[arin-ppml] Straw Poll

Tue Oct 6 13:04:35 EDT 2009

I am really trying to understanding the point of a straw poll based on IPv4,
a dodo of a resource?? Am I correct in thinking that any industry planning
to use a dodo will probably join the extinct species too. :)
Rudi Daniel

>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:21:27 +0100
> From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
> To: <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric
>        energy  industry
> Message-ID:
>        <
> 28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458037454DE at E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> > If your interested in such a policy I would suggest you
> > contact Sensus http://www.sensus.com/ who supplied the meters
> > that PGE used, and ask them if they use IP addressing.
> > PGE uses AMI meters using FlexNet:
>
> They do.
> <http://www.sensus.com/Module/PressRelease/PressReleaseFileFile?id=84>
> Sensus Announces IP-based Smart Grid for FlexNet
> Industry-leading FlexNet Solution addresses IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints on
> powerful
> and secure, licensed band, wireless Smart Grid and AMI Network
>
> The purpose of such a policy is to protect the rest of the IP using
> organizations from new entrants who want to use LARGE AMOUNTS of
> IPv4 addresses. We have already reached the end game of IPv4. There
> is not enough left for everybody. Those who already have IPv4 network
> dependencies should be served first by ARIN, and the rest should use
> IPv6. That is the reason for banning the entire Smart Grid industry
> from receiving globally registered IPv4 addresses. Of course, they
> can use all the RFC 1918 IPv4 addresses that they want, and they can
> get all the globally registered IPv6 addresses that they want.
>
> But the IPv4 watering is almost dried up and they are not welcome
> to join us.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
> P.S. this is only a straw poll discussion at present, to see how
> people feel about an industry whose plans could cause IPv4 runout
> to happen suddenly with only a couple of months notice.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:31:29 -0700
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
> To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric
>        energy industry
> Message-ID: <4ACB54C1.1050109 at ipinc.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> William Herrin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:50 PM,  <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
> >> Basically, what I am suggesting is that we introduce a special policy
> >> that bans the Electric Utility industry from receiving any IPv4
> >> addressing at all, either direct ARIN allocations or ISP assignments,
> >> if those addresses are intended for any kind of Smart Grid
> >> application.
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > I would not support a ban that targets a single industry but I would
> > support a ban on IPv4 address allocations for _embedded systems_ of
> > any sort that do not function as publicly accessible Internet servers.
> > To include cell phones and game consoles. And a cut-off date by which
> > folks holding public addresses for such a purpose must recover and
> > reallocate those addresses before they can get any more from ARIN.
> >
>
> I like this approach as well.
>
> Ted
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:33:26 -0500
> From: "Mikel Kline" <mkline at segainc.com>
> To: <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric
>        energy  industry
> Message-ID: <E079CF4DBD5347DABE929DDC88AA45EC at SEGAINC.COM>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> I think that most electric utilities are much smarter than they appear to
> be
> getting credit for in this thread; even though this may be a newer
> evolution
> for them.  Most utilities in North America are becoming very much aware of
> these addressing issues as a result of Critical Infrastructure Protection
> regulations and the implementation of mandated cyber security regimes.  Our
> clients are looking at IPv6 as the natural course of development rather
> than
> IPv4.  Many already support dual stacks on their networks today.
>
> I am very much opposed to this Chicken Little approach to a special policy
> that bans public access to utility companies for Smart Grid applications.
> It's unnecessary and unduly discriminatory.
>
> I believe that we'll run out of IPv4 addresses long before the Smart Grid
> applications become a widespread consumer of public IP addresses.
>
> <returning to lurk mode>
>
> Mikel Kline
> Sega Inc.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:56:33 -0700
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
> To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <ppml at rs.seastrom.com>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric
>        energy industry
> Message-ID: <4ACB5AA1.90202 at ipinc.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
> > t there is a compelling case for globally unique
> > addresses on power meters - outsourcing of bill generation and
> > collection.
>
> The utility metering schemes - such as the sensus
> scheme I posted that is in operation, on real live gear - clearly
> have the meters on a completely private network.  The cost to
> putting that network on the Internet would be more than just
> extending a private circuit from it to a 3rd party billing
> org.
>
> I realize someone could probably make a case for putting your
> refrigerator on the Internet.  But, just because you can do
> something, doesn't mean you should do something.
>
> If you can come up with an actual in-production scheme that
> in in service in a utility in the United States that has the
> meters on the public Internet, with each meter running it's
