[arin-ppml] IP Address Policy
dmiller at tiggee.com
Thu Aug 9 02:39:05 EDT 2012
On 8/8/2012 11:13 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> I appreciate your input but I strongly disagree.
Welcome to the community. We don't always agree.
> John said in one of his earlier emails that the reason we were denied is because of policy and that policy of course comes the this "community" and that sounds like a cabal to me. Obviously it is target at organizations like us.
No policy is designed to deny resources to organizations "like" yours.
There are, as you have been told, methods under current policy that will
allow your organization to acquire resources. You just don't "want" to
use those methods.
Do I find those methods difficult? Yes. My organization followed the
path of [provider /23, utilization, allocation, renumber, and then
return], so I know the pain of that path.
Do I think that any organization with what they believe is a "good idea"
should be allocated large blocks of addresses from the start? I do not.
Can we discuss the actual size of a "large" block of addresses? Absolutely.
I would argue that if the policy you seem to favor had been policy since
2004, that there would be no IPv4 addresses left to allocate now.
We can also break out the way back machine and discuss whether or not
the internet would be a better place if we had already run out of IPv4
> IP addresses are essentially not limited either since IPv6 is there to take the load once the IPv4 is exhausted. IPv6 is going to happen pretty soon so there is no reason to stop assigning IPv4 until they are gone. We've already got our IPv6 addresses.
We can't just start using IPv6 addresses in place of IPv4 addresses when
the IPv4 addresses run out. There is a bit more required. I would
guess that you know that.
I agree that IPv6 is going to happen. I don't know that I would
characterize it as "pretty soon" though. Eyeball networks / CPE seem to
me to be the major sticking point - thus we have the glories of CGN.
> It is pretty silly to tell me I can use whatever bits I want when you know we have to join in with everyone else. Was that really a constructive comment.
It was in fact a constructive comment. You "want" unique resources.
You appear to have built a business plan that "requires" unique
resources for it to be successful. This does not mean that you are owed
unique resources in whatever quantity you like.
Joining in with "everyone else" requires acquiring allocations of unique
resources from the common pool under the policies that "everyone"
created. You appear to want to "join in with everyone else" without
actually "joining in" with everyone else.
> There is no question that ARIN has a monopoly on the north American continent. Where else can I go to an authorized registry for additional IP addresses for North America. Obviously you know that too so another really constructive comment.
IMHO, ARIN is not a monopoly in the sense that you are implying. That
is, in the sense that some sort of "monopoly" status requires certain
legal requirements and limits be followed in behavior - for example DOJ
vs. Microsoft (however, IANAL).
> I put constructive comments out there and if you have constructive real comments then please share them and we can have a constructive dialog. Otherwise you are not helping anyone.
Here we disagree. Once again, welcome to the community.
You put out some constructive comments. You also put out some demands,
commands, thinly veiled threats, and you shouted in all caps - none of
which I found constructive.
The above statement in particular, which I read as "Be quiet if you
don't agree with me.", is out of place on a public policy mailing list.
You will not find bullying to be an effective strategy to either get me
to be silent or to convince me to agree with you. I am more than happy
to constructively discuss your arguments in a civil manner. You can
leave out the bullying, demands, commands, threats, and shouting.
The only position that I hold with respect to ARIN is that of a member.
I speak for only myself.
> Steven L Ryerse
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
> Conquering Complex Networks℠
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Miller
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:34 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy
> On 8/8/2012 9:05 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> John that sounds good in the theoretical world of this community but in the real world that I must live in, it is not reasonable for a monopoly to deny a resource request just because others in the community don’t want me to have the resources. I again point out that you are a monopoly and your mission is to allocate resources and NOT to deny resources. Because they are a monopoly, the phone company cannot deny me another phone line just because the folks who already have phones in my community don’t want me to have one or another one.
> Phone lines are not a limited resource. Internet addresses are a limited resource, thus their management is distinctly different from an unlimited resource.
> ARIN is not a monopoly. The internet community as a whole is necessarily a monopoly (of sorts) since there in only one global internet - "the Internet".
> You are welcome to use whatever pattern of bits you like to address your devices. Noone has any interest in controlling or limiting the pattern of bits that you use.
> However, if you want the rest of the internet community to treat the pattern of bits that you use to address your devices as meaningful - i.e. those who run internet connected networks will pass traffic for you, accept traffic from you, and/or send traffic to you - then that pattern of bits that you use to address your devices must be unique. The internet community has agreed (nem. con.) that IANA and the RIRs will control, register, and document allocations from the pool of unique patterns of bits to address your devices. The internet community has agreed that IANA and the RIRs will be governed by community developed policies. The policies that the ARIN RIR community have developed require needs justification for address allocations.
> There is no cabal controlling address allocations. There is no group of people in the community that voted against or "don't want" you to have resources.
>> I am not asking for a crazy amount of resources like a /16, my request is for a very small amount of resources (/22) and it is a reasonable request. Your mission is to fulfill reasonable resource requests. Period. I’ve read it 10 times today and every time I read it – it says you are to allocate resources not withhold them.
>> Steven L Ryerse
>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>> [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:31 PM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net)
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy
>> On Aug 8, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>> ... I am going thru proper ARIN channels to obtain needed resources and ARIN is refusing to allocate those resources to me.
>> Steve -
>> You have applied through proper channels but your request is not valid
>> as it does not meet allocation policy criteria. ARIN cannot allocate
>> IPv4 resources to your organization as a result of that invalid request.
>> As others have noted, under the ISP multi-homed initial allocation
>> policies (NRPM 18.104.22.168), there is a requirement to utilized the
>> equivalent of a /23 (generally from your upstream ISP) before
>> receiving for initial allocation from ARIN. This is not a policy
>> requirement which is unique to your business but long-standing
>> requirement in policy that all service providers have had to satisfy when making that transition.
>> Jimmy Hess did make an excellent point with regard to transfers -
>> under the
>> 8.3 specified transfer policy, your full IP address needs for 24
>> months can be considered in approving a transfer, and as such that may
>> be more helpful with your present situation. As ARIN is obligated to
>> follow the existing policy as adopted, a transfer may be a more timely
>> option that developing a policy change to these requirements for initial ISP allocations.
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML