Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Paul Vixie)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(cb.list6)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Paul Vixie)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(cb.list6)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Paul Vixie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 18:42:56 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <[email protected]>
To: Steven Noble <[email protected]>
Cc: John Curran <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
...
Steven Noble wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote:
>> are you aware of the other arin mailing list, limited to members unlike
>> this public policy mailing list (PPML), where discussions of fees paid
>> would be somewhat more targeted since it would be a discussion of
>> fee-payers? this mailing list is documented here:
>
> I am a fee payer to ARIN, I pay $100 a year for my ASN. I do not have access
> to these lists, so I disagree.
you're right; my information was out of date. not all ARIN fee-payers
are ARIN members. i guess that means PPML has to allow fee schedule
discussions.
paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/cf2ee9c5/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:06:25 -0700
From: "cb.list6" <[email protected]>
To: Paul Vixie <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<cad6ajgsdsmfcoid1mydq4hrwzf9cmrgepwu+rbfxxjgaptn...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Apr 7, 2013 12:49 PM, "Paul Vixie" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Mathew and CB. We do need to move away from conservation
at the RIR level as a goal for both ipv4 and ipv6. Ripe is definitely on
the right track with
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03and I strongly
support that. The same changes should happen for the Arin
RIR.
>
>
> i know that it's a popular viewpoint -- many folks feel that the time for
needs based allocation is over and that the invisible hand of the market is
now capable of optimizing the holding of address space and the aggregation
level of that space into routing table entries.
>
Popular viewpoint go far in a bottom up process such as arin. In fact, the
whole thing is a popularity contest.
> so i thought i'd chime in: i consider that case to be extremely unmade as
yet. even though i am in most other ways a free-marketeer. as stewards of a
public resource ARIN has always been guided by RFC 2050 which requires
recipients of these public resources to justify their need, no matter
whether these resources are coming from a central pool or a private
transfer.
>
> paul
Does that mean you require an update to rfc 2050 to move ?
I noticed this http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
As it stands, speaking from experience, the justification story in v4 and
v6 drives design choices. That is an unfortunate fact and negatively
impacts system design.
Should 2050bis ask rir not do this fair policy? From what I read in
2050bis is that is says the rir can make their own policy and 2050 is dead.
Do you read it differently?
CB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/8d011e7d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 19:19:04 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <[email protected]>
To: "cb.list6" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
...
cb.list6 wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2013 12:49 PM, "Paul Vixie" <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> > i know that it's a popular viewpoint -- many folks feel that the
> time for needs based allocation is over and that the invisible hand of
> the market is now capable of optimizing the holding of address space
> and the aggregation level of that space into routing table entries.
> >
>
> Popular viewpoint go far in a bottom up process such as arin. In fact,
> the whole thing is a popularity contest.
>
i said it was popular, not that it could win a popularity contest.
> > so i thought i'd chime in: i consider that case to be extremely
> unmade as yet. even though i am in most other ways a free-marketeer.
> as stewards of a public resource ARIN has always been guided by RFC
> 2050 which requires recipients of these public resources to justify
> their need, no matter whether these resources are coming from a
> central pool or a private transfer.
> >
> > paul
>
> Does that mean you require an update to rfc 2050 to move ?
>
not at all. i think RFC 2050 was and remains correct in this regard.
i'll "move" when and if my mind changes on the matter.
> I noticed this http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
>
> ...
>
> Should 2050bis ask rir not do this fair policy? From what I read in
> 2050bis is that is says the rir can make their own policy and 2050 is
> dead.
>
> Do you read it differently?
>
i read it to accurately explain that not every RIR still follows the
needs based justification described in RFC 2050. it's a description of
the current RIR system. 2050bis does not "ask" RIRs to do anything, it's
a description of what they actually do.
> As it stands, speaking from experience, the justification story in v4
> and v6 drives design choices. That is an unfortunate fact and
> negatively impacts system design.
>
i'm intrigued by this statement. i hope you are willing to share some of
your experiences as to how needs based justification has negatively
driven some design choices.
paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/d836a6b4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:34:40 -0700
From: "cb.list6" <[email protected]>
To: Paul Vixie <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<cad6ajgqbn7bgcmrdffryx_zk7tuibq7ujh98kt1lbvcem1k...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Apr 7, 2013 7:19 PM, "Paul Vixie" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> cb.list6 wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2013 12:49 PM, "Paul Vixie" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > i know that it's a popular viewpoint -- many folks feel that the time
for needs based allocation is over and that the invisible hand of the
market is now capable of optimizing the holding of address space and the
aggregation level of that space into routing table entries.
>> >
>>
>> Popular viewpoint go far in a bottom up process such as arin. In fact,
the whole thing is a popularity contest.
>
>
> i said it was popular, not that it could win a popularity contest.
>
>
>> > so i thought i'd chime in: i consider that case to be extremely unmade
as yet. even though i am in most other ways a free-marketeer. as stewards
of a public resource ARIN has always been guided by RFC 2050 which requires
recipients of these public resources to justify their need, no matter
whether these resources are coming from a central pool or a private
transfer.
>> >
>> > paul
>>
>> Does that mean you require an update to rfc 2050 to move ?
>
>
> not at all. i think RFC 2050 was and remains correct in this regard. i'll
"move" when and if my mind changes on the matter.
>
>> I noticed this http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Should 2050bis ask rir not do this fair policy? From what I read in
2050bis is that is says the rir can make their own policy and 2050 is dead.
>>
>> Do you read it differently?
>
>
> i read it to accurately explain that not every RIR still follows the
needs based justification described in RFC 2050. it's a description of the
current RIR system. 2050bis does not "ask" RIRs to do anything, it's a
description of what they actually do.
>
>
>> As it stands, speaking from experience, the justification story in v4
and v6 drives design choices. That is an unfortunate fact and negatively
impacts system design.
>
>
> i'm intrigued by this statement. i hope you are willing to share some of
your experiences as to how needs based justification has negatively driven
some design choices.
>
> paul
I just wrote a page of explanation and deleted it.
If I have to explain it, you would not understand. And you do not
understand today's data networks at all. I feel bad and outrageous saying
that. But, given hundreds of millions of mobile phone users behind cgn
today, perhaps your question is outrageous
Note that att and vz have both rolled cgn to their dsl subs.
Yet arin is not exhausted.
Interesting?
CB.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/f0ab3b38/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:23:25 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <[email protected]>
To: "cb.list6" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
cb.list6 wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2013 7:19 PM, "Paul Vixie" <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> > i'm intrigued by this statement. i hope you are willing to share
> some of your experiences as to how needs based justification has
> negatively driven some design choices.
>
> I just wrote a page of explanation and deleted it.
>
> If I have to explain it, you would not understand. And you do not
> understand today's data networks at all. I feel bad and outrageous
> saying that. But, given hundreds of millions of mobile phone users
> behind cgn today, perhaps your question is outrageous
>
i'm like that.
> Note that att and vz have both rolled cgn to their dsl subs.
>
> Yet arin is not exhausted.
>
> Interesting?
>
no. if i wanted to roll out way more devices in the next few years than
are in ARIN's free pool, and i had several competitors who i knew were
doing the same, then i'd try pretty hard to run V6 native, and if my
hardware partners said they wouldn't be able to do that as soon or as
cheaply, i'd look at CGN.
paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/f50e4f8a/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 22
*****************************************