> own IP address, then I'll agree you have a point, otherwise I
> think the supposition is as ridiculous as putting your
> refrigerator on the Internet.
>
> No wonder you don't want to discuss PGE.  There's a gulf between
> theory and implementation, and this chicken-little scenario
> concerns theory.
>
> As the guy from the Midwest said, "Show me!"
>
>  > It's also not uncommon for a utility to have a
> > sufficiently large number of meters that they won't all fit in
> > 10.0.0.0/8 even assuming really optimistic subnet engineering.
> >
>
> Even more reason to not assign IP addressing to the meters
> themselves.  In the Sensus scheme the online literature on it only
> says the antenna controller that all the meters report to in a
> given area has an IP address on it.
>
> Ted
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:01:25 +0100
> From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
> To: <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric
>        energyindustry
> Message-ID:
>        <
> 28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745803745B74 at E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> > Most
> > utilities in North America are becoming very much aware of
> > these addressing issues as a result of Critical
> > Infrastructure Protection regulations and the implementation
> > of mandated cyber security regimes.  Our clients are looking
> > at IPv6 as the natural course of development rather than
> > IPv4.  Many already support dual stacks on their networks today.
>
> Anecdotal evidence indicates that while SOME people in the
> electric utility industry are aware of this, there are a lot
> who are not aware and the awareness is not embedded in their
> organizational memories yet. Note that dual stack is just as
> bad as plain IPv4 in this context because there will not be
> enough IPv4 addresses to dual-stack the whole Smart Grid.
>
> > I am very much opposed to this Chicken Little approach to a
> > special policy that bans public access to utility companies
> > for Smart Grid applications.
> > It's unnecessary and unduly discriminatory.
>
> Perhaps policy is unecessary, but publicity is not.
> And this proposed policy is NOT unduly discriminatory. It is,
> in fact, duly and specifically discriminatory based on the
> reality that we DO NOT HAVE enough IPv4 addresses to populate
> the whole of the Smart Grid, and that giving the electric
> utilities a big chunk of what is left, would impose undue
> hardship on the Internet industry as a whole.
>
> Fact is, that everybody is expecting IPv4 to last another
> couple of years and many of us have been testing and trialing
> IPv6 with that date in mine. If the Smart Grid folks come
> along and take a big chunk of address space, that will bring
> the date forward materially.
>
> In any case, there is no need to actually create this policy
> because even if the Smart Grid folks show up tomorrow and
> fully justify their /7 allocation, many ISPs will be applying
> for injunctions against them, and ARIN before the week is out.
>
> > I believe that we'll run out of IPv4 addresses long before
> > the Smart Grid applications become a widespread consumer of
> > public IP addresses.
>
> In which case, the Smart Grid folks should be happy to support
> a policy which bans them from receiving globally registered
> IPv4 addresses since it makes the road ahead much clearer. They
> can focus on IPv6 only, and drop the complexities of IPv4 and
> dual stack.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:10:27 +0100
> From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
> To: <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric
>        energy  industry
> Message-ID:
>        <
> 28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745803745BB0 at E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> > I realize someone could probably make a case for putting your
> > refrigerator on the Internet.  But, just because you can do
> > something, doesn't mean you should do something.
>
> "On the Internet" doesn't necessarily mean what you think. When
> 100% of homes and businesses have fixed-line Internet connectivity
> by fiber or copper, does it make sense to run more wires just for
> the meter? Of course not!
>
> "One the Internet" might mean addressable on the IPv6 Internet
> so that they can access it via Tinc <http://tinc-vpn.org/>
> or some similar VPN system.
>
> Yes, I know that we do not have 100% connectivity today, but that
> is the way that things are headed. Give it another 20 years, and
> the only buildings with no fixed-line Internet connectivity in
> North America will be the ones that are not on the electric
> grid.
>
> > If you can come up with an actual in-production scheme that
> > in in service in a utility in the United States that has the
> > meters on the public Internet, with each meter running it's
> > own IP address, then I'll agree you have a point, otherwise I
> > think the supposition is as ridiculous as putting your
> > refrigerator on the Internet.
>
> I never said that Smart Grid was more than a plan today. It is
> a dangerous plan that could end up being accelerated at great
> detriment to us in the next couple of years. On the other hand
> if we act now, we can prevent the damage and help the Smart Grid
> folks to put their effort and resources in the right technology,
> namely IPv6.
>
> I make no secret about this banning policy being a premptive
> strike to prevent a POTENTIAL future problem, not an actual
> present day problem.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 52, Issue 4
> ****************************************
>

-- 
Rudi Daniel
Independent Consultants
http://www.svgpso.org
http://danielcharles.weebly.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20091006/71944902/attachment.htm>