[arin-ppml] Straw Poll

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Oct 6 13:47:12 EDT 2009


RudOlph Daniel wrote:
> 
> 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. :)
> 

Not before shafting us with it.

ARIN's justification for IPv4 does not deny a request from a gigantic 
consumer of it to be denied just because the consumer is doing something
stupid.

The fear is that if a gigantic request comes in right now that
ARIN has no way in policy to deny it - and if ARIN honors it, then now 
IPv4 runout is tomorrow, not 2 years from now.

The electric industry is being used as the scarecrow here just because
what they are wanting to do with smartgrid (ie put a lot of remotely
accessible meters out there) is easily understandable, even if they
actually never do it precisely in the way we think they will, and
never do make those gigantic requests for IPv4.

But I think the risk is even more likely with some industry that
none of us have ever heard anything about, suddenly jumping in
with "this great idea" they have.

I thus support a policy proposal along the lines that William Herrin
was suggesting, and I'm hoping Michael or William will write one soon
and send it in to ARIN so we can discuss it here, and it becomes part
of the official record.

Ted

> Rudi Daniel
> 
> 
>     Message: 1
>     Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:21:27 +0100
>     From: <michael.dillon at bt.com <mailto:michael.dillon at bt.com>>
>     To: <ppml at arin.net <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:tedm at ipinc.net>>
>     To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us <mailto:bill at herrin.us>>
>     Cc: ppml at arin.net <mailto:ppml at arin.net>
>     Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric
>            energy industry
>     Message-ID: <4ACB54C1.1050109 at ipinc.net
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:mkline at segainc.com>>
>     To: <ppml at arin.net <mailto:ppml at arin.net>>
>     Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric
>            energy  industry
>     Message-ID: <E079CF4DBD5347DABE929DDC88AA45EC at SEGAINC.COM
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:tedm at ipinc.net>>
>     To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <ppml at rs.seastrom.com
>     <mailto:ppml at rs.seastrom.com>>
>     Cc: ppml at arin.net <mailto:ppml at arin.net>
>     Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric
>            energy industry
>     Message-ID: <4ACB5AA1.90202 at ipinc.net <mailto: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 <http://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 <mailto:michael.dillon at bt.com>>
>     To: <ppml at arin.net <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:michael.dillon at bt.com>>
>     To: <ppml at arin.net <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.




More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list