Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote: Further, given the purported role that InterNIC played, exchange of value as a prerequisite is a rather questionable position to rely on; InterNIC had motivations other than a purely financial one to organize IP allocations. The number assignment function is critical to allowing the Internet to work smoothly. Joe - On this matter we do agree, since allocations prior to ARIN's formation were generally made pursuant to a US Government contract or cooperative agreement. While I don't consider addresses to be property, if you take the opposite view then there's very likely a significant body of procurement law which already applies to property furnished in this manner and would be far more relevant than any documentation that an address block recipient received at the time. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote: Further, given the purported role that InterNIC played, exchange of value as a prerequisite is a rather questionable position to rely on; InterNIC had motivations other than a purely financial one to organize IP allocations. The number assignment function is critical to allowing the Internet to work smoothly. Joe - On this matter we do agree, since allocations prior to ARIN's formation were generally made pursuant to a US Government contract or cooperative agreement. While I don't consider addresses to be property, if you take the opposite view then there's very likely a significant body of procurement law which already applies to property furnished in this manner and would be far more relevant than any documentation that an address block recipient received at the time.. There are all manner of theories. Some have compared it to physical land (possibly apt due to the limited nature of both), or to the way land was granted to the railroads to spur development, etc. Spinning the issue in any of several different ways could land you at wildly differing results. I'll bet that significant bodies of relevant law for each are contradictory and confusing at best. :-) Anyways, my original intent was simply to point out that there are some impediments to IPv6 adoption, somehow this morphed into a larger topic than intended. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:23 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote: Further, given the purported role that InterNIC played, exchange of value as a prerequisite is a rather questionable position to rely on; InterNIC had motivations other than a purely financial one to organize IP allocations. The number assignment function is critical to allowing the Internet to work smoothly. On this matter we do agree, since allocations prior to ARIN's formation were generally made pursuant to a US Government contract or cooperative agreement. While I don't consider addresses to be property, if you take the opposite view then there's very likely a significant body of procurement law which already applies to property furnished in this manner and would be far more relevant than any documentation that an address block recipient received at the time. John, Joe: If you want to understand the general thinking circa 1993, find a copy of the first edition, third printing of the crab book (TCP/IP Network Administration, O'Reilly) and read chapter 4. That was the reference many of us followed when getting our first address blocks. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
John, On Apr 12, 2010, at 5:23 AM, John Curran wrote: On this matter we do agree, since allocations prior to ARIN's formation were generally made pursuant to a US Government contract or cooperative agreement. As we're both aware, Jon was funded in part via the ISI Teranode Network Technologies project. Folks who were directly involved have told me that IANA-related activities weren't even identified in the original contracts until the mid- to late-90s (around the time when lawsuits were being thrown at Jon because of the domain name wars -- odd coincidence, that) when the IANA activities were codified as Task 4. IANAL, but it seems a bit of a stretch to me for ARIN to assert policy control over resources allocated prior to ARIN's existence without any sort of documentation that explicitly lists that policy control in ARIN's predecessor (ever). Like I said, it'll be an interesting court case. Regards, -drc
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
David, in 1997 and 1998 I was spending about 25% of my time interview the principals and engaged in informal conversations with Ira Magaziner,Kim Hubbard, DonMitchell and others. I was in Londone in late jan 1998 when Jon tried to redirect the root. Magaziner was there and daniel karenburg and others. We did an entire day on these issues. In addition to my published record, I have extensive electronic archives related to the manueverings in the founding of Arin. Should it come to a court case i believe that arin will come court fine and i trust that i will be able to asist the people involved in determining who did what to whom when and for what reasons. Steve Wolff will remember attending with me a late afternoon meeting with magaziner in Ira office in mid december 1997 on the day that Ira took Jon to lunch and announced to Jon that he had put together funding to carry the IANA activities through Oct 1 of 1998 and the founding of newco. Don Mitchel is Mr cooperative agreement. I am quite confident that what John Curran is saying below is solid. Don did yeoman's work in ensuring the birth and independence of ARIN. = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 