On 12/19/2014 2:40 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
Steven,
As another small org, I agree with you completely about the absurdly
arbitrary nature of the policies that are biased in favor of the
large organizations.
The largest bias is pricing. IP addresses are retail sold on a per-IP
basis - every network in the United States charges extra to end users
for larger numbers of IP addresses - but ARIN's price per IP is lower
the larger number of them you "rent" from them.
You want to make a level playing field, THAT is far more important.
some cases. At the same time, no matter how much noise the ARIN
community makes about "we don't talk about routing", this allocation
needs assessment has always been about routing slots, because the
only real reason you "NEED" an address is to have it routed.
This is a simplification. From the ROUTING COMMUNITIES point of view,
it's about routing slots. From the individual requestors point of view
it is NOT about routing slots - it's about not being tied to a specific
upstream network's assignment.
NOBODY's router doesn't have enough memory for THEIR OWN routing slots.
The memory their router lacks is memory for EVERYONE ELSE'S routing
slots. ;-)
To a first order this is where the ARIN/nanog split model is
completely broken. The other regions have a more integrated approach
to operations and policy discussions, so it is easier to see the
balance and trade-offs about how the resources are managed.
Seriously, I believe ARIN should get out of the IPv4 business NOW...
The world should have moved on 10 years ago so this death-spiral
runout tail BS would have never happened, but here we are. The only
sane way to get past the never-ending policy tweaking is to hand the
remaining IPv4 resource back to IANA and let the other RIRs deal with
it.
You must be joking.
If a small org is having a problem getting IPv6 resources, I care
and want to help fix that. If they believe they need more than a
single IPv4 to support the dwindling number of XP machines that have
IPv6 turned off by default, they are in need of an education, and
probably some guidance on how to build and deploy IPv6 enabled apps
and infrastructure.
This discussion is about small ISP's not small end user or business or
residential customers.
A small ISP is most certainly not going to stick all their customers
behind a single IPv4 address, regardless of whether their customers are
running XP or not.
Your comment here isn't applicable to small orgs when those small orgs
are ISPs. It's absolutely applicable to end user orgs with a single ISP
connection.
With that said - if every small end user out there got their own IPv6
assignment and had their ISP advertise it, we would have huge routing
slot problems.
Ted
Full disclosure: Some of us on this list happen to be in the business
of helping small orgs with IPv6 awareness& migration.
Tony CEO Hain Global Consulting, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:28 PM To: 'Owen DeLong' Cc:
[email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
But you ignore the reality of life in a small Org that has limited
resources. They are spending all their time just trying to keep
their doors open and don't have the extra time to participate even
if they want to. I think this community is certainly capable of
doing their fiduciary responsibility by making sure the needs of
small Orgs are met just like is done for larger Orgs. I do see this
community doing some of that but I think more needs to be done.
Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110,
Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong
[mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:47
PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Gary Buhrmaster; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
It's always fun when people depend on nameless faceless silent
majorities to bolster their argument.
Bottom line, in this as in all things, decisions are made by those
who show up. If the members of the community who do not comment
and/or only hold legacy allocations continue to not speak up, then
it is impossible for us to consider their support based solely on
your belief that it exists.
If you truly believe this to be the case, then rally them to come
out and support what you want. I assure you that if they do, policy
will change based on consensus of the expanded body of
participation. However, we can only operate on the consensus of
those who voice an opinion. It is impossible to count support or
opposition from those who do not voice it.
This is true in any deliberative body and in any policy process of
which I am aware. There is simply no viable or accurate way to
measure the opinions of those who choose not to voice an opinion.
Owen
On Dec 18, 2014, at 09:27 , Steven Ryerse<SRyerse@eclipse-
networks.com> wrote:
Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you
add in all
members of the community who do not comment and all the members of
the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that
might not be the case. I think the legacy community is speaking
volumes by not participating by commenting in this forum.
Thanks.
Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110,
Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message----- From: Gary Buhrmaster
[mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 18,
2014 12:12 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Owen DeLong;
[email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse<SRyerse@eclipse-
networks.com> wrote:
All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is
important here.
What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the
minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation
request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs
policy.
I don’t know what that number is but if it is greater than
zero, it shouldn’t
have happened! ARIN’s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to
stifle it.
While there is clearly support by some for your position
advocating
needless number allocations, the majority of the community supports
a review to insure that the allocations are actually advancing the
Internet, and not just throwing numbers around to whomever asks,
whatever their plans (or lack thereof).
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
