[arin-ppml] Why are ISPs allowed?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joe Pruett
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:16 AM
> To: ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Why are ISPs allowed?
> 
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> > TiVo and Xbox will probably have IPv6 as soon as either 
> company sees 
> > substantial meaningful deployment.  Same with PS/3.  TiVo 
> is built on 
> > linux so IPv6 support will not require much more than some added UI 
> > code.  Xbox is built on a variant of Windows, which has 
> IPv6 support 
> > and I doubt it will be a major issue for Micr0$0ft to bring 
> that along.
> >
> > Webcams that are IP based and not host-attached will probably be 
> > forklift upgrades over time and will probably be part of 
> the cost of 
> > decommissioning IPv4 when that time comes.  Same with x10 and the 
> > various VOIP adapters.  They're relatively inexpensive on a 
> per unit 
> > basis.
> >
> > That leaves WII.  I doubt Nintendo will have that much trouble 
> > updating their software to accommodate IPv6 when they feel 
> it is needed.
> 
> my list was just examples.  yes, some will get v6, quite a 
> few things won't.  when i get to the point that i only have 
> v6 addresses to hand out to customers, i need to have 
> hardware to sell/give them that will allow their existing 
> network to continue to run.  your typical residential 
> customer

Whoah, hold on here.  How many typical residential customers
have a "network"?

Most residential customers have at most a couple PC's, and
from time to time you run into a gamer with a gaming console
that's plugged in.

Are we talking business connections or residential connections?
They are NOT the same thing.

> isn't going to accept that some of their existing 
> equipment won't work with my network when "giant isp" that 
> has managed to hoard enough v4 addresses can give them a 
> connection where everything works fine.  so far i am not 
> seeing any sign of such a piece of hardware...


There's nothing that is preventing
you from remaking your network so that you hand out a /24 
of private IPv4 numbering to every customer that comes to you asking
for IPv4. You can NAT that and provide your customers enough numbering so
they
can simply route to you, thus avoiding double-natting.  There's plenty
of firewalls out there that do stateful inspection and that don't require
the firewall to act as a translator.

If your customers want to screw up their throughput by slapping a
translator on their own network, that's their business.

Now, as for the other arguments,

If you're an ISP now then you have sufficient IPv4.  If you
don't, then get cracking and get that application submitted
for more numbering pronto.

The giant ISPs can't build a business model around thieving away
customers based on having hoarded IPv4.  For starters, if any of them were
to openly advertise such a thing, they would face intense scrutiny
that they violated the NPRM when they obtained their last IPv4 block
and lied to obtain more than the maximum allowable IPv4 they could
justify.

Since all the other "giant isps" are just as vulnerable to IPv4
customer theft as you are, I'm sure that they will be looking for
an org they can string up on the nearest tree to serve as an
example, post-IPv4 runout.

Any giant org that were to openly market this would almost certainly be
sued for fraud by ARIN - and even more dangerous would be the risk
of having IPv4 withdrawn on the grounds of fraud.  Not to mention
the unofficial response which would be even more deadly.

Do you really want Comcast or someone like that turning a blind eye
to an operating DDoS ring on their network that has decided to hose
you down because your advertising you have IPv4 and Comcast doesen't?

I think your going to see the "giant ISP's" collude with each other
to present a unified front to the customers - approximately a year
or so after IPv4 runout, all of them will announce
that they cannot hand out new IPv4 to customers unless the customer
pays a premium for it.  It is in their own selfish self-interest to
do this.

Check out the almost unified screaming by the television industry to
the Obama administrations move to push back the HDTV broadcast switchover
from Feb 17th.  Using your logic the large networks should be happy
about the pushback since it allows them to keep away analog-only
customers from smaller TV networks that are already doing digital-only
HD broadcasting.  Instead, they are all mad about it.

Ted