<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>Hi Jason,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of
holding highly valuable alienable assets which they received for free, which
provide them with a competitive advantage over less endowed entities seeking to
purchase addresses at a much higher relative price. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. It has been argued that larger ISPs have greater experience and
resources required to navigate the justification process, which provides them
with a competitive advantage over less experienced smaller entities.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>3. Other registries have enacted policies restricting access to their last
/8s to provide an advantage to newer and smaller companies through their /22
maximum restrictions. Applying your logic, this restriction allows the
tiny ISP some years of planning, but larger entities only a few days, so I
assume you also reject these policies for reasons of fairness.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Your post could be read as a plea to remove needs testing transfers
altogether, for both the large and the small, in in the interests of fairness,
which I would also support. I believe the duration of the planning horizon
should be a matter of each business to decide on its own. As of now, that
duration is mandated by ARIN policy, which I believe is unfair and arbitrary.
Unfair and arbitrary for transfers, but not un-necessarily unfair and arbitrary
for free pool allocations.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Remember the cap on needs-free transfers is designed to free up the market
to incentivize more transactions, each of which presumably entails the move of
addresses from lower-use states to higher-use states, while providing some
protection for market manipulations. I don’t believe that market manipulation is
a real threat, my discussion of the cap is in the context of providing some
protection for those who do think it is a threat. I do think un-booked
transactions are a real threat, and the lifting of needs-testing transfers is
designed to protect the integrity of Whois.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,<BR>Mike</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=jschiller@google.com
href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">Jason Schiller</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:40 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=mike@nationwideinc.com
href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com">Mike Burns</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=arin-ppml@arin.net
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-ppml] Fw: A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>Comments in line.<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Mike Burns <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com"
target=_blank>mike@nationwideinc.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(245,245,245)">
<DIV><B>From:</B> <A title=mike@iptrading.com href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com"
target=_blank>Mike Burns</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:04 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=jschiller@google.com
href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target=_blank>Jason Schiller</A> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>Hi Jason,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Do you really think that small ISPs seeking to fund 40 years of
IPv4 address needs pose a problem that is greater than the problems posed by
retaining the needs test for all transfers? Remember we are talking in the
context of a /12 annual cap or a /12 aggregate cap on needs free transfers. I
fail to see the threat posed by Mom and Pop ISPs with $10 million on hand to
ensure they will have IPv4 addresses in 40 years. I doubt you could identify a
single likely candidate for this
group.</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The problem here is not the the hoarding that results in removal of
addresses from the </DIV>
<DIV>market <SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80); FONT-SIZE: 15px">leading to
market manipulation</SPAN> but rather the arbitrary and anti-competitive </DIV>
<DIV>policy that would qualify smaller organizations (if they can afford it) to
buy enough </DIV>
<DIV>addresses to satisfy their need for many many years (more than the likely
transition time </DIV>
<DIV>to wide spread IPv6 adoption), while large organizations (ones that expect
more than a </DIV>
<DIV>growth of a /12 over the time to wide spread ipv6 adoption) can only secure
two years.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One could imagine a medium sized residential ISP that adds 65,000 customers
a year, </DIV>
<DIV>with an install base of about 1,000,000. At a /16 per year, a /12
represents 16 years of </DIV>
<DIV>growth.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now imagine they are competing in the same footprint as a large residential
ISP that adds </DIV>
<DIV>about 1,000,000 customers a year. That ISP can only make long term
plans, and a business </DIV>
<DIV>plan based on the current price for IPs for the next two years.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The large residential ISP is at a competitive disadvantage, as they cannot
depend on IP </DIV>
<DIV>addresses being available in two years time, or at a price that is
sustainable in the current or </DIV>
<DIV>proposed business model. If in two years time the price of IPs
climes, then the large </DIV>
<DIV>residential ISP is at a disadvantage.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>___Jason</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There are real, extant problems associated with retaining the needs test
for transfers, chief among them driving transactions off the books to the
