[ppml] Legacy /24s
Lee Dilkie
Lee at Dilkie.com
Sat Sep 1 08:36:53 EDT 2007
The list might as well see my reply back...
Hey Mack,
I agree with you. I think I even proposed a very minor fee as well ($5
is reasonable considering that all a legacy holder gets is an entry in a
DB).
I proposed something similar a few months ago, well, I "argued" that a
number of the legacy holders are interested in ipv6 and perhaps should
be given PI space to aid in general adoption. The argument being that
these folks were early adopters of the original network and created the
demand that we have today. We definitely need something like this for
ipv6, something beyond just being a network infrastructure replacement
or it'll be a very slow adoption rate.
Anyway, your "proposal" is spot on, for me anyway. I'm currently playing
with ipv6 (I am a s/w programmer) and I have two ipv6 networks via
tunnel brokers but I would like to have a small bit (/48) of PI space.
The tunnels are okay for connectivity but they have high latency
(>200ms) and unsuitable for a number of things (I'm a VoIP programmer...
having a chat with 200ms+ is not very pleasant). My ISP has no IPv6 yet
but they've not seen any demand. I think if I, a current business
customer they are routing for, asks to route my IPv6 PI block, it might
make them think harder about their own deployment. (faced with losing
existing business, if I should move my network to another ISP that
offers v6).
Are you going to write this up as a formal proposal?
-lee
J. R. Westmoreland wrote:
> Let's try this again and send it to the whole list this time.
> Sorry, Lee, for causing you to get a double copy.
>
> ----------------------------------------
> J. R. Westmoreland
> Custom Computers & Consulting
> Email: jr at jrw.org
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: J. R. Westmoreland [mailto:jr at jrw.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:48 AM
>> To: 'Lee Dilkie'
>> Subject: RE: [ppml] Legacy /24s
>>
>> Mack,
>>
>> I, sinceI fall into your category, being a very small consulting
>> company, would support your proposal whole heartedly.
>>
>> Maybe I'll go find the form, and using some of your good wording, see
>> about making a proposal. I figure that it wouldn't start much more fuss
>> than there already is. <grin>
>>
>> J. R.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> J. R. Westmoreland
>> Email: jr at jrw.org
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf
>>>
>> Of
>>
>>> Lee Dilkie
>>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 9:11 PM
>>> To: mack
>>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Legacy /24s
>>>
>>> What?
>>>
>>> no restrictive RSA?
>>>
>>> no outrageous $100/yr scalper fee?
>>>
>>> no justification of usage?
>>>
>>> You're daft man!
>>>
>>> A common sense proposal like this has no place on ppml.
>>>
>>> {pardon my sarcasm, been here too long I guess. But being a /24
>>>
>> legacy
>>
>>> holder in the same shoes as probably many, this would fit the bill
>>>
>> but
>>
>>> I
>>> wouldn't hold my breath}
>>>
>>> -lee
>>>
>>> mack wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't have the time to write it but I would support a
>>>> proposal that gives legacy /24 holders a permanent IPv4 fee waiver,
>>>> an efficient usage waiver so that they don't have to worry about
>>>>
>>> reclamation,
>>>
>>>> and allows assignment of an appropriate sized block of IPv6 if they
>>>> start paying a fee after some specified date (ie. Jan 1, 2010) or
>>>>
>>> whenever
>>>
>>>> the regular IPv6 waiver expires if it is extended beyond this date.
>>>> With the only contingency that the space be actively used in the
>>>>
>> DFZ
>>
>>>> or showing that the space is in use in a manner that cannot be
>>>>
>>> readily
>>>
>>>> replaced by 1918 space.
>>>>
>>>> I personally feel that the /24 space needs to be handled
>>>>
>> differently
>>
>>> than
>>>
>>>> the /16 and /8 space.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Because there are more of these than the others numerically.
>>>> 2) Because there is no significant reclamation benefit if they are
>>>>
>>> being used.
>>>
>>>> 3) Most of these are individuals or small companies that don't have
>>>>
>>> significant resources.
>>>
>>>> The use contingency allows for private use in organizations that
>>>>
>> may
>>
>>> find
>>>
>>>> it difficult to convert to 1918 space.
>>>>
>>>> This would be neutral in overall effect. It cost them nothing
>>>>
>> unless
>>
>>> they want IPv6 space.
>>>
>>>> It will encourage adoption of IPv6 by these users. It will move a
>>>>
>>> significant number of
>>>
>>>> legacy blocks under a policy umbrella.
>>>>
>>>> This obviously would be for the 2008 timeframe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LR Mack McBride
>>>> Network Administrator
>>>> Alpha Red, Inc.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>>
>> ARIN
>>
>>> Public Policy
>>>
>>>> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN
>>>>
>>> Member Services
>>>
>>>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>>> Public Policy
>>> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN
>>> Member Services
>>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list