Paul -
ARIN is not infallible. Please reply with the ticket number and we’ll
review it to see if everything was handled properly.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
> On 15 Sep 2021, at 11:24 AM, arin-ppml <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Can I at least get my 1 Legacy /24 that my dear colleague/friend gave me
> transferred to me with minimal documentation?
> See you proved my point nobody works together inside the beltway.
> Especially for some of us pioneers.
> :-(
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [email protected]
> To: "Paul E McNary" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Owen DeLong" <[email protected]>, "arin-ppml" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 3:01:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment
> Requirements for IPv6
>
> The only thing that ARIN can really do in your business plan is provide
> numbering resources. The problems with sites, bandwidth, and other
> providers have little to do with ARIN. However, other than the dedicated
> pools for IX's and IPv6, the pot is nearly dry so this is not going to
> help with your needs. It is going to get expensive to get IPv4 space. The
> free pool ran out in February, 2011 and it is going to keep getting worse.
> Nothing that ARIN can do can produce more numbers from thin air.
>
> I also happen to use a WISP for network connectivity. They have been in
> business for about 15 years, so they already had enough IPv4 space to
> operate their small customers. Prior to the free pool exhaust, they would
> send their commercial customers to ARIN for space. Now there is a limit
> of 1 IPv4 per circuit. If you need more, they will be glad to route, but
> you have to bring your own IPv4.
>
> It sounds like your WISP business is more recent. Without enough IPv4,
> you have clearly discovered that it is very hard to operate. I am
> guessing that in another 5 years or so, it might be possible to operate a
> good IPv6 service, with a CGnat for the then limited amount of IPv4 sites.
>
> To solve the medical providers access properly, you need to try to get the
> hospital and pharmacies and others that they need to communicate with onto
> IPv6. Some of this has already been happening indirectly, as those
> institutions choose to move to the cloud. Most cloud providers are IPv6
> compatible.
>
> Centurylink and Windstream here offer dual stack over their circuits.
> There must be some kind of technical limitation at your end, maybe
> involving their upstream to the backbones. Being in the 3rd largest
> state, we do not have as much issue, as competition has more or less
> forced all Internet Exchanges to adopt dual stack.
>
> Are you licensed, or are your radios Part 15? My WISP is licensed, and
> that makes a BIG difference. Unlicensed works when there are not others,
> but as you have discovered it does not protect you from interference.
> Even if you move to another tower that you own, there is no assurance that
> the interference will stop, especially if you operate point to multipoint
> like most WISPS. I would suggest that you instead try to move at least
> some of your links to licensed, which may allow you to stay put. Start
> with the ones that have the most interference problems. If possible,
> unloading backhaul from microwave to fiber can also help with reliability.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Paul E McNary via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>
>> Owen you did not even comprehend what I said.
>> That's the whole problem
>> You and ARIN never solved or advised me on I what I needed to do just a lot
>> of side stepping like you just twisted completely incorrectly.
>> I guess Midwest English is too different than your and Washington DC's
>> English.
>> Go back and translate to Midwest English.
>> Even Centurylink doesn't provide local DSL IPv6.
>> Between Centurylink and WindStream they have been our best sales people
>> until the COOP's started overbuilding.
>> The 2 of them cover 90% of our coverage area and rural DSL from both of them
>> do not offer IPv6
>> We offer more than the big companies you so talk about.
>> Some commercial fiber customers can get either IPv6 or IPv4 but not dual
>> stack out here in the sticks.
>> Our Fiber supplier network was built out for hospitals and schools. Big
>> money contract.
>> The last independent doctor had us switch our from the hospital's DSL to our
>> Wireless because Centurylink could take days
>> to get his connection to the hospital network. Now all the Doctor's are
>> hospital slaves. They are always in different hospital
>> clinics many miles apart and sometime 2 clinics a day.
>> Where the Independent Doctor, I was on his cell phone and he had my personal
>> cell phone.
>> If he had a problem we would usually be there in less than an hour.
>> As fast as I could get there or a tech.
>> Unfortunately he passed away.
>>
>> At one time last year all the pharmacies and business were out of Internet
>> for 3 days.
>> Everything has to be connected to the Internet of they can't file any
>> prescriptions even in an emergency.
>> Banks couldn't process deposit or automated payments. Many people had late
>> charges on their automatic payments.