detriment of the one principle everybody has agreed on- the principle of
registration. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This is off list, so I can tell you that I am aware of many such
transactions, where the use of IP address blocks change hands but where Whois
does not record that fact.</DIV>
<DIV>Generally all that is required is for the buyer to wave a Letter of
Agency at their upstream and begin advertising the block.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yes, I have seen Geoff Huston’s slide show on multiple occasions. Were
you aware that he is a proponent of needs-free transfers and the concentration
of the RIRs on their primary role of Registration?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have my own opinions on CGN as a result of deploying it as a provider
and purchasing it as a user. </DIV>
<DIV>I have written and compiled some information at these URLs.</DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.iptrading.com/blog-1/" target=_blank><FONT
face="Times New Roman">http://www.iptrading.com/blog-1/</FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.iptrading.com/news/" target=_blank><FONT
face="Times New Roman">http://www.iptrading.com/news/</FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have read Draft-Donley and find it ludicrous. Maybe 2% of the users
would even notice the move to CGN. Allowing that small slice to opt-out of CGN
provides the carrier with protection against complaints of degraded service as
well as at least a 10:1 reuse of addresses.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I do not fully understand the equivalence you make between the needs-test
horizon (currently 24 months) and the cap on needs-free transfers for buyers
who either purchase less than a /12 per year or control less than a /12 in
aggregate. The goal is to reduce the paralyzing friction presented by
the requirement for even tiny transactions to pass through the approval of a
third party whose workings are mysterious to most buyer and sellers, in my
experience. It is the cost of this uncertainty which causes sellers to eschew
the slicing of their blocks into small sizes and engaging in multiple serial
transactions with buyers. Likewise the costs of creating, vetting, and
approving a contract are too great to induce sellers with small blocks to
enter the market. My idea of allowing some transfers to happen without the
uncertainty of the needs test will allow for more small transactions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And of course would provide a disincentive for those who buy and sell
address blocks without Whois updates.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And for a North American buyer of a /22 to consider opening a foreign
office and receiving the addresses from RIPE or APNIC, then using them in
North America?</DIV>
<DIV>Well, a /22 costs around $10K. I doubt that companies with needs that
small would consider that option for one second. Heck the RIPE fees would eat
that up in just a couple of years, not including the costs of a foreign office
and the likelihood that receiving those address from RIPE or APNIC may include
some attestation that they will actually be used in those geographical
regions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You keep talking about concentrating IP addresses in a few hands and the
fairness of that. Remember that this situation is the status quo, and the few
hands that hold the largest blocks are large companies. And remember that RIRs
do not distinguish between high profit and low profit when determining need.
The idea of a cap is that nobody can acquire enough space to manipulate the
market, so talking about increasing concentration is not relevant. The whole
point is that a cap precludes that concentration. The maximum any one entity
can control or purchase per year is just .0002 of total space. That is not a
recipe for establishing market control.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So I think your contention is that removing a needs test will lead to
problems with hoarding and market manipulation. My answer is that limiting
needs-free transfers will mitigate or ameliorate these problems.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV>Mike</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(245,245,245)">
<DIV><B>From:</B> <A title=jschiller@google.com
href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target=_blank>Jason Schiller</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 13, 2013 2:23 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=mike@nationwideinc.com
href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com" target=_blank>Mike Burns</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=bjones@vt.edu href="mailto:bjones@vt.edu"
target=_blank>bjones@vt.edu</A> ; <A title=mike@iptrading.com
href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target=_blank>Mike Burns</A> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV dir=ltr>Off thread, trying hard not to dominate the conversation.<BR><BR>
<DIV>Mike, </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think any organization really only needs enough addresses to continue
</DIV>
<DIV>doing IPv4 business as usual until most of the important parts of the
Internet</DIV>
<DIV>have adopted IPv6. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(Insert appropriate values for important and most).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I expect that in some far off time, just about everything, or at least
nearly all</DIV>
<DIV>of the things my customers want to talk to is IPv6 enabled. At this
point transit</DIV>
<DIV>providers can safely turn up IPv6-only customers, and content providers
can </DIV>
<DIV>start freezing their growth of IPv4 based content, growing that same
content </DIV>
