[arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment Requirements for IPv6

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Wed Sep 15 11:52:58 EDT 2021


I'm personally willing to take your word for it.

However, ARIN as an organization, can't do that. And it is in everyone's
interest that they enforce their due diligence and require proper
documentation. Otherwise, without such due diligence anyone could steal
resources from anyone else.

I feel for you, and it sucks, but unfortunately it has to be that way or
the entire registry system could fall apart.

Sorry.

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:25 AM Paul E McNary via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:

> Can I at least get my 1 Legacy /24 that my dear colleague/friend gave me
> transferred to me with minimal documentation?
> See you proved my point nobody works together inside the beltway.
> Especially for some of us pioneers.
> :-(
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: hostmaster at uneedus.com
> To: "Paul E McNary" <pmcnary at cameron.net>
> Cc: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>, "arin-ppml" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 3:01:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment
> Requirements for IPv6
>
> The only thing that ARIN can really do in your business plan is provide
> numbering resources.  The problems with sites, bandwidth, and other
> providers have little to do with ARIN.  However, other than the dedicated
> pools for IX's and IPv6, the pot is nearly dry so this is not going to
> help with your needs.  It is going to get expensive to get IPv4 space. The
> free pool ran out in February, 2011 and it is going to keep getting worse.
> Nothing that ARIN can do can produce more numbers from thin air.
>
> I also happen to use a WISP for network connectivity. They have been in
> business for about 15 years, so they already had enough IPv4 space to
> operate their small customers.  Prior to the free pool exhaust, they would
> send their commercial customers to ARIN for space.  Now there is a limit
> of 1 IPv4 per circuit.  If you need more, they will be glad to route, but
> you have to bring your own IPv4.
>
> It sounds like your WISP business is more recent.  Without enough IPv4,
> you have clearly discovered that it is very hard to operate.  I am
> guessing that in another 5 years or so, it might be possible to operate a
> good IPv6 service, with a CGnat for the then limited amount of IPv4 sites.
>
> To solve the medical providers access properly, you need to try to get the
> hospital and pharmacies and others that they need to communicate with onto
> IPv6. Some of this has already been happening indirectly, as those
> institutions choose to move to the cloud.  Most cloud providers are IPv6
> compatible.
>
> Centurylink and Windstream here offer dual stack over their circuits.
> There must be some kind of technical limitation at your end, maybe
> involving their upstream to the backbones.  Being in the 3rd largest
> state, we do not have as much issue, as competition has more or less
> forced all Internet Exchanges to adopt dual stack.
>
> Are you licensed, or are your radios Part 15?  My WISP is licensed, and
> that makes a BIG difference.  Unlicensed works when there are not others,
> but as you have discovered it does not protect you from interference.
> Even if you move to another tower that you own, there is no assurance that
> the interference will stop, especially if you operate point to multipoint
> like most WISPS.  I would suggest that you instead try to move at least
> some of your links to licensed, which may allow you to stay put. Start
> with the ones that have the most interference problems. If possible,
> unloading backhaul from microwave to fiber can also help with reliability.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Paul E McNary via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>
> > Owen you did not even comprehend what I said.
> > That's the whole problem
> > You and ARIN never solved or advised me on I what I needed to do just a
> lot of side stepping like you just twisted completely incorrectly.
> > I guess Midwest English is too different than your and Washington DC's
> English.
> > Go back and translate to Midwest English.
> > Even Centurylink doesn't provide local DSL IPv6.
> > Between Centurylink and WindStream they have been our best sales people
> until the COOP's started overbuilding.
> > The 2 of them cover 90% of our coverage area and rural DSL from both of
> them do not offer IPv6
> > We offer more than the big companies you so talk about.
> > Some commercial fiber customers can get either IPv6 or IPv4 but not dual
> stack out here in the sticks.
> > Our Fiber supplier network was built out for hospitals and schools. Big
> money contract.
> > The last independent doctor had us switch our from the hospital's DSL to
> our Wireless because Centurylink could take days
> > to get his connection to the hospital network. Now all the Doctor's are
> hospital slaves. They are always in different hospital
> > clinics many miles apart and sometime 2 clinics a day.
> > Where the Independent Doctor, I was on his cell phone and he had my
> personal cell phone.
> > If he had a problem we would usually be there in less than an hour.
> > As fast as I could get there or a tech.
