[arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

Sat Dec 20 04:40:50 EST 2014

On 12/19/2014 2:40 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> Steven,
>
> As another small org, I agree with you completely about the absurdly
> arbitrary nature of the policies that are biased in favor of the
> large organizations.

The largest bias is pricing.  IP addresses are retail sold on a per-IP 
basis - every network in the United States charges extra to end users 
for larger numbers of IP addresses - but ARIN's price per IP is lower 
the larger number of them you "rent" from them.

You want to make a level playing field, THAT is far more important.

> some cases.  At the same time, no matter how much noise the ARIN
> community makes about "we don't talk about routing", this allocation
> needs assessment has always been about routing slots, because the
> only real reason you "NEED" an address is to have it routed.

This is a simplification.  From the ROUTING COMMUNITIES point of view, 
it's about routing slots.  From the individual requestors point of view 
it is NOT about routing slots - it's about not being tied to a specific 
upstream network's assignment.

NOBODY's router doesn't have enough memory for THEIR OWN routing slots. 
  The memory their router lacks is memory for EVERYONE ELSE'S routing 
slots. ;-)

>
> To a first order this is where the ARIN/nanog split model is
> completely broken. The other regions have a more integrated approach
> to operations and policy discussions, so it is easier to see the
> balance and trade-offs about how the resources are managed.
>
> Seriously, I believe ARIN should get out of the IPv4 business NOW...
> The world should have moved on 10 years ago so this death-spiral
> runout tail BS would have never happened, but here we are. The only
> sane way to get past the never-ending policy tweaking is to hand the
> remaining IPv4 resource back to IANA and let the other RIRs deal with
> it.

You must be joking.

> If a small org is having a problem getting IPv6 resources, I care
> and want to help fix that. If they believe they need more than a
> single IPv4 to support the dwindling number of XP machines that have
> IPv6 turned off by default, they are in need of an education, and
> probably some guidance on how to build and deploy IPv6 enabled apps
> and infrastructure.
>

This discussion is about small ISP's not small end user or business or 
residential customers.

A small ISP is most certainly not going to stick all their customers 
behind a single IPv4 address, regardless of whether their customers are 
running XP or not.

Your comment here isn't applicable to small orgs when those small orgs 
are ISPs.  It's absolutely applicable to end user orgs with a single ISP 
connection.

With that said - if every small end user out there got their own IPv6 
assignment and had their ISP advertise it, we would have huge routing 
slot problems.

Ted

> Full disclosure: Some of us on this list happen to be in the business
> of helping small orgs with IPv6 awareness&  migration.
>
> Tony CEO Hain Global Consulting, Inc.
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:28 PM To: 'Owen DeLong' Cc:
>> arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> But you ignore the reality of life in a small Org that has limited
>> resources. They are spending all their time just trying to keep
>> their doors open and don't have the extra time to participate even
>> if they want to.  I think this community is certainly capable of
>> doing their fiduciary responsibility by making sure the needs of
>> small Orgs are met just like is done for larger Orgs. I do see this
>> community doing some of that but I think more needs to be done.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks℠
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong
>> [mailto:owen at delong.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:47
>> PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Gary Buhrmaster; arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> It's always fun when people depend on nameless faceless silent
>> majorities to bolster their argument.
>>
>> Bottom line, in this as in all things, decisions are made by those
>> who show up. If the members of the community who do not comment
>> and/or only hold legacy allocations continue to not speak up, then
>> it is impossible for us to consider their support based solely on
>> your belief that it exists.
>>
>> If you truly believe this to be the case, then rally them to come
>> out and support what you want. I assure you that if they do, policy
>> will change based on consensus of the expanded body of
>> participation. However, we can only operate on the consensus of
>> those who voice an opinion. It is impossible to count support or
>> opposition from those who do not voice it.
>>
>> This is true in any deliberative body and in any policy process of
>> which I am aware. There is simply no viable or accurate way to
>> measure the opinions of those who choose not to voice an opinion.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2014, at 09:27 , Steven Ryerse<SRyerse at eclipse-
>> networks.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you
>>> add in all
>> members of the community who do not comment and all the members of
>> the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that
>> might not be the case.  I think the legacy community is speaking
>> volumes by not participating by commenting in this forum.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110,
>>> Atlanta, GA  30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office
>>>
>>> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks℠
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Gary Buhrmaster
>>> [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18,
>>> 2014 12:12 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Owen DeLong;
>>> arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse<SRyerse at eclipse-
>> networks.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is
>>>> important here.
>> What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the
>> minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation
>> request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs
>> policy.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t know what that number is but if it is greater than
>>>> zero, it shouldn’t
>> have happened!  ARIN’s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to
>> stifle it.
>>>
>>> While there is clearly support by some for your position
>>> advocating
>> needless number allocations, the majority of the community supports
>> a review to insure that the allocations are actually advancing the
>> Internet, and not just throwing numbers around to whomever asks,
>> whatever their plans (or lack thereof).
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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.