<DIV>in only IPv6.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The only people penalized at this point will be those who choose to
have</DIV>
<DIV>legacy equipment in their own end-user networks. I think that is a
</DIV>
<DIV>reasonable price for people to pay for refusing to move off of windows 95
</DIV>
<DIV>or replace their DVD player. (The ball is in your court
customer.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If that far off time is 20 years, and an organization can buy 40 years
worth of </DIV>
<DIV>address space, that is more than they will ever need, which is why I
called it</DIV>
<DIV>"virtually unlimited". But fair point.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't mind large organization needing to do extra work to justify their
need,</DIV>
<DIV>even when small ones don't.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I mind a small organization being able to secure 40 years of addressing,
at </DIV>
<DIV>a locked in price and predictable business model, and large organizations
</DIV>
<DIV>only able to secure two years worth, not being able to make a long term
</DIV>
<DIV>plans to compete with smaller organizations. And the large
organizations</DIV>
<DIV>being forced to pay the (unpredictable) market rate every two
years.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"This business plan makes sense as long at the price of an IPv4 address
doesn't</DIV>
<DIV>go above $16.52 in the next 30 years, and it doesn't goes above $12.20 in
the next 5 </DIV>
<DIV>years while we depreciate our investment. "</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If we are comfortable letting organizations buy up to a cap, then that
cap has to be </DIV>
<DIV>proportional, and represent the same amount of time. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Right now the cap is two years, and I believe the community has
acknowledged we </DIV>
<DIV>have a problem with slow start. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am concerned that a larger cap will lead to slowing the IPv6
deployment. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think two years is a reasonable amount of time a large organization
would need </DIV>
<DIV>to deploy IPv6 if they haven't started already and are serious.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Making the cap large enough for most organizations to get more than they
need </DIV>
<DIV>to get them trough the IPv6 transition time, but limiting the largest
organizations</DIV>
<DIV>seems unworkable to me.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Having no cap, allows the IPs to move freely to those that are willing to
put up the</DIV>
<DIV>most money. Concentrating IPs in either rich companies, or
companies that have </DIV>
<DIV>high value services with the greatest return on the IP address doesn't
seem fair. </DIV>
<DIV>While I don't support this (as I believe there is already too much
inequity) I support</DIV>
<DIV>a large (non-proportional) cap even less.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Imagine a policy of only providers of quadruple play can transfer IP
addresses...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Or the two largest national incumbents in wireless, business wireline,
broadband, </DIV>
<DIV>TV, and VoIP business sectors can transfer in up to two years of address
space, </DIV>
<DIV>everyone else can buy as much as the can afford.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>WRT forcing into CGN I wonder if you heard Geoff Huston's key note a few
</DIV>
<DIV>NANOG meetings back:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=1853"
target=_blank>http://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=1853</A><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I wasn't suggesting that a /22 market cap would preclude a soft landing
policy.</DIV>
<DIV>I was suggesting there is a /22 soft landing policy in RIPE and APNIC.
That maybe a</DIV>
<DIV>transfer cap of /22 isn't needed as most folks who would excursive that
could</DIV>
<DIV>just as easily go to RIPE or APNIC for their space. It is not such
a burdon to have a </DIV>
<DIV>European or Asian office to get space. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If it is, we could do a similar soft landing proposal here.. or dove tail
a soft landing</DIV>
<DIV>proposal like that into transfer and slow start...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>__Jason</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Mike Burns <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com"
target=_blank>mike@nationwideinc.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>Hi Jason and thanks for your interesting reply.</DIV>
<DIV>As you know, my original proposal was not based on a cap that is based
on the size of the entity, but instead on the number of addresses allowed to
be transferred without a needs test per annum.There was a suggestion that
this cap instead be placed on the aggregate number of addresses held by an
organization.</DIV>
<DIV>The reason given was that these organizations would likely have more
experience with justifications, and that the needs test would be less of a
burden for them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I agree that this aggregate cap does burden the larger organizations,
but consider that these larger organizations by definition have fed at the
trough of the free pool extensively compared to their less endowed
competitors. One could argue that they are reaping the advantage of being
there early and thus should shoulder the burden of needs testing additional
transfers that late entrants who have to pay for their addresses should be
exempted from. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for me, I think either version of the cap will serve to prevent
hoarding and market cornering, but will reply inline to some of your other
