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

[Scott Beuker]

> Um, the fact of the matter is that -WE- don't have that problem since
> our upstreams supply IPv6.
> 
> Others do, however.

... then my comments apply to them.

> -I- am not making that argument.  As I said, we have seen these
> complaints on this list.  A search of the list archives will provide
> plenty of examples.  I invite you to engage with those
> people and explain your philosophy of how money motivates and
> listen to their explanations of why you don't know what your
> talking about.
> 
> Personally, I agree with your "money talks, BS walks" argument, I've
> made it myself, before.  But,
> I don't presume to tell some ISP in North Dakota how their upstream
> feed is supposed to act when threatened.  They tell me that they
cannot
> use financial motivation to force their feed to supply IPv6 - I'm
> going to take what they say at face value.

I will if/when they come to the table to discuss it. If you're going to
advocate for them in this discussion, then expect counter arguments to
come your way too.

As I've said, ARIN is not a vehicle for them to force their upstreams to
provide the services they desire. It's my responsibility as an ARIN
member and participant to stop them from doing this.
 
> But, let's get back to some realities.  As I said, the largest ISPs
> will be unable to obtain usable IP number blocks from the IPv4 schema
> for some time before the actual last IPv4 block is assigned.
> Comcast recognizes this, which is why they made this proposal to
> begin with.  Since that is the case in reality, what is the objection
to
> merely lengthening the time that large ISP's cannot get IPv4
allocations
> satisfied, so that we can extend the time that the smaller ISP's can
> still get IPv4 allocations?

As I said numerous times during the discussion, Comcast do not
speak for all of us who use more than a /20 each year. The policy
proposal would take IP space from those who could actually use it and
reserve it for someone else. Just because Comcast apparently doesn't
want any part of the last /9, whatever their motivation, that
doesn't mean that the rest of us should lose any fair use of it. Your
argument that it's "unusable" anyway doesn't hold any water. It's
usable for us. Comcast speak for Comcast and that's it. And for the
record, I had a couple representatives of small ISPs come up to me
after the discussion and indicate that they understand the policy
is unfair and they support my position. Do they speak for you or
the small ISPs you apparently have taken it upon yourself to
represent? Same situation.

The argument against withholding IPv4 space from larger businesses to
give it to smaller businesses is that it's an unfair business practice.
Are you Robin Hood? Large/medium ISPs who aren't Comcast don't need to
be told by
you what they do and do not need. If there were any truth to the
argument that we couldn't use the space, there'd be no need for this
policy, would there? We can use it, I'm telling you we can use it,
please take what I'm saying at face value.