> > Unfortunately he passed away.
> >
> > At one time last year all the pharmacies and business were out of
> Internet for 3 days.
> > Everything has to be connected to the Internet of they can't file any
> prescriptions even in an emergency.
> > Banks couldn't process deposit or automated payments. Many people had
> late charges on their automatic payments.
> > All anybody said, sorry, it wasn't our fault we couldn't deliver your
> automatic payments and no we will not cover the late fees.
> > Also people trying to pay the banks were hit with bank late fees and
> overdraft fees they would not back out.
> > So tell me again how you are helping rural area except to give resources
> to the big players whose local techs could be a 100 miles away.
> > And CenturyLink customer service is in Louisiana and says we can have
> someone there in 2 weeks.
> > The Internet has gotten so bad in the last 10 years and ARIN is a part
> of the problem.
> > Owen you blame slow adopters. We started trying way before Centirylink
> and Windstream.
> > Owen you quick twistwd and went sideway when I said ARIN cost us
> $750,000.
> > The volunteers and the staff always divert the blame.
> > Everyone is to blame. And nobody is responsible.
> > CenturyLink 10 years ago had 10-20 tech and to service crews for
> mainline and at least 6 CO techs in our town.
> > We also had a local service office.
> > Techs made it to business accounts in less than an hour.
> > Personal accounts were no later than next day.
> > Now the same number of people are involved but for the entire Sate of
> Missouri.
> > I talked to Windstream's tech manager I knew since acquired many of the
> local phone mutual.
> > His coverage area is the the stae of Missouri.
> > Same as Windstrem. His tech territory even extends into neighboring
> states now.
> > We are a golden opportunity if ARIN hadn't slow tracked us small guys.
> > Now the electric coop's get all the government money and don't even have
> to go through the bidding process.
> > They use rural REC funding to created subsidies that also get heavy
> discounted interest rates.
> > Recent the University of Missouri S&T announced a $300,000 project with
> government money.
> > We found out they were going on the same grain elevator leg we have been
> on for almost 20 years.
> > We called the owner and he said that they agreed to work work with.
> > They said no you aren't being kicked off.
> > The location is also a small town but it is a backhaul hub to 25% of our
> network.
> > The coop's company never called us for coordination like they promised.
> > We read on face book. They were promising to serve 20 to 30 customers
> for free for 6 months.
> > We serve 50 close to town and have a further reach with many micropops
> and backhaul to major towers maybe to 250 of our subscribers.
> > We are in the process of completing a $10,000 dollar fork lift to that
> tower.
> > There is no 5 Gig available. We have the entire spectrum going though
> there.
> > And they are going to do LTE 5 Gig which wipes out our spectrum.
> > They are using 80 mhz channels to subscribers and only promising 10 meg
> to the subscribing.
> > We have close to 750 Mhz going through there and can supplu up to 100
> meg plans and deliver.
> > After $300,000 where the our entire cost to upgrade is somewhat less
> than $20,000. To deliver better bandwidth and faster service,
> > the COOP will take over after being paid to do the install foe no charge.
> > They said revolutionary.
> > Overbuilt by COOP. The grain leg owner says we are not being put off.
> > The COOP just ignored his conditions to work with us.
> > So now we have to build a $15,000 tower near there to get out of the
> COOP's interference to our backhauls tp save 200 subscribers.
> > The government throw $300,000 dollars that we already deliver for a
> fraction.
> > You inside the Beltway people can even see or are paid to not see it that
> > the locals that took the risk 20 years ago on rural, just get pushed off
> the map by the inside the beltway and yes that includes ARIN dien't it.
> > Without the big players fees you can't exist. No problem if it takes out
> many of us that risked everything to help the community.
> > We still have $20 plans for rural poor people.
> > Every plan the COOP has start usually at $100 but they will consider $50
> plans in certain situations.
> > Now Nathan at Wisper is over building at least 4 other WISPA members.
> Again a big player and has great conflicting interests in his WISPA
> positions.
> > He has some single track acquisitions across our territory. The WISPA
> member Nathan has half of his territory covered.
> > And the WISPA member has fillings that he covers them. They still let
> him bid on and acquire subsidies to build out.
> > The COOP's don't even care if they overbuild Centurylink and Windstream.
> > They just build over and hide under REA/REC or Touchstone Energy these
> days.