comments:</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>>Consider a small rural residential ISP, with a /22.</DIV>
<DIV>>- This ISP is using a single /24 for loopback, point-to-point,
</DIV>
<DIV>management network, and corporate network.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>- This IPS has 615 customers each with a single IPv4 address.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>- This ISP has seen fairly linear growth of 600 customers every two
years.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>In 6 months they will exhaust their currently held space.</DIV>
<DIV>>They already qualify for another /22.</DIV>
<DIV>>Once they get this additional /22 that gives them addresses to
cover 4 years.</DIV>
<DIV>>(/22 is about 3.4 years of customer + 6 months current
available)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>A /12 represents 6,990 years worth of address space</DIV>
<DIV>>A /16 represents 218 years of address space</DIV>
<DIV>>A /20 represents 13.5 years of address space</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>Should small organizations be able to by a virtually unlimited
amount of </DIV>
<DIV>address if they can afford it?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>First of all, it would be an odd rural residential ISP who could fork
over $10 million for a /12.</DIV>
<DIV>And a /12 is not the same as “virtually unlimited”, surely you know
that. The limit is just .0002 of available IPv4 space.</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>Should a large organization (who can demonstrate need) only be
permitted</DIV>
<DIV>to buy two years worth of address space?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>As I said, I am agnostic about whether the cap is on aggregate holdings
or annual transfers. But I would point out that it is the large companies
who pose the greatest risk of hoarding addresses, simply because they
usually have the required funds to risk in this endeavor. </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>Organizations have also realized they only have to do native IPv4
for shortly longer </DIV>
<DIV>than their competitors then they can force all new customers into some
sort of </DIV>
<DIV>provider based large scale NAT (CGN 444 + IPv6 / GCN 644).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>So now people are bracing for a slow and painful transition to
IPv6.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>Never mind anti-competitive behavior of cornoring the market on
IPv4 addresses,</DIV>
<DIV>think about reasonable players the feel the need to stockpile enough
addresses</DIV>
<DIV>to continue doing native IPv4 longer than their competition in order to
not loose </DIV>
<DIV>their customer base to competitors who can offer a better native IPv4
product when</DIV>
<DIV>you can't.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>Which means getting years worth of IPv4 space...</DIV>
<DIV>>Which means we are not going to run out...</DIV>
<DIV>>Which means we can continue to save by deferring the cost</DIV>
<DIV>of deploying IPv6...</DIV>
<DIV>>Which menas buying more space...</DIV>
<DIV>>(if we are not ready to deploy IPv6 buy two more years
worth)</DIV>
<DIV>>(or if the industry hasn't embraced IPv6 in a real way buy enough
to last until it has)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I agree with what you are saying, although “forcing” customers into CGN
is not something I am aware of, rather this is being provided as an option
to users, with the ability to opt out, at least with the British deployments
and Verizon residential DSL. My Sprint 4G has been using CGN on squat
space for years without my ability to opt out, though. But if you take this
view, that an IPv4 market will provide a disincentive toward IPv6
deployment, maybe what you should be after is policy designed to make the
market less viable, less vibrant, through increasingly onerous restrictions
on transfers and allocations. Also, if ISPs can realize a 10:1 or even 100:1
address savings ratio through the use of CGN, wouldn’t they be more likely
simply to introduce CGN and then hoard the addresses they have saved, rather
than go to the transfer market to buy more? Note that this is only an option
for those who already have large holdings of IPv4 space.</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>If you are looking to make needs justification easier then maybe
something like:</DIV>
<DIV>>- any org can transfer a single /22 no need required</DIV>
<DIV>>- any org can transfer up to four times the amount of address
rounded to </DIV>
<DIV>nearest CIDR utilized in the last year</DIV>
<DIV>> * (jan 1, had 14 M addresses in use, dec 31 had
17M) 3M = /20 qualify for /18</DIV>
<DIV>>- any org who transfered a /22 can get an additional /22 when the
current one is 80% </DIV>
<DIV>utilized even if they have utilized less than a 513 addresses in the
last year</DIV>
<DIV>> *( jan 1 had 711 addresses, dec 31 had 820) 109 = /25 </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>But agin the community will have to accept a four year window,
which will likely do </DIV>
<DIV>bad things to IPv6 deployment. If you made the threshold a /23,
then you could keep </DIV>
<DIV>the two year window... but they why not just go to RIPE or APNIC and
get a /22 from</DIV>
<DIV>the soft landing policy?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I am heartened that you would even consider a /22 cap for needs free
transfers. </DIV>
<DIV>But I don’t think that this conversation should in any way preclude
consideration of some kind of soft-landing policy for free pool
addresses.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV>Mike</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Or we could let the businesses themselves decide how much they want to
spend to insure themselves against a potential long-term future for IPv4.