>> All anybody said, sorry, it wasn't our fault we couldn't deliver your
>> automatic payments and no we will not cover the late fees.
>> Also people trying to pay the banks were hit with bank late fees and
>> overdraft fees they would not back out.
>> So tell me again how you are helping rural area except to give resources to
>> the big players whose local techs could be a 100 miles away.
>> And CenturyLink customer service is in Louisiana and says we can have
>> someone there in 2 weeks.
>> The Internet has gotten so bad in the last 10 years and ARIN is a part of
>> the problem.
>> Owen you blame slow adopters. We started trying way before Centirylink and
>> Windstream.
>> Owen you quick twistwd and went sideway when I said ARIN cost us $750,000.
>> The volunteers and the staff always divert the blame.
>> Everyone is to blame. And nobody is responsible.
>> CenturyLink 10 years ago had 10-20 tech and to service crews for mainline
>> and at least 6 CO techs in our town.
>> We also had a local service office.
>> Techs made it to business accounts in less than an hour.
>> Personal accounts were no later than next day.
>> Now the same number of people are involved but for the entire Sate of
>> Missouri.
>> I talked to Windstream's tech manager I knew since acquired many of the
>> local phone mutual.
>> His coverage area is the the stae of Missouri.
>> Same as Windstrem. His tech territory even extends into neighboring states
>> now.
>> We are a golden opportunity if ARIN hadn't slow tracked us small guys.
>> Now the electric coop's get all the government money and don't even have to
>> go through the bidding process.
>> They use rural REC funding to created subsidies that also get heavy
>> discounted interest rates.
>> Recent the University of Missouri S&T announced a $300,000 project with
>> government money.
>> We found out they were going on the same grain elevator leg we have been on
>> for almost 20 years.
>> We called the owner and he said that they agreed to work work with.
>> They said no you aren't being kicked off.
>> The location is also a small town but it is a backhaul hub to 25% of our
>> network.
>> The coop's company never called us for coordination like they promised.
>> We read on face book. They were promising to serve 20 to 30 customers for
>> free for 6 months.
>> We serve 50 close to town and have a further reach with many micropops and
>> backhaul to major towers maybe to 250 of our subscribers.
>> We are in the process of completing a $10,000 dollar fork lift to that tower.
>> There is no 5 Gig available. We have the entire spectrum going though there.
>> And they are going to do LTE 5 Gig which wipes out our spectrum.
>> They are using 80 mhz channels to subscribers and only promising 10 meg to
>> the subscribing.
>> We have close to 750 Mhz going through there and can supplu up to 100 meg
>> plans and deliver.
>> After $300,000 where the our entire cost to upgrade is somewhat less than
>> $20,000. To deliver better bandwidth and faster service,
>> the COOP will take over after being paid to do the install foe no charge.
>> They said revolutionary.
>> Overbuilt by COOP. The grain leg owner says we are not being put off.
>> The COOP just ignored his conditions to work with us.
>> So now we have to build a $15,000 tower near there to get out of the COOP's
>> interference to our backhauls tp save 200 subscribers.
>> The government throw $300,000 dollars that we already deliver for a fraction.
>> You inside the Beltway people can even see or are paid to not see it that
>> the locals that took the risk 20 years ago on rural, just get pushed off the
>> map by the inside the beltway and yes that includes ARIN dien't it.
>> Without the big players fees you can't exist. No problem if it takes out
>> many of us that risked everything to help the community.
>> We still have $20 plans for rural poor people.
>> Every plan the COOP has start usually at $100 but they will consider $50
>> plans in certain situations.
>> Now Nathan at Wisper is over building at least 4 other WISPA members. Again
>> a big player and has great conflicting interests in his WISPA positions.
>> He has some single track acquisitions across our territory. The WISPA member
>> Nathan has half of his territory covered.
>> And the WISPA member has fillings that he covers them. They still let him
>> bid on and acquire subsidies to build out.
>> The COOP's don't even care if they overbuild Centurylink and Windstream.
>> They just build over and hide under REA/REC or Touchstone Energy these days.
>> The Touchstone Energy funding is even better than the bidding process and
>> they have no rules the have to follow.
>> Because they are inside the Beltway. They can also get government IP
>> resources for nothing.
>> So twist this all around and be inside the beltway Teflon.
>> Oh Teflon that would kill them now. What is the new non-stick that everyone
>> inside the Beltway uses.
