[arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
John Springer
springer at inlandnet.com
Thu Sep 6 19:56:36 EDT 2012
Hi Steven,
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>
> I don't want to re-argue the case here but we were approved for an
> appropriate sized IPv6 block and denied for an appropriate sized IPv4
> block - and that makes no sense when you really think about it.
I feel almost sure that you know that it is not particularly how much
sense it makes, but rather what the policy stipulates. So WRT the above
comment, I can say: Maybe what you say has some philosophical rectitude,
but it almost doesn't matter in this, non-policy context. It is arguement
that needs to take place in support of specific, proposed, under
discussion policy for it to have the impact I am sure you want it to have.
> Either our Organization should qualify to participate based on our need
> - or - it should not qualify based on our need. It should not be able
> to qualify sometimes and not qualify other times for the same need.
See above, but in this case I do not agree that need for IPV6 resources
should automatically result in IPV4 resource allocation in excess of what
policy provides for. I find it entirely believable and rational that you
may be able to demonstrate a level of need for IPV6 resources, and get
them and unable to demonstrate another level of need for IPV4 resources,
and not get them. In my only medium level of observation of goings on,
this seems to conform to what I have seen of community intent.
John Springer
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GAÂ 30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>
> â„ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Conquering Complex Networksâ„
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 7:00 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>
> You're right... I don't agree. I'd hate to roll the IPv6 limitations back to only allowing people who qualify for IPv4.
>
> Owen
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 15:55 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
>> That is great and I know some won't agree, but I think it should be the other way around too.
>>
>> Steven L Ryerse
>> President
>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>
>> â„ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>> Conquering Complex Networksâ„
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:40 PM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Cc: John Springer; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net)
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>
>> The IPv6 policy already specifies that anyone who qualifies for an IPv4 block automatically qualifies for IPv6.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 15:36 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I very much appreciate your reasoned response. I don't advocate taking all controls off IPv4. Actually I think IPv6 requirements should be exactly the same as IPv4 requirements, with the obvious change that the quantities should be adjusted for each. An organization that can qualify to get a size appropriate block should be able to get both an IPv4 & an IPv6. If the organization cannot qualify to get one then they shouldn't get the other. This would have the effect of this community quickly modifying the existing policies to make sure allocations are given to orgs that do need them and bring the policies into balance. IMHO they are way out of balance right now because folks are so worried about IPv4 exhaustion - that they are not fulfilling the primary charter of ARIN which is to allocate resources and of course do it prudently.
>>>
>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>> President
>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>
>>> â„ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>> Conquering Complex Networksâ„
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Springer [mailto:springer at inlandnet.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:17 PM
>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>> Cc: Owen DeLong; ARIN PPML \(ppml at arin.net\) \(ppml at arin.net\)
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>
>>> Hi Steven
>>>
>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Until then IPv4 addresses should be allocated and not withheld by ARIN.
>>>
>>> They are being allocated. To take Lord Beaverbrook out of context, "now we are trying to determine the degree". Support may be growing for increasing the degree. I feel that adjusting the degree will be more acceptable to the community than removing the needs basis. _AND_ as near as I can tell there is a process here that is _going_ to be followed.
>>>
>>>> Your economic history lesson is interesting but not relevant when
>>>> the mission of ARIN is to facilitate the advancement of the Internet
>>>> and not to somehow slow its growth down by creating policies that do
>>>> slow it down in favor of somehow saving IPv4. I know some folks in
>>>> this community will get tired of me reiterating this over and over
>>>> but I plan on doing so until some reason prevails.
>>>
>>> You are clearly welcome to reassert your opinion, at will. But
>>> consider
>>> this: to eliminate the needs basis, enough persuasion needs to be applied in support of a policy proposal to that effect, to convince the community to agree to it. A lot of persuasion is going to be required in addition to some facts. Professor Mueller, et al, supplied some data that seem to provide an indication that the needs horizon may be extended to good effect. He and others make a number of other assertions for which I find less support in the data.
>>>
>>> John Springer
>>>
>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>> President
>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>
>>>> â„ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>> Conquering Complex Networksâ„
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:22 PM
>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but in this case, it's equivalent to not only failing to pay $1 now to avoid paying $1,000 later, but also allowing the problem you could easily have addressed for $1 to grow to the point where it will also cost all of your neighbors $1,000 each as well.
>>>>
>>>> It's literally the network equivalent of deciding not to address a backed-up septic tank, but you keep right on adding to said septic tank until it floods your neighborhood in a layer of... well, septic tank contents.
>>>>
>>>> It's a whole lot cheaper to clean out a septic tank early than it is to repair the aftermath of a septic flood.
>>>>
>>>> In the septic flood case, we actually have laws that provide liability and penalties for people that fail to clean out their septic system in time. In the IPv6 migration, we have people arguing that ARIN shouldn't even be characterizing those failing to clean their septic systems as a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Owen
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 09:08 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think it is just delaying paying the cost to do and everyone delays paying costs when they can. Human nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>> President
>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>
>>>>> â„ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>> Conquering Complex Networksâ„
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:41 AM
>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said previously... Failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community. Failing to get that failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community leads to failing to deploy IPv6 and thus doing something technical that does hurt this community. Q.E.D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Owen
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:32 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> With all due respect, how they decide to run their organizations is not any of his or our business. I believe that is the definition of liberty and freedom. As long as they don't do anything technical to hurt this community then it is none of his or this communities concern. This community should only concern itself with ARINs mission and not side issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steven Ryerse
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>> 770.399.9099- Office
>>>>>>
>>>>>> â„ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>> Conquering Complex Networksâ„
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:59 PM
>>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul's point was about the large number of well capitalized organizations he is observing that don't seem to get it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 16:44 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree we do need to do IPv6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> â„ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>> Conquering Complex Networksâ„
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 7:38 PM
>>>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>>>> Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address
>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Failing to deploy IPv6 will cause serious technical problems for everyone, so, seems to me Paul's comments in this regard are spot on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 15:14 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it this community's charter to pass judgment on how any organization chooses to run their business - if they don't cause technical problems for the rest of this community? Seems to me Microsoft or whoever is "facilitating the advancement of the Internet", even if they choose to be greedy for their owners or shareholders in the process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>>>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> â„ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>>> Conquering Complex Networksâ„
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:12 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Jimmy Hess
>>>>>>>> Cc: Steven Ryerse; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address
>>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well
>>>>>>>> capitalized organizations do not act as if, in any way, there
>>>>>>>> was an impending ipv4 exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they
>>>>>>>> are by and large not treating
>>>>>>>> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6 and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all, that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
>>>>>>>> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> paul
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
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