609 403-2067 (mjack) Back Issues: http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_docmantask=cat_viewgid=37Itemid=61 Cook's Collaborative Edge Blog http://gordoncook.net/wp/ Subscription info: http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=54Itemid=65 = On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:36 PM, David Conrad wrote: John, On Apr 12, 2010, at 5:23 AM, John Curran wrote: On this matter we do agree, since allocations prior to ARIN's formation were generally made pursuant to a US Government contract or cooperative agreement. As we're both aware, Jon was funded in part via the ISI Teranode Network Technologies project. Folks who were directly involved have told me that IANA-related activities weren't even identified in the original contracts until the mid- to late-90s (around the time when lawsuits were being thrown at Jon because of the domain name wars -- odd coincidence, that) when the IANA activities were codified as Task 4. IANAL, but it seems a bit of a stretch to me for ARIN to assert policy control over resources allocated prior to ARIN's existence without any sort of documentation that explicitly lists that policy control in ARIN's predecessor (ever). Like I said, it'll be an interesting court case. Regards, -drc
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 4/9/10 5:27 AM, Joe Greco wrote: ARIN might not have a contract with us, or with other legacy holders. It wasn't our choice for ARIN to be tasked with holding up InterNIC's end of things. However, it's likely that they've concluded that they better do so, because if they don't, it'll probably turn into a costly legal battle on many fronts, and I doubt ARIN has the budget for that. As a legacy holder, we don't really care who is currently responsible for legacy maintenance/etc. However, whoever it is, if they're not going to take on those responsibilities, that's a problem. The previous poster asked, If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything? Well, the flip side to that is, ARIN doesn't have a contract with us, but we still have copies of the InterNIC policies under which we were assigned space, and ARIN undertook those duties, so ARIN is actually the one with significant worries if they were to try to pull anything, otherwise, we don't really care. What do those InterNIC policies say about getting IPv6 space? If nothing, expect nothing. If something, hold them to it. ~Seth
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 11, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Joe Greco wrote: Put less tersely: We were assigned space, under a policy whose purpose was primarily to guarantee uniqueness in IPv4 numbering. As with other legacy holders, we obtained portable space to avoid the technical problems associated with renumbering, problems with in-addr.arpa subdelegation, etc. So far, correct. Part of that was an understanding that the space was ours (let's not get distracted by any ownership debate, but just agree for the sake of this point that it was definitely understood that we'd possess it). This served the good of the Internet by promoting stability within an AS and allowed us to spend engineering time on finer points (such as maintaining PTR's) rather than renumbering gear every time we changed upstreams. This is fictitious unless you are claiming that your allocation predates: RFC2050 November, 1996 RFC1466 May, 1993 RFC1174 August, 1990 Prior to that, it was less clear, but, the concept was still generally justified need so long as that need persisted. Which ours does. Eventually InterNIC was disbanded, and components went in various directions. ARIN landed the numbering assignment portion of InterNIC. Along with that, maintenance of the legacy resources drifted along to ARIN. Actually, ARIN was spun off from InterNIC (containing most of the same staff that had been doing the job at InterNIC) well before InterNIC was disbanded. Is there an effective difference or are you just quibbling? For the purposes of this discussion, I submit my description was suitable to describe what happened. Your description makes it sound like there was limited or no continuity between the former and the current registration services entity. I point out that ARIN was formed run by and including most of the IP-related staff from InterNIC. I consider that a substantive distinction. ARIN might not have a contract with us, or with other legacy holders. It wasn't our choice for ARIN to be tasked with holding up InterNIC's end of things. However, it's likely that they've concluded that they better do so, because if they don't, it'll probably turn into a costly legal battle on many fronts, and I doubt ARIN has the budget for that. This is going to be one of those situations that could become a legal battle on many fronts either way. On the one hand you have legacy holders who have no contractual right to services from anyone (If you want to pursue InterNIC for failing to live up to whatever agreement you have/had with them, I wish you the very best of luck in that endeavor, especially since you don't have a written contract from them, either). On the other hand, in a relatively short timeframe, you are likely to have litigants asking why ARIN has failed to reclaim/reuse the underutilized IPv4 space sitting in so many legacy registrations. Which of those two bodies of litigants is larger or better funded is left as an exercise for the reader. Nonetheless, ARIN is going to be in an interesting position between those two groups (which one is rock and which is hard place is also