> > The Touchstone Energy funding is even better than the bidding process
> and they have no rules the have to follow.
> > Because they are inside the Beltway. They can also get government IP
> resources for nothing.
> > So twist this all around and be inside the beltway Teflon.
> > Oh Teflon that would kill them now. What is the new non-stick that
> everyone inside the Beltway uses.
> > Not our problem, not our problem, continuous circle jerk.
> > John will probably kick me off for improper comment.
> > More non-stick.
> > How much funding does ARIN get from the government, the big players vs.
> the SMB's?
> > That should be something ARIN should provide to members. Percentage and
> Dollars by fee size classes... Then the picture becomes clear how the
> policy is developed by fee size classes.
> > And the relevant discounts in the fee structure.
> > Us small fee members don't pay you salary John. Some County's annual
> budget around here is less than your salary.
> > I know because I was a IT Consultant to them for 28 years until I
> semi-retired.
> > They wanted me to stay but they had 911 government grants that would pay
> for the assessor's office, the collector's office, the county clerk's
> office and the treasurer's office.
> > Most of the office holder's were getting ready to retire or move on to
> better paying jobs, I said you are stupid not to do it.
> > They were promised 6 month changeover. I still had to maintain my system
> as primary for 2 years.
> > The assessor who is a young BSRN was making twice much as a PRN Nurse
> outside of Courthouse.
> > She now is the County Health Department Manager and a regional subsided
> healthcare clinic provider.
> > She had a baby when she was appointed Assessor when the original
> assessor I had worked for 18 years.
> > I worked for this Assessor for 10 years.
> > However the downside was the annual maintenance fees went from $12,000
> to $50,000. Upfront was almost nothing.
> > Again the big boys games.The last collector is still in office and we
> talk quit often and talks about how bad the system is compared to what I
> did.
> > Took almost almost all the automation between office away and files have
> to be manually transferred between office
> > quadrupling employee labor required. They had to pay massive overtime
> for the 2 years they still had to use my system and for 4 years getting the
> new system to work.
> > New and improved sort of like what you are asking for with the non
> existent support of IPv6.
> > Now they are trapped by vendor lockout even though the have to bid it
> out.
> > The specs are written so that only the one vendor can bid.
> > That's all we see from inside the beltway.
> > Another example our newly elected state representative just installed
> our internet service to his rural remote farm.
> > Even though he has to use our service he is voting to give all the big
> player's state broadband grants.
> > The big boys will still not do last mile to his farm when they put us
> out of business.
> > He will have voted against his best interests to get campaign funding.
> Missouri does not pay representatives and senator much.
> > To get elected you have to have about 20 times what their pay is.
> > We installed last mile to about 10 customers near him.
> >
> > Are subscribers make Missouri's minimum wage. We have let some
> subscribers slide but we don't make that much in profit.
> > And COVID has made trying to get a rural work from home into a valley
> that even the phone don't have o provide last mile.
> > Who's going to serve them
> >
> > Owen you teflon-ed any responsibility because you are a volunteer. (no
> responsibility)
> > New and improved
> > Simple and cheap
> > The facts are not on your side.
> >
> > Thank for all your help ARIN (Much sarcasm if you couldn;t tell)
> >
> > Paul McNary
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
> > To: "Paul E McNary" <pmcnary at cameron.net>
> > Cc: "Dan Oachs" <doachs at gac.edu>, "arin-ppml" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 11:34:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment
> Requirements for IPv6
> >
> > I understand your frustration. In part, every WISPA event the answers
> about policy changed because ARIN policy is
> > not a static immutable thing. It’s constantly evolving in response to
> community input into the policy development
> > process and that was a time of a lot of policy proposals coming through
> the AC.
> >
> > Sounds like most of your problems relate to vendors failing to provide
> good IPv6 support. I empathize. I’ve been doing
> > pretty much everything I can think of to achieve that for many years now.
> >
> > As to your IPv4 situation, that’s a pretty classic example of why I say
> that the people refusing to deploy good IPv6
> > capabilities in their {product, content, network} are causing pain for
> the rest of us.
> >
> > I don’t think I ever claimed ARIN helped you or even had a good solution
> for you. I’m not sure how you came to the
> > conclusion that it was ARIN’s or my duty to conjure additional IPv4
> resources from thin air after runout or how the
> > failure of others to deploy IPv6 was our fault, but you’re entitled to
> your opinion.