Some conservative entities may choose to buy “up to the cap” in this
situation, others who think IPv6 is close, or a new transition technology is
in the offing, might seek to sell addresses while they have value. It is in
the interplay of those transactions that a price will be derived,
representing the opinions of all transactors. </DIV>
<DIV>I think that what you are arguing is that a large number of buyers will
have the money and inclination to buy “up to the cap”, resulting in more
overall hoarding than if we maintained the needs test for all
transfers. I think this would require a kind of conspiracy or at least
groupthink which I do not perceive among buyers and sellers in the
market.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Mike Burns <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com"
target=_blank>mike@nationwideinc.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>Hi Brian,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks for your thoughts. </DIV>
<DIV>No doubt a more vigorous transfer market will lead to more router
misconfigurations.</DIV>
<DIV>I think a knowledgeable middle-man could help mitigate that, and
would take business from the guy getting into the game without networking
knowledge you mention below.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is real uncertainty when dealing with the registries. A recent
transaction took nearly a month to complete, most of which was spent in
the back and forth of a justification. It’s always a fingers-crossed
situation for buyer and seller. One broker told me she does the “happy
dance” every time a deal makes it through justification.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Your point about moving to IPv6 is important, because that move is
the 800lb gorilla in the room.</DIV>
<DIV>Nobody knows when the move will happen or how long it will
take, but when it happens it is bound to affect IPv4 prices
negatively.</DIV>
<DIV>Who would speculate under these conditions? </DIV>
<DIV>What if we limited his total purchases to a /12, or his aggregate
holdings to a /12, otherwise he would be needs-tested?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV>Mike</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(245,245,245)">
<DIV><B>From:</B> <A title=bjones@vt.edu href="mailto:bjones@vt.edu"
target=_blank>Brian Jones</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:30 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=mike@nationwideinc.com
href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com" target=_blank>Mike Burns</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=mike@iptrading.com
href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target=_blank>Mike Burns</A> ; <A
title=arin-ppml@arin.net href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net"
target=_blank>arin-ppml@arin.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">Mike,<BR
clear=all>See inline comments.<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Mike Burns <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com"
target=_blank>mike@nationwideinc.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><U></U>
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Hi Brian,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I understand that there is a danger of
overpurchasing (by whomever's definition) that comes from the removal of
a needs test for transfers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>In most cases we rely on the price of the
addresses to provide some check on this practice, as it would for the
overpurchasing of any other asset a corporation may choose to invest in.
</FONT><FONT face=Arial>I think we should leave those definition of what
an overpurchase is to the buyers, who will have a range of intended
purposes, projected growth rates, planning horizons and other
considerations. At least with a cap of some sort we limit the
overpurchase risk to overall address usage efficiency.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>A vibrant market is one of the best mechanisms to
prevent what you mention-the problem of addresses sitting idle while
real need exists.</FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR><BR>At the risk of contradicting myself, I'm not sure a vibrant
market is the <I>best </I>answer for the networking community, but I don't
disagree that what you propose would invigorate the market. See my
comments below about network stability.<BR><BR> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>As the price of addresses rise and transactional
roadblocks diminish, idle addresses will come into the market. As the
need rises, the price will rise, driving efficiencies in the utilization
of addresses and wringing the most efficiency through the highest and
best use of the addresses.</FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>I would agree that as demand rises the prices will increase, but
maybe, just maybe most folks will be considering the move to IPv6 where
these contentions and price increases will not exist.<BR> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT><FONT
face=Arial>And as I mentioned, due to the needs test requirement, these
early IPv4 address transactions almost always involve neophyte parties
on either side of the transaction, separated by language, culture, and
an ocean. Often these parties are not familiar with their own RIR
policy, much less the policy of another region. Most of the time the
decision to sell or buy addresses has to overcome corporate inertia and
antipathy to new, unusual, and unlikely-to-be-repeated transactions.