left as an exercise for the reader) going forward regardless of what action is taken by ARIN in this area. That is why the legacy RSA is important. It represents ARIN trying very hard to codify and defend the rights of the legacy holders. Yes, but according to the statistics provided by Mr. Curran, it looks like few legacy space holders are actually adopting the LRSA. So far, yes. That's unfortunate. Like many tech people, you seem to believe that the absence of a contract means that there's no responsibility, and that InterNIC's having been disbanded absolves ARIN from responsibility. In the real world, things are not so simple. The courts have much experience at looking at real world situations and determining what should happen. These outcomes are not always predictable and frequently don't seem to have obvious results, but they're generally expensive fights. No, actually, quite the opposite. I believe that BOTH legacy holders and ARIN have responsibilities even though there is no contract. I believe that ARIN is, however, responsible to the community as it exists today and not in any way responsible to legacy holders who choose to ignore that community and their responsibilities to it. The reality is that the community has evolved. For the most part, the community has been willing to let legacy holders live in their little reality distortion bubble and accommodated their eccentricities. I think that is as it should be, to some extent. On the other hand, I think the history now shows that ARIN's failure to immediately institute the same renewal pricing model on legacy holders as on new registrants has created an unfortunate disparity and a number of unfortunate perceptions. Contrast this with APNIC and the domain registrars/registries shortly after the ARIN
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Owen, On Apr 11, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Instead, we have a situation where the mere mention of requiring legacy holders to pay a token annual fee like the rest of IP end-users in the ARIN region leads to discussions like this. I don't believe the issue is the token annual fee. My guess is that most legacy holders would be willing to pay a reasonable service fee to cover rDNS and registration database maintenance (they'd probably be more willing if there were multiple providers of that service, but that's a separate topic). I suspect the issue might be more related to stuff like: Especially in light of the fact that if you are sitting on excess resources and want to be able to transfer them under NRPM 8.3, you will need to bring them under LRSA or RSA first and the successor who acquires them from you (under 8.2 or 8.3) will need to sign an RSA for the transfer to be valid. You appear to be assuming folks are willing to accept ARIN has the right and ability to assert the above (and more). That is, that the entire policy regime under which the NRPM has been defined is one that legacy holders are implicitly bound simply because they happen to operate in ARIN's service region and received IP addresses in the past without any real terms and conditions or formal agreement. I imagine the validity of your assumption will not be established without a definitive legal ruling. I'm sure it will be an interesting court case. In any event, it seems clear that some feel that entering into agreements and paying fees in order to obtain IPv6 address space is hindering deployment of IPv6. While ARIN has in the past waived fees for IPv6, I don't believe there has ever been (nor is there likely to be) a waiver of signing the RSA. Folks who want that should probably get over it. To try to bring this back to topics relevant to NANOG (and not ARIN's PPML), the real issue is that pragmatically speaking, the only obvious alternative to IPv6 is multi-layer NAT and it seems some people are trying to tell you that regardless of how much you might hate multi-layer NAT, how much more expensive you believe it will be operationally, and how much more limiting and fragile it will be because it breaks the end-to-end paradigm, they believe it to be a workable solution. Are there _any_ case studies, analyses with actual data, etc. that shows multi-layer NAT is not workable (scalable, operationally tractable, etc.) or at least is more expensive than IPv6? Regards, -drc
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:21 AM, David Conrad wrote: Owen, On Apr 11, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Instead, we have a situation where the mere mention of requiring legacy holders to pay a token annual fee like the rest of IP end-users in the ARIN region leads to discussions like this. I don't believe the issue is the token annual fee. My guess is that most legacy holders would be willing to pay a reasonable service fee to cover rDNS and registration database maintenance (they'd probably be more willing if there were multiple providers of that service, but that's a separate topic). I suspect the issue might be more related to stuff like: Especially in light of the fact that if you are sitting on excess resources and want to be able to transfer them under NRPM 8.3, you will need to bring them under LRSA or RSA first and the successor who acquires them from you (under 8.2 or 8.3) will need to sign an RSA for the transfer to be valid. You appear to be assuming folks are willing to accept ARIN has the right and ability to assert the above (and more). That is, that the entire policy regime under which the NRPM has been defined is one that legacy holders are implicitly bound simply because