>> Not our problem, not our problem, continuous circle jerk.
>> John will probably kick me off for improper comment.
>> More non-stick.
>> How much funding does ARIN get from the government, the big players vs. the
>> SMB's?
>> That should be something ARIN should provide to members. Percentage and
>> Dollars by fee size classes... Then the picture becomes clear how the policy
>> is developed by fee size classes.
>> And the relevant discounts in the fee structure.
>> Us small fee members don't pay you salary John. Some County's annual budget
>> around here is less than your salary.
>> I know because I was a IT Consultant to them for 28 years until I
>> semi-retired.
>> They wanted me to stay but they had 911 government grants that would pay for
>> the assessor's office, the collector's office, the county clerk's office and
>> the treasurer's office.
>> Most of the office holder's were getting ready to retire or move on to
>> better paying jobs, I said you are stupid not to do it.
>> They were promised 6 month changeover. I still had to maintain my system as
>> primary for 2 years.
>> The assessor who is a young BSRN was making twice much as a PRN Nurse
>> outside of Courthouse.
>> She now is the County Health Department Manager and a regional subsided
>> healthcare clinic provider.
>> She had a baby when she was appointed Assessor when the original assessor I
>> had worked for 18 years.
>> I worked for this Assessor for 10 years.
>> However the downside was the annual maintenance fees went from $12,000 to
>> $50,000. Upfront was almost nothing.
>> Again the big boys games.The last collector is still in office and we talk
>> quit often and talks about how bad the system is compared to what I did.
>> Took almost almost all the automation between office away and files have to
>> be manually transferred between office
>> quadrupling employee labor required. They had to pay massive overtime for
>> the 2 years they still had to use my system and for 4 years getting the new
>> system to work.
>> New and improved sort of like what you are asking for with the non existent
>> support of IPv6.
>> Now they are trapped by vendor lockout even though the have to bid it out.
>> The specs are written so that only the one vendor can bid.
>> That's all we see from inside the beltway.
>> Another example our newly elected state representative just installed our
>> internet service to his rural remote farm.
>> Even though he has to use our service he is voting to give all the big
>> player's state broadband grants.
>> The big boys will still not do last mile to his farm when they put us out of
>> business.
>> He will have voted against his best interests to get campaign funding.
>> Missouri does not pay representatives and senator much.
>> To get elected you have to have about 20 times what their pay is.
>> We installed last mile to about 10 customers near him.
>>
>> Are subscribers make Missouri's minimum wage. We have let some subscribers
>> slide but we don't make that much in profit.
>> And COVID has made trying to get a rural work from home into a valley that
>> even the phone don't have o provide last mile.
>> Who's going to serve them
>>
>> Owen you teflon-ed any responsibility because you are a volunteer. (no
>> responsibility)
>> New and improved
>> Simple and cheap
>> The facts are not on your side.
>>
>> Thank for all your help ARIN (Much sarcasm if you couldn;t tell)
>>
>> Paul McNary
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Owen DeLong" <[email protected]>
>> To: "Paul E McNary" <[email protected]>
>> Cc: "Dan Oachs" <[email protected]>, "arin-ppml" <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 11:34:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment
>> Requirements for IPv6
>>
>> I understand your frustration. In part, every WISPA event the answers about
>> policy changed because ARIN policy is
>> not a static immutable thing. It’s constantly evolving in response to
>> community input into the policy development
>> process and that was a time of a lot of policy proposals coming through the
>> AC.
>>
>> Sounds like most of your problems relate to vendors failing to provide good
>> IPv6 support. I empathize. I’ve been doing
>> pretty much everything I can think of to achieve that for many years now.
>>
>> As to your IPv4 situation, that’s a pretty classic example of why I say that
>> the people refusing to deploy good IPv6
>> capabilities in their {product, content, network} are causing pain for the
>> rest of us.
>>
>> I don’t think I ever claimed ARIN helped you or even had a good solution for
>> you. I’m not sure how you came to the
>> conclusion that it was ARIN’s or my duty to conjure additional IPv4
>> resources from thin air after runout or how the
>> failure of others to deploy IPv6 was our fault, but you’re entitled to your
>> opinion.
>>
>> My role at ARIN was as a volunteer trying to help the community develop
>> policies that met the needs of the
>> community in a fair and equitable manner. I resigned from that role in June
>> and now my relationship to ARIN
>> is that of victim^wcustomer too.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 14, 2021, at 15:41 , Paul E McNary via ARIN-PPML
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes Owen you have valid points.