This means education about the RIRs and their position squarely in the
middle of the buyer and the seller.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>How likely is this transaction to occur for small
allocations like the /24 needed by Mr. Ryerse of this
thread?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I contend that removing the needs requirement will
allow for less uncertainty in what is currently a fraught process for
both buyers and sellers, leading to more transactions, more price
stability, and simpler transactions for all parties, including ARIN, who
will avoid the time and effort of needs testing transfers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>I appreciate your contention, and it is possible that some of the
things you mention may actually pan out, but I do not agree with the "less
uncertainty" part of your statement. I would contend removing all needs
assessment would create more uncertainty by promoting that anyone can get
in the game of brokering IP addresses regardless of their knowledge about
networking. Also by increasing the amount of times IP addresses get
swapped around the Internet could increase the possibility for networking
instability and router misconfiguration issues.
<BR><BR>--<BR>Brian<BR><BR> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Mike</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(228,228,228); FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B>
<A title=bjones@vt.edu href="mailto:bjones@vt.edu" target=_blank>Brian
Jones</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=mike@iptrading.com
href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target=_blank>Mike Burns</A>
</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=arin-ppml@arin.net
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target=_blank>arin-ppml@arin.net</A>
; <A title=mike@nationwideinc.com href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com"
target=_blank>Mike Burns</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 12, 2013
9:28 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-ppml] A
Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against
2013-4)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P>Hi Mike, </P>
<P>I suppose it is just my old school thinking that you should be at
least "this tall" to ride the ride. Given your explanations below I
could relax my requirements for demonstrating technical support need
for transfers. I actually didn't realize we were only considering
transfers and not the remaining free blocks, so thank you for
clarifying that. </P>
<P>It still seems that inefficient use of address space could occur
when a bidder buys much larger blocks than needed due to the lack of
any structured needs requirements. At a minimum a block of addresses
could sit idle and unused while needs exists elsewhere. But really
IPv6 should be the best solution for those needing addresses moving
forward any way... :) </P>
<P>Brian <BR></P>
<P>On Jun 12, 2013 3:15 PM, "Mike Burns" <<A
href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com"
target=_blank>mike@iptrading.com</A>> wrote:<BR>><BR>> Hi
Brian,<BR>> <BR>> Thanks for your input.<BR>>
<BR>> May I ask why you think there should be a requirement for
demonstration of minimal technical need for transfers, if the reason
is not to prevent hoarding and price manipulation?<BR>>
<BR>> Remember we are talking only about transfers, and not the
intelligent allocation of the remaining IPv4 free pool, and that money
will be the determining factor in who receives IPv4 addresses under
the current transfer policy, so long as the needs test is met. That
is, we are already at a point where the highest bidder will get the
addresses, irrespective of what his justified need for the addresses
is, just that he has met the RIR need test.<BR>> <BR>> I
have been operating under the assumption that the underlying reason
for requiring the needs test for transfers which are already priced is
to prevent a buyer without needs from damaging the market through
hoarding or cornering. I understand that many people simply do not
like the idea that address blocks can be bought and sold, and that
money has any influence on who gets addresses, but we are beyond that
now.<BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>> Mike<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> From: Brian Jones<BR>> Sent: Wednesday,
June 12, 2013 2:54 PM<BR>> To: Mike Burns<BR>> Cc: <A
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net"
target=_blank>arin-ppml@arin.net</A><BR>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml]
A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out(was:Re:Against
2013-4)<BR>> <BR>><BR>> Maybe that was utopian thinking
on my part. It would be nice to disregard what happens with IPv4 space
but that seems to invite some sort of chaos and the last thing needed
is more chaos...<BR>><BR>> Intelligent allocation of the
remaining IPv4 space is important in my opinion.<BR>><BR>> From
Dave Farmer's email earlier:<BR>> "I think the more important issue
is an appropriate criteria on the lower-end and for new enterants, the
current slow-start for IPv4 isn't going to work, post-ARIN free
pool. Yes, I know eliminating need alltogether eliminates that
problem, but I'm not sure I can get myself all the way there.