they happen to operate in ARIN's service region and received IP addresses in the past without any real terms and conditions or formal agreement. I imagine the validity of your assumption will not be established without a definitive legal ruling. I'm sure it will be an interesting court case. Well, if they want to operate under the previous regime, then, they should simply return any excess resources now rather than attempting to monetize them under newer policies as that was the policy in place at the time. Certainly they should operate under one of those two regimes rather than some alternate reality not related to either. Interestingly, APNIC seems to have had little trouble asserting such in their region, but, I realize the regulatory framework in the ARIN region is somewhat different. In any event, it seems clear that some feel that entering into agreements and paying fees in order to obtain IPv6 address space is hindering deployment of IPv6. While ARIN has in the past waived fees for IPv6, I don't believe there has ever been (nor is there likely to be) a waiver of signing the RSA. Folks who want that should probably get over it. I believe you are correct about that. To try to bring this back to topics relevant to NANOG (and not ARIN's PPML), the real issue is that pragmatically speaking, the only obvious alternative to IPv6 is multi-layer NAT and it seems some people are trying to tell you that regardless of how much you might hate multi-layer NAT, how much more expensive you believe it will be operationally, and how much more limiting and fragile it will be because it breaks the end-to-end paradigm, they believe it to be a workable solution. Are there _any_ case studies, analyses with actual data, etc. that shows multi-layer NAT is not workable (scalable, operationally tractable, etc.) or at least is more expensive than IPv6? Can you point to a single working deployment of multi-layer NAT? I can recall experiences with several attempts which had varying levels of dysfunction. Some actually done at NANOG meetings, for example. As such, I'm willing to say that there is at least anecdotal evidence that multi-layer NAT either is not workable or has not yet been made workable. Owen
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 11, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Well, if they want to operate under the previous regime, then, they should simply return any excess resources now rather than attempting to monetize them under newer policies as that was the policy in place at the time. Why? There were no policies to restrict how address space was transferred (or anything else) when they got their space. Certainly they should operate under one of those two regimes rather than some alternate reality not related to either. When most of the legacy space was handed out, there were no restrictions on what you could do/not do with address space simply because no one considered it necessary. Much later, a policy regime was established that explicitly limits rights and you seem surprised when the legacy holders aren't all that interested. Interestingly, APNIC seems to have had little trouble asserting such in their region, Hah. I suspect you misunderstand. Can you point to a single working deployment of multi-layer NAT? I suppose it depends on your definition of working. I've been told there are entire countries that operate behind multi-later NAT (primarily because the regulatory regime required ISPs obtain addresses from the PTT and the PTT would only hand out a couple of IP addresses). I have put wireless gateways on NAT'd hotel networks and it works for client services, for some value of the variable works. I can recall experiences with several attempts which had varying levels of dysfunction. Some actually done at NANOG meetings, for example. As such, I'm willing to say that there is at least anecdotal evidence that multi-layer NAT either is not workable or has not yet been made workable. The problem is, anecdotal evidence isn't particularly convincing to folks who are trying to decide whether to fire folks so they'll have money to spend on upgrading their systems to support IPv6. Regards, -drc
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:08 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:20 PM, David Conrad wrote: When most of the legacy space was handed out, there were no restrictions on what you could do/not do with address space simply because no one considered it necessary. I don't think I can agree with that statement, but for sake of clarity - when do you think this no restriction period actually occurred? John, What restrictions do you believe were imposed on someone requesting a class-C between 4/93 and 9/94 who did not intend to connect to MILNET or NSFNET? For your reference, here's the form then active: http://bill.herrin.us/network/templates/199304-internet-number-template.txt Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote: Fun movies notwithstanding, they generally issue a fine and work it through the civil courts. And please educate me then, when I don't pay the fine, then what happens? -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Dave Israel wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6 policies regarding address space? Reasons: (many excellent reasons removed) Let me just add on: (more excellent reasons removed) I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned cost. Even if all the network equipment (hardware and software) in a given network were already v6 compatible, there's a substantial cost to train, test, document, deploy, support. Most companies will put this cost off for as long as possible, unless there are clear cost savings to be had by deploying sooner. Add in the problems getting vendors to produce v6 compatible networking equipment. Add in the cost to upgrade legacy systems to v6 compatible equipment (when available). Most companies are trying to determine the optimum time to upgrade, and at this point they believe that this time is still in the future, not now. Some of them will be up against a Y2K type of deadline when the v4 space runs out, scrambling to move to v6 when they need more IPs and can't get anymore usable v4 addresses. jc
