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: IPv6 as justification for IPv4? (Scott Leibrand)
2. Re: The case against need based justification (Matthew Kaufman)
3. Re: The case against need based justification (Aaron Wendel)
4. Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4? (Scott Leibrand)
5. Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4? (Heather Schiller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:01:00 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
To: "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, ARIN-PPML List
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Tim,
Thanks for bringing this up. It sounds like a real issue, which could use some
policy work. Cross-posting to PPML, where such policy discussions occur.
Scott
On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:43 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are a new ISP, and we have had some interesting dilemma's getting
> started. I'm curious to know if this is something that has affected
> others, or if I'm just in a strange situation.
>
> We are building out an access network to reach business customers in a
> small town. We will probably never be very big, but we like are town
> and are hoping to eventually extend our reach to most business in town.
> When we started, we requested a /32 IPv6 from ARIN. We had to explain
> what we were doing, and our coverage area, etc. This seems reasonable
> and all, and eventually we got our /32. At this point, all we had was a
> /28 IPv4 SWIP'd from an upstream, so our fees jumped from $0 to $1800
> for the year.
>
> Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4
> allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit
> problematic. We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are
> essentially out of address space and can't give us any. They can't get
> any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier
> that has free pools, but on a different AS.
>
> We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't
> give us anything more than a /28 either.
>
> I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't
> qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days.
>
> So now I'm stuck with a customer base that has native IPv6 for everyone,
> but only a /29 IPv4 to share between 12 offices and about 200 or so
> retail WiFi users. I have to do crazy incoming NAT nonsense to support
> my customers mail servers and VPN devices, and I'm crossing my fingers
> that the wireless users don't do something stupid and get us all
> blacklisted.
>
> Should there be an additional policy to deal with initial allocations
> where efficient utilization of X number of IPv6 /64s would serve as
> justification for a /22 IPv4, or perhaps some other scheme that makes it
> a little easier for new ISPs. I understand that IPv4 is constrained,
> but we aren't out of them yet, and a small ISP still needs an allocation
> to function.
>
> Another alternative would be a new entrant policy similar to the
> immediate need clause, but with the following changes:
> -Only 50% must be used within 30 days
> -ISP must demonstrate that IPv6 has been deployed to end users
> -The same documentation of customer contracts and purchased equipment
> would still apply.
>
> I look around and see the big incumbents with no IPv6 to speak of, yet
> they have IPv4 for every customer. Here I am as the little startup
> trying to make a go of it, but I'm at a serious disadvantage because I
> can't get any address resources.
>
> Am I just terribly unlucky, or is this becoming a problem for others as
> well? I think the main issue is that upstream providers aren't able to
> hand out /24s like they used to, so showing a /23 equivalent from an
> upstream is next to impossible now.
>
> Thanks!
> -Tim
>
> --
> --
> Tim St. Pierre
> System Operator
> Communicate Freely
> 289 225 1220 x5101
> [email protected]
> www.communicatefreely.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:53:23 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The case against need based justification
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 4/11/2013 6:26 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Sounds good to me. Should drive significant IPv6 deployment.
Exactly my thought. Run it out ASAP, then we can stop talking about v4
here and get on to real problems.
Matthew Kaufman
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:58:40 -0500
From: Aaron Wendel <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The case against need based justification
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
What are these "real problems" we are ignoring?
On 4/15/2013 11:53 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 4/11/2013 6:26 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> Sounds good to me. Should drive significant IPv6 deployment.
>
> Exactly my thought. Run it out ASAP, then we can stop talking about v4
> here and get on to real problems.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:17:50 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
To: "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Message-ID:
<cagkmwz7fzyv7cudijqnfoyqvkicml9yekfivswqqk7nsqc_...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Tim,
I think this is an issue that is only going to get worse as IPv4 exhaustion
makes upstream ISPs less willing to allocate large blocks of addresses to
downstream customers. In such a situation, I think it is entirely
appropriate to allow a downstream ISP, which has a customer base large
enough to justify a /23 (and is allocating those customers ARIN-assigned
IPv6 space) to also get approved for an IPv4 /22, and be eligible to
acquire it on the transfer market if the ARIN free pool is exhausted. I
would personally rather not liberalize 4.2.1.6. Immediate need, as that is
supposed to be for "exceptional" cases, but perhaps adding a clause to the
first bullet point of 4.2.2.2. Multihomed would be appropriate. Maybe
something like "or demonstrate the assignment of IPv6 addresses to more
than 500 devices"?
Would that kind of policy help for a situation like yours?
-Scott
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. It sounds like a real issue, which could use
> some policy work. Cross-posting to PPML, where such policy discussions
> occur.
>
> Scott
>
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:43 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > We are a new ISP, and we have had some interesting dilemma's getting
> > started. I'm curious to know if this is something that has affected
> > others, or if I'm just in a strange situation.
> >
> > We are building out an access network to reach business customers in a
> > small town. We will probably never be very big, but we like are town
> > and are hoping to eventually extend our reach to most business in town.
> > When we started, we requested a /32 IPv6 from ARIN. We had to explain
> > what we were doing, and our coverage area, etc. This seems reasonable
> > and all, and eventually we got our /32. At this point, all we had was a
> > /28 IPv4 SWIP'd from an upstream, so our fees jumped from $0 to $1800
> > for the year.
> >
> > Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4
> > allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit
> > problematic. We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are
> > essentially out of address space and can't give us any. They can't get
> > any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier
> > that has free pools, but on a different AS.