I'd like to see some minimal technical criteria that entitles someone
to be able to buy up to between a /16 and a /12 and more than just
that they have the money to do so. Maybe its just as simple as
demonstrating efficient use of at least a /24. If you can't do
that then you can only buy a /24, then you utilize it and you qualify
for bigger blocks. "<BR>><BR>> Regardless of whether the size
blocks discussed is agreeable or not, I do agree wth the part about
the need for "...minimal technical criteria that entitles someone to
be able to buy up to between a /16 and a /12 and more than just that
they have the money to do so."<BR>><BR>> (Of course I support
the idea that we all move to IPv6!) :)<BR>><BR>> --<BR>>
Brian<BR>><BR>><BR>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Mike
Burns <<A href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com"
target=_blank>mike@nationwideinc.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>> Hi Brian, Matthew, and
Martin,<BR>>> <BR>>> Can I take your plus ones to
indicate support of the cap even in the face of the shell company
issue?<BR>>> (As well as support of the idea that we should all
move to IPv6.)<BR>>> <BR>>> Regards,<BR>>>
Mike<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> From: Brian
Jones<BR>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:03 AM<BR>>>
To: <A href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net"
target=_blank>arin-ppml@arin.net</A><BR>>> Subject: Re:
[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out
(was:Re:Against 2013-4)<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>>
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Martin Hannigan <<A
href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com"
target=_blank>hannigan@gmail.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:24
PM, cb.list6 <<A href="mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com"
target=_blank>cb.list6@gmail.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>> On
Jun 11, 2013 7:15 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <<A
href="mailto:matthew@matthew.at"
target=_blank>matthew@matthew.at</A>> wrote:<BR>>>>>
><BR>>>>> > When will we start caring about IPv6 and
start ignoring IPv4??? Who cares if people set up shells to acquire v4
space from others? Let 'em, and get v6 deployed
already.<BR>>>>>
><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
+1<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
CB<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
+1<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Best,<BR>>>><BR>>>>
-M<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
+1<BR>>><BR>>> --<BR>>>
Brian<BR>>><BR>>>
<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>
PPML<BR>>>> You are receiving this message because you are
subscribed to<BR>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<A
href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net"
target=_blank>ARIN-PPML@arin.net</A>).<BR>>>> Unsubscribe or
manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>>>> <A
href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
target=_blank>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>>>>
Please contact <A href="mailto:info@arin.net"
target=_blank>info@arin.net</A> if you experience any
issues.<BR>>><BR>>> <BR>>>
________________________________<BR>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>
PPML<BR>>> You are receiving this message because you are
subscribed to<BR>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<A
href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net"
target=_blank>ARIN-PPML@arin.net</A>).<BR>>> Unsubscribe or
manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>>> <A
href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
target=_blank>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>>>
Please contact <A href="mailto:info@arin.net"
target=_blank>info@arin.net</A> if you experience any
issues.<BR>><BR>>
</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PPML<BR>You
are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>the ARIN
Public Policy Mailing List (<A href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net"
target=_blank>ARIN-PPML@arin.net</A>).<BR>Unsubscribe or manage your
mailing list subscription at:<BR><A
href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
target=_blank>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>Please
contact <A href="mailto:info@arin.net" target=_blank>info@arin.net</A> if
you experience any issues.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR clear=all>
<DIV> </DIV>-- <BR><FONT color=#555555 face="'courier new', monospace">
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: arial"><FONT color=#555555
face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<BR></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<A
href="mailto:jschiller@google.com"
target=_blank>jschiller@google.com</A>|571-266-0006</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
face="'courier new', monospace"><BR></FONT></DIV></SPAN></DIV></FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all>
<DIV> </DIV>-- <BR><FONT color=#555555 face="'courier new', monospace">
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: arial"><FONT color=#555555
face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<BR></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<A
href="mailto:jschiller@google.com"
target=_blank>jschiller@google.com</A>|571-266-0006</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
face="'courier new', monospace"><BR></FONT></DIV></SPAN></DIV></FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PPML<BR>You
are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>the ARIN Public
Policy Mailing List (<A href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net"
target=_blank>ARIN-PPML@arin.net</A>).<BR>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing
list subscription at:<BR><A
href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
target=_blank>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>Please
contact <A href="mailto:info@arin.net" target=_blank>info@arin.net</A> if you
experience any issues.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR clear=all>
<DIV> </DIV>-- <BR><FONT color=#555555 face="'courier new', monospace">
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: arial"><FONT color=#555555
face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<BR></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<A
href="mailto:jschiller@google.com"
target=_blank>jschiller@google.com</A>|571-266-0006</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
face="'courier new', monospace"><BR></FONT></DIV></SPAN></DIV></FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>