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN i do not think that statement is defensible there is a difference between caring and being willing to give up rights for no benefit
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Excellent questions... The direction with respect to ARIN is that the Board has spent significant time considering this issue and the guidance provided to date is that ARIN is to focus on its core mission of providing allocation and registration services, and be supportive of other related organizations (e.g. NANOG, ICANN, ISOC) which perform related functions in the community. This approach has reduced the risk of mission creep (at least as far as I can tell... :-) From a practical matter, it also means that we need to consider a future for ARIN which provides a core address registry function, modest IPv4 updates and modest IPv6 new allocation activity, and likely a very stable policy framework. This vision of the future is highly compatible with automation, and ARIN is indeed working aggressively in this area with ARIN Online. I do think that automation plus a reduction in activity will result in a modest reduction in overall costs, but the costs associated with having an open community-based organization aren't necessarily changing: i think this is realistic, wise, and admirable. it is damned hard for an organization to resist mission creep, etc., and focus on mission, especially when that means long term shrinkage. the board and management are to be commended. randy
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 numbering resources, Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way. And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to ICANN that would replace ARIN. Using the organization to justify the need for the organization is circular reasoning. 2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR. Because the ARIN members, who pay most of ARIN's fees, are not complaining about the level of those fees. This means that they think the fees are cheap enough, or else they would demand that the fees be changed. All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members. Again, ... Anyways, the non-answers to these questions are very illuminating. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
I have my doubts, based on a ~decade of observation. I don't think ARIN is deliberately evil, but I think there are some bits that'd be hard to fix. I believe that anything at ARIN which the community at large and the membership can come to consensus is broken will be relatively easy to fix. Perhaps the true issue is that what you see as broken is perceived as working as intended by much of the community and membership? That's a great point. Would you agree, then, that much of the community and membership implicitly sees little value in IPv6? You can claim that's a bit of a stretch, but quite frankly, the RIR policies, the sketchy support by providers, the lack of v6 support in much common gear, and so many other things seem to be all conspiring against v6 adoption. I need only point to v6 adoption rates to support that statement. This is an impediment that I've been idly pondering for some years now, which is why I rattle cages to encourage discussion whenever I see a promising opportunity. Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6 policies regarding address space? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
$quoted_author = Joe Greco ; Using the organization to justify the need for the organization is circular reasoning. I would have thought the role ARIN (and the other RIRs) has to play is clear from it's charter (registration of number resources to ensure uniqueness and fair allocation of a finite resource). And the need for someone or something to serve that role is best highlighted when it fails (e.g. duplicate ASes in RIPE and ARIN last year). Anyways, the non-answers to these questions are very illuminating. Feel free to not deploy IPv6. Or get a /48 from a tunnel broker or your ISP. You have plenty of options, just one of which is provider independent space from ARIN. cheers Marty
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:09:19AM -0500, Joe Greco wrote: 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 numbering resources, Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way. And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to ICANN that would replace ARIN. Using the organization to justify the need for the organization is circular reasoning. 2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR. Because the ARIN members, who pay most of ARIN's fees, are not complaining about the level of those fees. This means that they think the fees are cheap enough, or else they would demand that the fees be changed. All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members. Again, ... Anyways, the non-answers to these questions are very illuminating. This is an answer though. The vast majority of people who need address space in North America are ARIN members. These ARIN members are happy with the current organisation. If the set of people who need IP address tend towards being happy with the current system, there is no reason to change it for a new system, which they may not be happy with. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. -- --
