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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Sorry, Dan!

Ted 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander, Daniel [mailto:Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1:54 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Joe Maimon
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> Ted and Joe,
> 
> As the author of this proposal I would like to clarify something.
> "Comcast" the organization, did not write, nor are they 
> trying to push this proposal on anyone. While I am an 
> employee, I also serve as a member of the ARIN Advisory 
> Council. My discussions of this proposal and the postings on 
> this mailing list are as an AC member and in no way represent 
> any views of my employer, nor am I authorized to speak for them. 
> 
> 2009-2 was presented as a possible approach to dealing with 
> the last allocations of IPv4 address space. It incorporated 
> experiences and feedback from many areas including proposals 
> submitted in multiple regions. If you want to point the 
> discussion at something, please point it to me or the AC and 
> not to a company that has no control over the policy 
> development process. 
> 
> -Dan
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:06 PM
> To: 'Joe Maimon'
> Cc: 'Scott Beuker'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:05 PM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Cc: 'Scott Beuker'; 'ARIN PPML'
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll bet you a beer that it will be the smaller ISP's who
> > make native
> > > IPv6 available to their residential customers over 
> broadband BEFORE 
> > > larger ISPs do.
> > >
> > > Ted
> > >
> > >
> > >   
> > Available as in by request or as pilot or even fully dual homed 
> > customer base with guipv4?
> > 
> > Likely.
> > 
> > As in you can have /32v4 and a whole /64v6 in response to customer 
> > request for larger?
> > 
> > Unlikely.
> > 
> 
> Why not?  If there's one thing that should be clear, IPv6 
> does not have practical utilization limits - there's more 
> IPv6 numbers than every MAC address that can ever be 
> assigned, so as long as the small ISP can handle the 
> bandwidth desired, what purpose would be served by ARIN 
> denying them a justifyable request for more IPv6?
> 
> > As in you can have rfc1918 v4 and this /64v6? (It is easier 
> for small 
> > orgs to deploy nat/pat)
> > 
> 
> Well, that's getting right back into the IPv4 discussion.
> 
> > Only if they have to because they need to stop assigning 
> guipv4. And 
> > if it turns out that small ISP's need to go this route 
> before larger 
> > ones, that is clearly inequitable.
> > 
> > When a small ISP turns down requests for globally unique 
> ipv4 in favor 
> > of handing out ipv6, the smaller ISP is going to lose the 
> customer to 
> > the larger ISP.
> >
> 
> IF the larger ISP has G.U. IPv4 available.
>  
> > And remember, guipv4 for customers have always been more 
> available and 
> > cheaper for large organization than for small, witness the 
> 500 times 
> > price per address difference between the smallest and largest 
> > allocations, add to that larger scale opportunities for 
> scavenging and 
> > recycling, add to that the ability to pony up serious cash on any 
> > potential ip market, or to even just buy out underutilized small 
> > ISP's.
> > 
> 
> Cheaper, absolutely.  More available in the past?  That even 
> I would disagree with.  ARIN right now operates on a 
> need-based assignment scheme for -everyone-, you show the 
> need, you get the IP numbers.  That will only change after 
> IPv4-runout.  And in the future, post IPv4-runout, I would 
> agree the large orgs will have more ability to assign IPv4
> 
> > As such my conclusion is post IANA runout, large orgs will 
> be able to 
> > provide ipv4 --by (paid)request at least-- far longer than smaller 
> > organizations.
> > 
> 
> Ironically, the existence of NAT has made the need for G.U. 
> IPv4 less important than the need for G.U. IPv6.
> 
> If you're a customer with 200 nodes on your network and you need
> IPv4 you can always use translation to make as much as you 
> want for yourself.
> You might need a handful of G.U. IPv4, but you don't really 
> -need- G.U. IPv4 on your 200 nodes  (well, most orgs won't)
> 
> If you need IPv6 then you will need G.U. IPv6 for all your nodes.
> 
> > I am not worried about the large ISP's. Where they go, the smaller 
> > ones can follow, along with their customers. It wont work the other 
> > way.
> >
> 
> Amen to that!
> 
> Ted
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
>