet would not function if nobody agreed to
respect numbering allocations - you yourself respected them when you
got yours originally.

What I think your blind spot is, is that your implying that conditions
on the Internet haven't changed from 1993.  I think a few of the old timers
on this list (and keep in mind I was running UUCP back in 1982) seem
to have a problem with the idea that their baby grew up into the 800 pound
gorilla.

You have to treat the 800 pound gorilla differently, you don't let him
sit on your lap like he could when he was a baby gorilla.  Life changes
and we all have to change with it.  Me, I absolutely deplore a lot of
changes that have happened on the Internet, for example I think it's a
terrible thing that child predators are able to use it nowadays to get
victims, that wasn't going on a decade ago that I remember.

The numbering rules that were in effect in 1993 cannot stand.  As proof of
this the entire IPv4 numbering scheme itself has been tossed in the
garbage can, and replaced by IPv6.  Yet, there's still people out there
that if they got a chance would turn the clock back to 1993 and
bring the old 1993 rules into 2007 and beyond.

>> Face the facts.  Your getting something for nothing.  Your getting
>> tracking and visibility in a system you aren't paying for - in fact,
>> in a system that -I'm- paying for.  (or more accurately, my employer,
>> who due to paying for this system has less money he can pay me, and
>> so forth)  You certainly don't seem appreciative of this.
>
>I never said I wasn't willing to pay my fair share for *something*
>(like v6 addresses.)  I'm not willing to pay, agree to terms I did
>not originally agree to, and risk losing my /24 for no discernable
>benefit to me.
>

As others have claimed if you sign an RSA for IPv6 it doesen't affect
your IPv4 holdings.  I would ask, have you even e-mailed hostmaster at arin.net
and asked any of these questions?

>
>>
>> And, as I asked before, how are you going to move your setup to
>> IPv6?
>>
>
>I didn't answer this before because I don't spout nonsense off the
>top of my head, unlike some people I could name, and I need to do
>a bit of research before answering, but at least three possibilities
>come to mind:  1) I believe there is a class of addresses that can
>be generated from IPv4 addresses, and I can just use those.
>2) Apply for v6 addresses through the normal process.  3) If I
>don't qualify for 2 because my network is too small, then form a
>cooperative with some of the 20,000 other legacy class C holders,
>pointlessly duplicating the work of ARIN, etc. but aquiring enough
>v6 addresses for all of us.
>
>If any of this is wrong, or unworkable, *you* are the one who insisted
>on an answer...  If you're so damn smart, what would you do?
>

I don't see anything wrong with #2.  But keep in mind that I also
feel the requirements in the following:

http://www.arin.net/registration/guidelines/micro_alloc.html)

are unworkable and favor large companies.  But you see there's a lot
of politics going on.  One of the biggest problems I think is the
insistence on aggregation.  This is why the
requirements for getting a micro allocation are unworkable for most
organizations, the people that wrote them want to force every potential
small holder to request from upstream.  (except, of course, then the
small holder is them - why if your a holder that runs a public exchange
you can get a micro allocation)

I mean - think of this!  We have people fighting with me on this list
that IPv4 is so important post-transition that ARIN must keep track of
IPv4 allocations forever!  They are happy to spill some 100,000+
IPv4 route entries into the public BGP table post-IPv6 for the next 50
years - yet the same folks buy off on the policy that there are too many
route entries so we must restrict the micro allocations!

Clearly there's contradictions in the policies, and far more in how some
people view things.  As I said last week nobody wants to take any steps
to push IPv6 implementation, they are all expecting the other guy to
just do it without trouble.  And nobody had any response to that.  They
just bitched up a storm with the idea that it might be a good idea to
one of these days just stop paying attention to IPv4.  But I ask you, how
do we even start uncovering these problems if the legacy holders don't
want to get engaged?  (and I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about
the legacy holders who are out there and who aren't even reading, much
less participating, in the discussion)  You at least are partipating in
the discussion.

Ted