>>> We are WISP in rural area.
>>> Our problem was we were using /24 and /22 we had with the datacenter for
>>> years.
>>> We also had /24 with low cost with that data center.
>>> We had another provider that could provide us bandwidth through the other
>>> Datacenter in the same building.
>>> We thought we had everything OK.
>>> Then the DataCenter moved out and decided to no longer to offer colo and
>>> cancelled our long term contracts.
>>> We were microwaving 60 mile from the top of this building.
>>> Then are Microwave links got too much interference.
>>> Licensed links were not in the budget.
>>> Finally we found a company that had a fiber run on the opposite side of our
>>> network area from were our homing was.
>>> So by the the time we got an ASN for multi-homing and jumping through the
>>> hoops that ARIN put in the way.
>>> Our fiber provider gave us a /28
>>> I got a /24 from a long term college/dear friend.
>>> I talked to you Owen at WISPA events.
>>> Someone on here I also talked to.
>>> I also talked to ARIN staff at WISPA.
>>> The young lady that was pregnant at the time was ARIN staff.
>>> But by the time we got our ASN. No IPv4 remained.
>>> So we did get IPv6 directly from ARIN.
>>> However our fiber provider did not have IPv6 available.
>>> When they finally did it couldn't be dual stack.
>>> At the time the IPv6 routing was split to the major players and still is.
>>> We had to forklift upgrade our entire network to use IPv6.
>>> Cheap Huh!
>>> The only place our network from our fiber provide and us crossed paths was
>>> near a water tower in a town of 90 people.
>>> So all our backhauls had to be replaced.
>>> Everything to our towers had to be completely engineered.
>>> We finally got 1 /24 from ARIN under the IPv6 conversion rules.
>>> Everthing had to be Double NATTED to get to these rural low density
>>> customers.
>>> At one WISPA event John and I had a heated argument and he blew me off
>>> without any answers.
>>> Owen you and John speak a version of English we don't speak here. Very
>>> circular and if this, not that but if this maybe that.
>>> I could never get clear answers.
>>> We still can't get dual stack on our fiber provider at this location.
>>> Oh the problems with ROKU, Smart TV's, Video surveillance.
>>> The video surveillance people can get around here in IPv4 only and they
>>> what a static or a port forward at our headend fiber.
>>> $1000's of dollars in "free" service calls because all these device sellers
>>> blamed us for not giving them a static IPv4 or a port forward to the
>>> customer.
>>> We do not have enough IPv4 to do this.
>>> Simple and free. No way in hell.
>>> And looking through ARIN justification which I reached out for help and
>>> ARIN said we had to this that and the other that did not work with our WISP
>>> model.
>>> So the clock ran out to get direct assignments and /24's were out of site
>>> to buy. Or I guess acquire (because we can't own).
>>> So ARIN helping gets resources to rural low density areas is a joke for
>>> SMB's like us.
>>>
>>> So ARIN told me that if I had acquired legacy resources, I would have to
>>> have the state's incorporation papers that I acquired.
>>> Many of the legacy resource holders were are small consultants who were
>>> sole proprietors in the 90's and never changed.
>>> Or they moved and let their corporations go stale and retired to others
>>> states.
>>> On a handshake deal the resources changed hands. All I got from Owen and
>>> ARIN staff was that these resources could be clawed back.
>>> The answer I got from Owen and ARIN staff was that ARIN might claw these
>>> legacy resources back in these cases.
>>> Some of these legacy resource holder had given their legacy resources to
>>> other people, have retired and died.
>>> Many sole proprietors of the pre ARIN period and the ARIN policies don't
>>> address this situation except that ARIN can claw back these resources.
>>> And every WISPA event Owen and the ARIN staff would change the answers
>>> about policy.
>>> After I was able to get these list, I saw why. Always arguing.
>>> One time the policy was we were going to have to transfer every single IP
>>> that a ISP subscriber had in the registration system.
>>>
>>> So tell me how ARIN has helped our company out so much again.
>>> Heck many of our low income customers we had to switch all their equipment
>>> that couldn't do IPv6 with our routers.
>>> Cheap huh!
>>>
>>> Then the equipment could do IPv6. Heck I have a fairly new tv that can not
>>> do IPv6.
