[ppml] IPv6 assignment - proposal for change to nrpm

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org]
>Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:44 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: ARIN PPML
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 assignment - proposal for change to nrpm
>
>

>
>> I just did a support call this morning with a customer who has a
>> site down in SBCGlobal territory.  They needed a static IP on a
>> DSL line.  They were assigned a /29.  ...  It's incredibly wasteful.
>
>Perhaps there are technical reasons you're not privvy to; perhaps
>it's waste
>or hoarding.  Either way, it's close enough for us to not quibble over
>here -- though presumably ARIN staff would require a justification
>for such
>when their next request comes in.
>

Think of how many DSL customers SBCglobal has.  This is SOP for any of
them that has a static.  They could have used a /30 not a /29, the equipment
would have supported it.  I think if you multiply out the number of static
customers they have you will find the numbers get very high very quick.

>If you want to talk about waste, look at the folks with a /8 (or two) who
>could likely fit into a handful of /16s, or the folks with dozens of /16s
>who only use a single /24 outside of 10/8.
>

I'll look - but nobody has named names, so I have to assume that these
/8's  that are supposedly out there are more a matter of myth than fact.

>>>If we did a straw poll of folks favoring carrots vs. sticks, I'm quite
>>>sure the former would outnumber the latter by an overwhelming
>>>margin.
>>
>> In a perfect world, yes.  But when you actually start LOOKING at
>> what the hell is HAPPENING out in the real world you will turn up
>> PLENTY of stories like the one I just cited, and I think you will be
>> getting the sticks out and tossing the carrots a lot faster than
>> you think.
>
>I've seen plenty of horrifying examples, though NDAs prevent me
>from naming
>names.

Please don't say stuff like that, it is just a bunch of straw men.  We
do not sign NDAs with any customers we do service work for, (none have
asked) and all of these address assignments are a matter of public record
in whois.  In any case, you cannot hold someone to an NDA to cover up
criminal actions, it's an illegal contract in that case.  A holder like
SBC Global who is under RSA is arguably violating their contract with ARIN
by assigning an overage of IP addresses to customers that the customers
aren't asking for, in an effort to hoard IPs.

In any case, without names of actual consumers this discussion is merely an
idea of what someone thinks is the reality, it is not the actual reality.

>However, I know better than to think that all, or even the
>majority
>of, legacy holders deserved to be tarred with that brush;

I was not tarring legacy holders - the block I brought up as an
example is not legacy.

>many have been
>quite willing to voluntarily return space they don't need.  So far, just
>asking politely has netted ARIN quite a number of returned blocks -- and
>threats have, so far, netted the community nothing but a bunch of
>animosity
>and/or fear.

You don't have any proof of threats doing anything because, as you say,
ARIN hasn't used threats.  Therefore there is no data as to how
wasteful holders would respond to a threat.

I should hope that everyone reading, even those with feeble minds, would
understand the fundamental basic that you get more flies with honey
than vinegar.  In short, IF your going to launch a reclamation effort
you START with the Mr. Nice Guy approach.  But eventually the law of
diminishing returns is going to kick in and the flies will be full
and no longer interested in vinegar.  That's why they sell RAID in cans,
after all.

>I'm in favor of what gets us the most productive results for
>the least effort.  Making enemies of people we want something from is not
>helpful on either front.
>

By the time the law of diminishing returns acts on
a reclamation effort, the wasteful holders still out there who have
so far ignored the nice pleas aren't going to respond to anything other than
a threat.  At that time it becomes a cost/benefit decision.  Making a
threat costs money because you have to back it up with lawyers and
the willingness to use them and those cost money.  Thus, nobody is
going to be daft enough to make a threat over a single wasted /29.

But, I would hope that the will exists in the numbering authority to
make a threat over a wasted /8, if the nice guy appeal fails.  It is an
insult to the rest of us who ARE playing by the rules to allow a few
bad apples to get off scott free, and it is particularly insulting when
they are already under RSA - like the example I cited earlier.  Thus, I
do not agree with your insistence that we have to close the door on threats.

The current RSA contains a threat anyway - you don't pay your bill, you
lose you addresses.  Shall we to remove that threat too in the interests of
singing kumbiya around the campfire?

You get more cooperation with a 2x4 and a nice word, then with just a nice
word.

Ted