> >
> > My role at ARIN was as a volunteer trying to help the community develop
> policies that met the needs of the
> > community in a fair and equitable manner. I resigned from that role in
> June and now my relationship to ARIN
> > is that of victim^wcustomer too.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 14, 2021, at 15:41 , Paul E McNary via ARIN-PPML <
> arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes Owen you have valid points.
> >> We are WISP in rural area.
> >> Our problem was we were using /24 and /22 we had with the datacenter
> for years.
> >> We also had /24 with low cost with that data center.
> >> We had another provider that could provide us bandwidth through the
> other Datacenter in the same building.
> >> We thought we had everything OK.
> >> Then the DataCenter moved out and decided to no longer to offer colo
> and cancelled our long term contracts.
> >> We were microwaving 60 mile from the top of this building.
> >> Then are Microwave links got too much interference.
> >> Licensed links were not in the budget.
> >> Finally we found a company that had a fiber run on the opposite side of
> our network area from were our homing was.
> >> So by the the time we got an ASN for multi-homing and jumping through
> the hoops that ARIN put in the way.
> >> Our fiber provider gave us a /28
> >> I got a /24 from a long term college/dear friend.
> >> I talked to you Owen at WISPA events.
> >> Someone on here I also talked to.
> >> I also talked to ARIN staff at WISPA.
> >> The young lady that was pregnant at the time was ARIN staff.
> >> But by the time we got our ASN. No IPv4 remained.
> >> So we did get IPv6 directly from ARIN.
> >> However our fiber provider did not have IPv6 available.
> >> When they finally did it couldn't be dual stack.
> >> At the time the IPv6 routing was split to the major players and still
> is.
> >> We had to forklift upgrade our entire network to use IPv6.
> >> Cheap Huh!
> >> The only place our network from our fiber provide and us crossed paths
> was near a water tower in a town of 90 people.
> >> So all our backhauls had to be replaced.
> >> Everything to our towers had to be completely engineered.
> >> We finally got 1 /24 from ARIN under the IPv6 conversion rules.
> >> Everthing had to be Double NATTED to get to these rural low density
> customers.
> >> At one WISPA event John and I had a heated argument and he blew me off
> without any answers.
> >> Owen you and John speak a version of English we don't speak here. Very
> circular and if this, not that but if this maybe that.
> >> I could never get clear answers.
> >> We still can't get dual stack on our fiber provider at this location.
> >> Oh the problems with ROKU, Smart TV's, Video surveillance.
> >> The video surveillance people can get around here in IPv4 only and they
> what a static or a port forward at our headend fiber.
> >> $1000's of dollars in "free" service calls because all these device
> sellers blamed us for not giving them a static IPv4 or a port forward to
> the customer.
> >> We do not have enough IPv4 to do this.
> >> Simple and free. No way in hell.
> >> And looking through ARIN justification which I reached out for help and
> ARIN said we had to this that and the other that did not work with our WISP
> model.
> >> So the clock ran out to get direct assignments and /24's were out of
> site to buy. Or I guess acquire (because we can't own).
> >> So ARIN helping gets resources to rural low density areas is a joke for
> SMB's like us.
> >>
> >> So ARIN told me that if I had acquired legacy resources, I would have
> to have the state's incorporation papers that I acquired.
> >> Many of the legacy resource holders were are small consultants who were
> sole proprietors in the 90's and never changed.
> >> Or they moved and let their corporations go stale and retired to others
> states.
> >> On a handshake deal the resources changed hands. All I got from Owen
> and ARIN staff was that these resources could be clawed back.
> >> The answer I got from Owen and ARIN staff was that ARIN might claw
> these legacy resources back in these cases.
> >> Some of these legacy resource holder had given their legacy resources
> to other people, have retired and died.
> >> Many sole proprietors of the pre ARIN period and the ARIN policies
> don't address this situation except that ARIN can claw back these resources.
> >> And every WISPA event Owen and the ARIN staff would change the answers
> about policy.
> >> After I was able to get these list, I saw why. Always arguing.
> >> One time the policy was we were going to have to transfer every single
> IP that a ISP subscriber had in the registration system.
> >>
> >> So tell me how ARIN has helped our company out so much again.
> >> Heck many of our low income customers we had to switch all their
> equipment that couldn't do IPv6 with our routers.
> >> Cheap huh!
