[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] [Fwd: ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks]

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 2/16/2011 11:13 AM, John Santos wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2011 10:21 PM, Eric Westbrook wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 22:36, Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu
>>> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>       >  If the effort is to entice legacy space holders into joining
>>>      ARIN, don't
>>>       >  try to penalize them.  Give them a positive incentive.
>>>
>>>      I don't see this proposal as involving any penalties. Indeed, it is
>>>      the absence of this kind of thinking that consistently leads to
>>>      proposals to force legacy holders into the ARIN regime. The
>>>      (implied) incentive in 133 is that legacy holders can go to other
>>>      service providers - assuming of course, that we retain a consistent
>>>      and integrated whois that works across multiple service providers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing's broken today with respect to the services in question.  I can
>>> only envision additional costs, rigmarole, and coordination issues to
>>> come with a multiple-provider regime.
>>>
>>> Perhaps what's broken is that legacy holders like me don't pay -- at
>>> least, that seems to be the source of some significant outrage here.
>>
>> Not to me, and it's never really been that much.
>>
>> What I really resent most of all are the legacy-assigned blocks that
>> are NOT in use.
>>
>> I don't care if you were assigned a legacy block 15 years ago that your
>> paying nothing for - and you have 60% or more utilized.  If anything,
>> you have my support to have at it.
>
> Over 50% but probably not quite 60%
>
>
>>
>> But I do very much care if you have a legacy block that you got 15
>> years ago that is at 1% utilization because your too fat, dumb, and lazy
>> to renumber into a /24 within that block and return the rest to
>> the RIR.
>>
>
> Since it's already a /24, this paragraph is meaningless.
>
>
>>> Unfortunately, the LRSA is a non-starter (to me and others I know)
>>> because of potential dilution of rights to the resource, as I've
>>> articulated before.
>>
>> Your resource is only good for accessing others resources, and that
>> usefulness is going to go away in the future.  10 years from now nobody
>> will give a rat's ass about your "rights to the resource".  So all I
>> can conclude in reading a statement like this from a legacy holder is
>> that either  a) your sticking your head in the sand about IPv6 or
>> b) Your an old man who plans on retiring long before IPv4 gets abandoned
>> or c) your just making up excuses to yourself to justify not paying
>> anything because your conscience is bugging you.
>
> Try d) Am already implementing IPv6 (despite complete non-cooperation
> from my ISPs and my network being too small, last time I looked, for
> an ARIN end-user aIPv6 assignment), but will require IPv4 uniqueness
> indefinitely.
>
>>
>> None of which I or anyone else really gives a hoot about.  In other
>> words, we don't give a fig about your precious "rights" to your Legacy
>> resource - as long as your USING it.
>
> LRSA, last time I read the fine print, says that I can keep my legacy
> assignment as long as I meet the minimum requirements for it, but the
> minimum assignment size is a /20, which I definitely don't qualify for.
> (I would qualify for a /24, if such were available.)
>

If all Legacy holders out there were /24 holders then nobody would even 
be discussing this issue at all.  Your persistence in this obviously 
wrong assumption that /24's represent the majority of Legacy holders or 
even a significant percentage of them is not worthy of further comment.

Ted

>>
>> Because, ultimately, if you ARE using it, then it's YOUR CUSTOMERS THE
>> END USERS who are REALLY the users here.  It's THEY I care about
>> reaching, NOT YOU.
>
> False premise.  I am not an ISP.  I am an end user.  I'm not providing
> transit or reallocation to my customers; I am providing services to
> them which require IP.  You aren't reaching my customers via my
> network and they would scream bloody murder if you could.  You might
> care about reaching them, but they care very much that you can't,
> at least not by transiting my network.
>
>
>
>>
>> The rest of us on the Internet have made an exception for your block NOT
>> because of your imaginary "rights" but because we care about the USERS
>> of your block.
>>
>
> What exception?  You aren't carrying my block.  All my Internet access
> is NATed through my ISPs.
>
>>     Barring a change to that, and with no other way in,
>>> we're stuck.  Were that different, I for one would cheerfully sign, pay,
>>> and enjoy more formal participation.
>>
>> Baloney.
>
> You presume to read my mind and tell me what I would and would not
> do?  Are you psychic.
>
>>
>>     All I can do today is cooperate by
>>> keeping my information current.
>>>
>>> Carrots and sticks are uncompelling to the legacy holder.
>>>
>>
>> Utter rubbish.  Either your a legacy holder who is planning on
>> continuing your Internet presense (in which case you have obtained
>> IPv6, and are paying for it, and signed an RSA for it)
>> or your planning on riding off into the sunset once your IPv4 becomes
>> useless.  And if it's the latter, then you really have nothing
>> constructive to add, IMHO.
>>
>> Ted
>
> You are assuming a shit-load of facts that are just not true, at
> least not for me, and since Eric's original post described my
> situation to a tee, it probably doesn't apply to him either.
>
>>
>>> $0.02,
>>> Eric