> >
> > We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't
> > give us anything more than a /28 either.
> >
> > I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't
> > qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days.
> >
> > So now I'm stuck with a customer base that has native IPv6 for everyone,
> > but only a /29 IPv4 to share between 12 offices and about 200 or so
> > retail WiFi users. I have to do crazy incoming NAT nonsense to support
> > my customers mail servers and VPN devices, and I'm crossing my fingers
> > that the wireless users don't do something stupid and get us all
> > blacklisted.
> >
> > Should there be an additional policy to deal with initial allocations
> > where efficient utilization of X number of IPv6 /64s would serve as
> > justification for a /22 IPv4, or perhaps some other scheme that makes it
> > a little easier for new ISPs. I understand that IPv4 is constrained,
> > but we aren't out of them yet, and a small ISP still needs an allocation
> > to function.
> >
> > Another alternative would be a new entrant policy similar to the
> > immediate need clause, but with the following changes:
> > -Only 50% must be used within 30 days
> > -ISP must demonstrate that IPv6 has been deployed to end users
> > -The same documentation of customer contracts and purchased equipment
> > would still apply.
> >
> > I look around and see the big incumbents with no IPv6 to speak of, yet
> > they have IPv4 for every customer. Here I am as the little startup
> > trying to make a go of it, but I'm at a serious disadvantage because I
> > can't get any address resources.
> >
> > Am I just terribly unlucky, or is this becoming a problem for others as
> > well? I think the main issue is that upstream providers aren't able to
> > hand out /24s like they used to, so showing a /23 equivalent from an
> > upstream is next to impossible now.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Tim
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Tim St. Pierre
> > System Operator
> > Communicate Freely
> > 289 225 1220 x5101
> > [email protected]
> > www.communicatefreely.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List ([email protected]).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130415/4012d7f6/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:18:27 -0400
From: Heather Schiller <[email protected]>
To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Tim St. Pierre"
<[email protected]>, ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Message-ID:
<cadricwqb4fbgjsv-t9d5dkmycddumbatqg7mbddg8wf_o9e...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The second upstream that says they can't give more than a /28 either -- did
they give an explanation? It sounds like you qualify for space.. does the
second provider also not have space to allocate? The free pool isn't out
yet.. the problems at the first provider that was just bought out aside --
your other provider should still be able to get address space from ARIN and
allocate to you. The rules/requirements haven't really changed -- just the
window of time they can get space for has changed.
That aside, I'm in favor of the idea of allocating/justifying PI v4 space
to folks with a v6 deployment. I'd like to hear more about how common a
problem this is.
--Heather
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. It sounds like a real issue, which could use
> some policy work. Cross-posting to PPML, where such policy discussions
> occur.
>
> Scott
>
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:43 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > We are a new ISP, and we have had some interesting dilemma's getting
> > started. I'm curious to know if this is something that has affected
> > others, or if I'm just in a strange situation.
> >
> > We are building out an access network to reach business customers in a
> > small town. We will probably never be very big, but we like are town
> > and are hoping to eventually extend our reach to most business in town.
> > When we started, we requested a /32 IPv6 from ARIN. We had to explain
> > what we were doing, and our coverage area, etc. This seems reasonable
> > and all, and eventually we got our /32. At this point, all we had was a
> > /28 IPv4 SWIP'd from an upstream, so our fees jumped from $0 to $1800
> > for the year.
> >
> > Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4
> > allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit
> > problematic. We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are
> > essentially out of address space and can't give us any. They can't get
> > any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier
> > that has free pools, but on a different AS.
> >
> > We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't
> > give us anything more than a /28 either.
> >
> > I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't
> > qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days.
> >
> > So now I'm stuck with a customer base that has native IPv6 for everyone,
> > but only a /29 IPv4 to share between 12 offices and about 200 or so
> > retail WiFi users. I have to do crazy incoming NAT nonsense to support
> > my customers mail servers and VPN devices, and I'm crossing my fingers
> > that the wireless users don't do something stupid and get us all
> > blacklisted.
> >
> > Should there be an additional policy to deal with initial allocations
> > where efficient utilization of X number of IPv6 /64s would serve as
> > justification for a /22 IPv4, or perhaps some other scheme that makes it
> > a little easier for new ISPs. I understand that IPv4 is constrained,
> > but we aren't out of them yet, and a small ISP still needs an allocation
> > to function.
> >
> > Another alternative would be a new entrant policy similar to the
> > immediate need clause, but with the following changes:
> > -Only 50% must be used within 30 days
> > -ISP must demonstrate that IPv6 has been deployed to end users
> > -The same documentation of customer contracts and purchased equipment
> > would still apply.
> >
> > I look around and see the big incumbents with no IPv6 to speak of, yet
> > they have IPv4 for every customer. Here I am as the little startup
> > trying to make a go of it, but I'm at a serious disadvantage because I
> > can't get any address resources.
> >
> > Am I just terribly unlucky, or is this becoming a problem for others as
> > well? I think the main issue is that upstream providers aren't able to
> > hand out /24s like they used to, so showing a /23 equivalent from an
> > upstream is next to impossible now.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Tim
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Tim St. Pierre
> > System Operator
> > Communicate Freely
> > 289 225 1220 x5101
> > [email protected]
> > www.communicatefreely.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List ([email protected]).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130415/418cc8a3/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 33
*****************************************
