<html><body>
<p><font size="2" face="Courier New">Bill,</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Courier New">Like many empires today, Verizon's has evolved from a multitude of separate enterprises with multiple autonomous networks, each with their associated network policies and support work groups. Throughout the multiple mergers that formed what is now Verizon, (first Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, each made up of multiple separate Bell Operating Companies, then GTE and then MCI and other miscellaneous companies that have been acquired or spun off along the way), there has been both organizational and network consolidation. However, there are still multiple separate corporate entities within the Verizon umbrella, along with multiple separate organizations managing multiple autonomous networks. Some of those networks support customer facing networks such as Verizon Business and Verizon Internet Service. There are also many other internal management networks, IT and lab networks, and other internal corporate infrastructure networks. The list goes on. </font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Courier New">My point is that while your claim that there is "No technical limitation [that] prevents you from routing any Verizon address on down to a /32 anywhere within the empire that is Verizon" may or may not be correct, there exist multiple legal, organizational, and operational limitations that prevent that and a whole lot of other things that ideally could be done better. My opinion regarding the suggestion that Verizon, as an "empire", is somehow gaming the IP addressing landscape to gain a competitive advantage is that nothing could be further from reality. I've spoken with some internal IT folks who have mentioned that they were still dealing with internal network integration issues from Bell Atlantic and NYNEX merger when the MCI merger was taking place. Many legacy registrants within Verizon operate independently. Although ideally network consolidation and renumbering will achieve better address utilization and potentially better operating and organizational efficiency, such an effort for an enterprise the size of Verizon could not only take a couple of lifetimes, but due to other legal, organizational and operational constraints may never be possible at all.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Courier New">Regards,</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Courier New">Mark</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="2">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Mark W. Desterdick<br>
Distinguished Member of Technical Staff - Technical Regulatory, Standards and Industry Forum Management<br>
Verizon Communications, Inc<br>
221 East 37th Street, 4th floor<br>
New York, NY 10016<br>
+1 212 681-5626<br>
+1 212 681-5626 - FAX</font><br>
<img width="16" height="16" src="cid:1__=0ABBF9FEDFA5C11A8f9e8a9@CORE.VERIZON.COM" border="0" alt="Inactive hide details for "William Herrin" <arin-contact@dirtside.com>"><font size="2">"William Herrin" <arin-contact@dirtside.com></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<table V5DOTBL=true width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr valign="top"><td width="1%"><img width="72" height="1" src="cid:2__=0ABBF9FEDFA5C11A8f9e8a9@CORE.VERIZON.COM" border="0" alt=""><br>
</td><td style="background-image:url(cid:3__=0ABBF9FEDFA5C11A8f9e8a9@CORE.VERIZON.COM); background-repeat: no-repeat; " width="1%"><img width="225" height="1" src="cid:2__=0ABBF9FEDFA5C11A8f9e8a9@CORE.VERIZON.COM" border="0" alt=""><br>
<ul>
<ul>
<ul>
<ul><b><font size="2">"William Herrin" <arin-contact@dirtside.com></font></b><br>
<font size="2">Sent by: ppml-bounces@arin.net</font>
<p><font size="2">10/07/2007 02:48 AM</font></ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</td><td width="100%"><img width="1" height="1" src="cid:2__=0ABBF9FEDFA5C11A8f9e8a9@CORE.VERIZON.COM" border="0" alt=""><br>
<font size="1" face="Arial"> </font><br>
<font size="2"> To: </font><font size="2">"Jason Schiller" <schiller@uu.net></font><br>
<font size="2"> cc: </font><font size="2">ppml@arin.net, Jason Schiller <jason.schiller@verizonbusiness.com></font><br>
<font size="2"> Subject: </font><font size="2">Re: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses</font></td></tr>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Courier New">On 10/7/07, Jason Schiller <schiller@uu.net> wrote:<br>
> Just for the record I was referring to Verizon Business... AS701<br>
> (UUNET) which does not charge for IP addresses (not for business customer,<br>
> When you refer to Verizon you are likely talking about AS19262 Verizon<br>
> Internet Services (VIS). They are completely seperate networks run by<br>
><br>
> This is not a stunt. The data centers are managed as a separate network<br>
> with a separate AS, and due to route aggregation policies, your data<br>
> center /26 would not route correctly. People sometimes have to renumber<br>
> when they change networks... and yes that is painful.<br>
><br>
> Just so you know the same would happen for longer than /24s from one<br>
> continent being moved to another (Say UUNET North America and UUNET<br>
> Asia-Pacific)<br>
<br>
Jason,<br>
<br>
Given this behavior, legacy registrants should, for your sake, give up<br>
their underutilized address blocks?<br>
<br>
Those route aggregation policies are strictly internal to the Verizon<br>
empire. Your company set them entirely on its own. No technical<br>
limitation prevents you from routing any Verizon address on down to a<br>
/32 anywhere within the empire that is Verizon. Certainly nothing<br>
stops Verizon from moving addresses 20 miles within the same US state.<br>
<br>
I'll bet you run the Ashburn data center as a separate AS. It provides<br>
you with the largest obstruction possible against anyone moving out.<br>
<br>
The next time folks on this list get to discussing provider<br>
independent address space, I'll pull this post back out. I think it<br>
beautifully illustrates real-world customer abuse which occurs as a<br>
consequence of too much emphasis on provider aggregatable space.<br>
<br>
<br>
> Yes, I agree it would be great if the "Local Internet Registries" did not<br>
> charge for IP addresses (with them not being property and all), and that<br>
> is why Verizon Business (UUNET) doesn't. I can't speak for any other LIRs<br>
> (including Verizon Internet Services (VIS).<br>
<br>
Would you then support a dual fee structure? One for LIRs which change<br>
their service prices based on the number of IP addresses assigned to a<br>
customer and a second for LIRs which don't?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
William D. Herrin herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us<br>
3005 Crane Dr. Web: <</font><font size="2" face="Courier New"><a href="http://bill.herrin.us/">http://bill.herrin.us/</a></font><font size="2" face="Courier New">><br>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy<br>
Mailing List (PPML@arin.net).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
</font><font size="2" face="Courier New"><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml</a></font><font size="2" face="Courier New"> Please contact the ARIN Member Services<br>
Help Desk at info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<br>
</font>
</body></html>