> >>
> >> Then the equipment could do IPv6. Heck I have a fairly new tv that can
> not do IPv6.
> >> My current DISH Hopper equipment can't do it without dual stack they
> told use.
> >> I have have IPv6 available at my house but not dual stack.
> >> And from this conversation I see that even dual stack probably isn't
> workable yet.
> >> We had 1 fiber provide that was available in our area.
> >> Now the Local COOP's are subsidizing their sub companies who can get
> all the grant money we can't and are overbuilding use.
> >> The offered to let use use their fiber for $10000 a month for 1 gig
> fiber hand off.
> >> Then when they started overbuilding that offer basically went away.
> >> We do last mile where no one will go and the cream of small towns has
> been taken away.
> >> So all this arguing I have been involved with since we had to get an
> ASN, has been been very enlightening about ARIN's bureaucratic shit to jump
> through.
> >>
> >> That's how ARIN has helped our company.
> >> Cheap and inexpensive hell no.
> >>
> >> So please explain
> >>
> >> Paul McNary
> >> pmcnary at cameron.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Dan Oachs" <doachs at gac.edu>
> >> To: "arin-ppml" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 3:19:40 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment
> Requirements for IPv6
> >>
> >> I agree with everything Owen and Albert have been saying in these
> >> latest threads.  Keep up the good fight.
> >>
> >> I've been running a dual stacked network for a college for over 10
> >> years now and the rest of the world just needs to hurry up already.
> >> Heck, my home ISP (Mediacom) has given me IPv6 addresses for around 4
> >> years too.  You can't expect to keep running the same stuff for
> >> decades without a firmware/hardware upgrade.  The "internet" is no
> >> different.  Time to apply the upgrade, reboot, and more on.  :)
> >>
> >> --Dan
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 2:47 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
> >> <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The point is that at this time, we should not have to justify nat in
> order to permit its standardization. Standardize it and let users figure it
> out.
> >>>
> >>> Why? It’s a local application only technology not useful on the
> broader internet, so why bother to standardize it? Why waste time of the
> standards bodies?
> >>>
> >>>>> Nat also assumes that noone wants to run their own internet
> services. While many things like cameras use a remote server to bypass the
> NAT leading to vendor tiein, things are clearly cleaner if each workstation
> or other device like a camera can run its own publically accessable
> services. Note that this does not mean that firewalls cannot be in place to
> block things that are not intended to be world readable. NAT is NOT a
> substitute for a firewall.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is in IPv4. And lets not encourage camera server and devices to be
> globally accessible, we already know that is a disaster.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I’d suggest the following:
> >>>        1.      NAT Is NOT a substitution for a firewall. It might be
> integral in the firewall in IPv4, but that’s not the same thing.
> >>>        2.      Are cameras on the public internet a disaster because
> it was allowed, or are they a disaster because MFRs were
> >>>                able to assume that NAT would protect them from bad
> engineering and somehow everyone bought into the idea
> >>>                that such an assumption and bad engineering was
> acceptable?
> >>>        3.      I’d argue that switching the expectation from
> “Everything is behind NAT, so it’s OK to be security-careless” to
> >>>                “Everything is publicly addressable and might be
> reachable, therefore security is important” would be very
> >>>                good for the industry as a whole, not to mention end
> users. Yes, there will be some pain points as this
> >>>                transition occurs, but the end result is highly
> desirable.
> >>>
> >>>>> If you want NAT on the networks you manage, go for it.  All the tech
> bits to make NAT work in IPv6 are there.  Just do not expect the rest of us
> that would like to get back to the end-to-end model to support your choice,
> and I am sure some of your users will wish you did not make that choice,
> because of things they want that may not work in this enviroment.
> >>>>
> >>>> I expect exactly that. I expect you to support peoples ability to
> make this choice, since the current alternative is
> >>>
> >>> So you expect everyone else to put in effort to support your choice of
> technology because you don’t like our choice… Sounds a lot like your
> reasons earlier claiming we shouldn’t expect v6 to be widely deployed any
> time soon.
> >>>
> >>> You’ve successfully argued against yourself here. The advantage goes
> to v6 without NAT because it is further along in deployment than any effort
> to standardize NATv6 (fortunately).
> >>>
> >>> Owen
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> ARIN-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:
> >>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ARIN-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:
> >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ARIN-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:
> >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-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:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210915/a97c8104/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list