>>> My current DISH Hopper equipment can't do it without dual stack they told
>>> use.
>>> I have have IPv6 available at my house but not dual stack.
>>> And from this conversation I see that even dual stack probably isn't
>>> workable yet.
>>> We had 1 fiber provide that was available in our area.
>>> Now the Local COOP's are subsidizing their sub companies who can get all
>>> the grant money we can't and are overbuilding use.
>>> The offered to let use use their fiber for $10000 a month for 1 gig fiber
>>> hand off.
>>> Then when they started overbuilding that offer basically went away.
>>> We do last mile where no one will go and the cream of small towns has been
>>> taken away.
>>> So all this arguing I have been involved with since we had to get an ASN,
>>> has been been very enlightening about ARIN's bureaucratic shit to jump
>>> through.
>>>
>>> That's how ARIN has helped our company.
>>> Cheap and inexpensive hell no.
>>>
>>> So please explain
>>>
>>> Paul McNary
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dan Oachs" <[email protected]>
>>> To: "arin-ppml" <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 3:19:40 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment
>>> Requirements for IPv6
>>>
>>> I agree with everything Owen and Albert have been saying in these
>>> latest threads. Keep up the good fight.
>>>
>>> I've been running a dual stacked network for a college for over 10
>>> years now and the rest of the world just needs to hurry up already.
>>> Heck, my home ISP (Mediacom) has given me IPv6 addresses for around 4
>>> years too. You can't expect to keep running the same stuff for
>>> decades without a firmware/hardware upgrade. The "internet" is no
>>> different. Time to apply the upgrade, reboot, and more on. :)
>>>
>>> --Dan
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 2:47 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that at this time, we should not have to justify nat in
>>>>> order to permit its standardization. Standardize it and let users figure
>>>>> it out.
>>>>
>>>> Why? It’s a local application only technology not useful on the broader
>>>> internet, so why bother to standardize it? Why waste time of the standards
>>>> bodies?
>>>>
>>>>>> Nat also assumes that noone wants to run their own internet services.
>>>>>> While many things like cameras use a remote server to bypass the NAT
>>>>>> leading to vendor tiein, things are clearly cleaner if each workstation
>>>>>> or other device like a camera can run its own publically accessable
>>>>>> services. Note that this does not mean that firewalls cannot be in place
>>>>>> to block things that are not intended to be world readable. NAT is NOT a
>>>>>> substitute for a firewall.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is in IPv4. And lets not encourage camera server and devices to be
>>>>> globally accessible, we already know that is a disaster.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I’d suggest the following:
>>>> 1. NAT Is NOT a substitution for a firewall. It might be
>>>> integral in the firewall in IPv4, but that’s not the same thing.
>>>> 2. Are cameras on the public internet a disaster because it was
>>>> allowed, or are they a disaster because MFRs were
>>>> able to assume that NAT would protect them from bad
>>>> engineering and somehow everyone bought into the idea
>>>> that such an assumption and bad engineering was acceptable?
>>>> 3. I’d argue that switching the expectation from “Everything is
>>>> behind NAT, so it’s OK to be security-careless” to
>>>> “Everything is publicly addressable and might be reachable,
>>>> therefore security is important” would be very
>>>> good for the industry as a whole, not to mention end users.
>>>> Yes, there will be some pain points as this
>>>> transition occurs, but the end result is highly desirable.
>>>>
>>>>>> If you want NAT on the networks you manage, go for it. All the tech
>>>>>> bits to make NAT work in IPv6 are there. Just do not expect the rest of
>>>>>> us that would like to get back to the end-to-end model to support your
>>>>>> choice, and I am sure some of your users will wish you did not make that
>>>>>> choice, because of things they want that may not work in this enviroment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect exactly that. I expect you to support peoples ability to make
>>>>> this choice, since the current alternative is
>>>>
>>>> So you expect everyone else to put in effort to support your choice of
>>>> technology because you don’t like our choice… Sounds a lot like your
>>>> reasons earlier claiming we shouldn’t expect v6 to be widely deployed any
>>>> time soon.
>>>>
>>>> You’ve successfully argued against yourself here. The advantage goes to v6
>>>> without NAT because it is further along in deployment than any effort to
>>>> standardize NATv6 (fortunately).
>>>>
>>>> Owen
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ARIN-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:
>>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ARIN-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:
>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ARIN-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:
>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-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:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
