[ppml] those pesky users...

bmanning at karoshi.com bmanning at karoshi.com
Mon Mar 26 21:23:54 EDT 2007

> Ok, I am going to put on my smarty pants... 
> Since the release of RFC-1918 and CIDR, the pressure on address space
> has decreased significantly. 
> For the most part we are able to live within our means. 
> We make our downstreams justify address requests, we press for 1918 use
> with NAT when ever possible,
> and we recycle disconnected customer blocks regularly. 
> As a mid-sized ISP, we just don't feel the drive to change our entire
> address scheme for no good
> reason. My management certainly does not want large scale disruptions in
> service to perform what is
> seen as unnecessary renumbering. 

	reasonable, prudent, exemplary actions. bravo.

> If ARIN were in fact offering an exchange program where we would receive
> vastly increased sized IPv6 allocations
> for a greatly reduced fee over the IPv4 blocks. A case could be made on
> the economics of changing 

	hum... i think ARIN has a very liberal IPv6 policy in place
	at the moment. Pragmatically, you can get the functional equivalent
	of the -ENTIRE- IPv4 space for the annual registration cost of...
	(wait for it)

			zero dollars

	does that qualify as vastly increased size and greatly reduced fees?

> to v6. Otherwise, the folks that actually run our businesses that we
> work in, (Well some of us anyways) have no 
> justification to act upon this whole new fangled IP address scheme.
> Remember, that people making the business 
> decisions for the most part do not understand the technical, so
> technical arguments for network modifications
> requires an economic reason. 

	ok... lets take a peek at this in a mo.

> Right now, the conversion with management over IPv6 goes like this: 
> ENG: Hey, err, we are considering renumbering the backbone to support
> IPv6.
> MGT: Why?
> ENG: Because IPv4 is going to run out, and we need to be ready for the
> future.
> MGT: When exactly is this drop dead date of address space running out?
> ENG: Well, sometime soon, perhaps in the next 5 years.
> MGT: What does this entail?
> ENG: Renumbering all the backbone IP addresses, training all the
> operations and support staff to understand the new IP scheme. A number
> of change windows, a allocation fee from ARIN, a audit to ensure all
> devices support the new Scheme... Etc...
> MGT: Come back in four years.

	this conversation is why ENG are not MGT... wrong justification. :)
	(well its the right justification but addressing (pun) the wrong
	problem).  If I am use the analogy here.  The energy market.
	California in the early 2000's.   Market deregulated, many players,
	costs wer suposed to go down, so the state (and others) did not want to 
	get into long term contracts.  The spot market would consistantly give 
	better deals....  Until the supplies ran out (plant shutdowns).
	Energy costs skyrocketed.

	the right  argument to make to mgmt is, "small, incremental costs
	now will give us a seemless, smooth transition when the event occurs
	since we will have had the time to work outthe prolems.  Waiting 
	till the last momeny/year will cause the costs to be much higher and the
	transition much worse - causing our customers to re-evaluate their
	use of our services."

	or something like that.

> Ron Johnson
> New Edge Networks.
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list