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
$quoted_author = Joe Greco ; Perhaps the true issue is that what you see as broken is perceived as working as intended by much of the community and membership? That's a great point. Would you agree, then, that much of the community and membership implicitly sees little value in IPv6? Is that orthogonal to Owen's statement? You can claim that's a bit of a stretch, but quite frankly, the RIR policies, the sketchy support by providers, the lack of v6 support in much common gear, and so many other things seem to be all conspiring against v6 adoption. I need only point to v6 adoption rates to support that statement. Which rates would those be? http://www.ipv6actnow.org/info/statistics/ IPv6 has had a slow start but it's certainly picking up. cheers Marty
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
In my experience ARIN/RIR policies have not been a noticeable barrier to IPv6 adoption. Lack of IA/security gear tops the list for my clients, with WAN Acceleration a runner-up. /TJ On Apr 9, 2010 7:23 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote: I have my doubts, based on a ~decade of observation. I don't think ARIN is deliberately evil, but I think there are some bits that'd be hard to fix. I believe that anything at ARIN which the community at large and the membership can come to consensus is broken will be relatively easy to fix. Perhaps the true issue is that what you see as broken is perceived as working as intended by much of the community and membership? That's a great point. Would you agree, then, that much of the community and membership implicitly sees little value in IPv6? You can claim that's a bit of a stretch, but quite frankly, the RIR policies, the sketchy support by providers, the lack of v6 support in much common gear, and so many other things seem to be all conspiring against v6 adoption. I need only point to v6 adoption rates to support that statement. This is an impediment that I've been idly pondering for some years now, which is why I rattle cages to encourage discussion whenever I see a promising opportunity. Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6 policies regarding address space? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it th...
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
The vast majority of people who need address space in North America are ARIN members. These ARIN members are happy with the current organisation. If the set of people who need IP address tend towards being happy with the current system, there is no reason to change it for a new system, which they may not be happy with. not a useful argument. it amounts to the vast majority of the rich are happy being rich. randy
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Joe Greco wrote: The problem, as I've heard it, is that ARIN's fees are steep in order to pay for various costs. Since there isn't the economy of scale of hundreds of millions of domain names, and instead you just have ... what? Probably less than a hundred thousand objects that are revenue-generating? If you charge $1/yr for each registered object, that means your organizational budget is sufficient for one full time person, maybe two. At $100/yr, you have enough funding for some office space, some gear, and a small staff. Joe - Your financial breakdown is heading the right direction, but let help out with some more information (FYI - ARIN's 2009 Budget is available at https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html, and the 2010 one should be there sometime next week.) ARIN runs about a $15M annual operating expense. As you noted below, it can be hard to separate into distinct products', and in fact, in some cases it is not appropriate to separate since one function (e.g. support for public policy development) might actually be a prerequisite for another (i.e.new address allocations). I am actually working to get more service- oriented cost information going forward, but this is non-trivial to make happen. In terms of fees, we have about 3500 ISPs (whose registration subscription service fees cover the bulk of ARIN's expenses, i.e. an average of several thousand dollars per ISP per year) In other fees, we have over 1000 end-user organization and presently about 800 legacy RSA holders which pay $100/year for maintenance. This doesn't really cover much expense, and that is quite appropriate since handling registration services requests (and the supporting public policy process) does dominant the expenses of ARIN, at least today. The question is how that evolves over time, particularly if the level of registration services requests in an post-IPv6 world is very modest. At that point, ARIN's expenses will be predominantly registry systems support, and whatever public policy process the community wishes us to maintain. These costs will need to be predominantly covered by the maintenance fees, and will support the objects in the database, which includes the resource records of 3500 ISPs, 1000+ enduser organizations, the signed LRSA holders, and estimated 15000 legacy resource holders who have not signed an LRSA... At the end of the