[arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2

[Scott Beuker]

> I never said they were.  Since we provision DSL over Qwest phone
lines,
> Qwest is in the position of being able to -significantly- undercut us
> on price, which they do all the time.  I know Qwest has already done
the
> analysis and they don't want to have anything to do with the type of
> customers
> we serve.  But they have absolutely set things up so that they hoover
up
> the cherry customers.

Fair enough, I don't know the backgrounds of posters on this list and
the situations their various businesses are in, so that you are in a
unique situation of using their infrastructure was not apparent.


> As I said in the meeting comment I made, I thought this policy
> needed tweaking.  However I support the philosophy of it.

And as I said in the comments I made, I could support a policy like
this if it were modified to be fair to all users of IP space,
regardless of size. But it sounds like you and I have vastly
different ideas on what the philosophy is here. 

> This isn't about driving IPv6.  It's about blocking IPv6.  Right now
> there's ISPs ready and willing to deploy IPv6 and they can't - because
> they are single-homed and their upstream - a larger ISP - isn't ready
> and isn't routing IPv6.  We see these complaints all of the time on
> the mailing lists, so I don't buy the argument that we are all in this
> together.  Some of us are ready, others aren't.  If it's an end-node
> AS that isn't ready, I don't care.  If it's a transit AS that isn't
> ready, I do care - espically when there's end-node AS's connected to
it
> that are chomping at the bit to get rolling.

Then might I suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree, and need to
start looking at your upstream options or better ways to get the
attention of your upstream provider. ARIN is not the place to try to
force a single transit provider to provide a service you want, even if
you feel it's 

> Clearly, the transit AS's need to get IPv6 deployed first.  Since the
> largest ISP's with the highest IP consumption rates are all in this
> club,
> and since they can't use the small IPv4 blocks that will be available
> after the larger IPv4 blocks are assigned anyway, it's a no-brainer to
> tell the largest ISPs - who need to be routing IPv6 first - that they
> will
> lose access to IPv4 block requests first, before small orgs do - as we
> approach IPv4 runout.

As I've said, many do, and many others are just around the corner. Why
aren't you using your transit budget to reward the organizations that
provide the services you need, if you need it right now?

I do not buy your argument that you can't get IPv6 transit. That's an
excuse. It was mentioned during the tutorials on Sunday that you can get
free IPv6 transit from companies like Hurricane Electric, and that there
are companies providing transit via a tunnel right now. There's no
reason
to believe that native IPv6 transit, for optimal performance, will not
be available soon.

- Scott