[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Revised andforwarded to the Board

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:41 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Martin Hannigan
> <martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 7:58 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
>>>> In a message written on Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:14:29PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
>>>>> Verizon is hoarding addresses. They requested and acquired millions of
>>> While you're right that I don't have internal company knowledge, I do
>>> have one of the vendor's phones using one of the hoarded IP addresses
>>> and I've done enough testing with it to confirm that its only capable
>>> of initiating connections outbound to the Internet, the key criteria
>>> for a NAT-compatible device. Inbound connections are blocked, not by
>>> the device but by the vendor's upstream firewall.
>>>
>>> A big part of my point was that many of the obvious and egregious
>>> cases of hoarding are specifically *not* instances of fraud. My
>>> favorite vendor is hoarding, apparently in meticulous compliance with
>>> all applicable policies.
>>
>> Trying to tell us that technology limitations = hoarding is not helpful.
>
> Martin,
>
> NAT = conserves IP addresses.
> Meets criteria for NAT-compatible device = could be built with NAT
> Not built with NAT + millions of devices = consumes millions of IP addresses
> Not built with NAT + could be + consumes millions = hoarding
>
> If you got "technology limitations = hoarding" from that, you ain't
> readin' it right.

William,

You're saying that just about every service provider on the planet is
"hoarding". Am I reading you correct?


Best,

Martin