day, the Board of Trustees will determine the best fee schedule to provide for cost-recovery of whatever functions are needed for the mission at that time. So when you run into expensive stuff, like litigation, the best course of action is to avoid it unless you absolutely can't. Correct. Further, if you've suffered mission creep and are funding other things such as IPv6 educational outreach, that's going to run up your costs as well. Presently, IPv6 outreach is not considered mission creep, as it has been an overwhelming request of the community both online and in the public policy meetings. An established entity like ARIN typically has a very rough time going on any sort of diet. Further, companies typically do not segregate their products well: if IPv4 policy enforcement runs into legal wrangling and lawsuits, ARIN as a whole gets sued, and it is tempting to spread the resulting expenses over all their products. Segregation into two (or more!) entities is a trivial way to fix that, though it also brings about other challenges. Absolutely correct. I think it is possible to understand those costs better, but in some cases they can't be put into separate organizations without some changes to structural assumptions about ARIN's mission. I have my doubts, based on a ~decade of observation. I don't think ARIN is deliberately evil, but I think there are some bits that'd be hard to fix. Joe - If you want to improve ARIN policy, jump right in. If you want to propose policy for the sake of changing the nature of the organization, that's also fine, if you contact me I'll assist in providing estimates of cost savings and structural changes that can result from your proposals. At the end of the day, it will be the community's discussion of your proposal, and the AC Boards consideration of the discussion which will decide the matter. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
[context restored] If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything? [I replied] Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN i do not think that statement is defensible there is a difference between caring and being willing to give up rights for no benefit I meant in the context of an answer to the question above. A legacy holder doesn't really care _who_ is currently providing the services that InterNIC once provided. It doesn't matter to me if our legacy space is currently handled by ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, ICANN, or whatever. Put less tersely: We were assigned space, under a policy whose purpose was primarily to guarantee uniqueness in IPv4 numbering. As with other legacy holders, we obtained portable space to avoid the technical problems associated with renumbering, problems with in-addr.arpa subdelegation, etc. Part of that was an understanding that the space was ours (let's not get distracted by any ownership debate, but just agree for the sake of this point that it was definitely understood that we'd possess it). This served the good of the Internet by promoting stability within an AS and allowed us to spend engineering time on finer points (such as maintaining PTR's) rather than renumbering gear every time we changed upstreams. Eventually InterNIC was disbanded, and components went in various directions. ARIN landed the numbering assignment portion of InterNIC. Along with that, maintenance of the legacy resources drifted along to ARIN. ARIN might not have a contract with us, or with other legacy holders. It wasn't our choice for ARIN to be tasked with holding up InterNIC's end of things. However, it's likely that they've concluded that they better do so, because if they don't, it'll probably turn into a costly legal battle on many fronts, and I doubt ARIN has the budget for that. As a legacy holder, we don't really care who is currently responsible for legacy maintenance/etc. However, whoever it is, if they're not going to take on those responsibilities, that's a problem. The previous poster asked, If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything? Well, the flip side to that is, ARIN doesn't have a contract with us, but we still have copies of the InterNIC policies under which we were assigned space, and ARIN undertook those duties, so ARIN is actually the one with significant worries if they were to try to pull anything, otherwise, we don't really care. Is that a suitable defense of that statement (which might not have been saying quite what you thought)? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Kevin Stange wrote: On 04/08/2010 01:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote: If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money. I'd hate to see that routing table. Another bright gentleman many years ago suggested that we have an online website which allows anyone to pay a fee and get an address block. This is not inconceivable, but does completely set aside hierarchical routing which is currently an underlying mechanism for making our addressing framework scalable. Another way to accomplish this would be a functional global model for the settlement of costs relating to routing entries, and which would effectively be against routing entries caused by unique provider-independent prefixes. ISPs today don't get specifically compensated for routing a PI address block, but they do get to participate in the various RIR processes and have some say in the impacts of public policies as they are discussed. Historically, this has proved to be sufficient input that ISPs generally respect the tradeoffs inherent in the approved policy, and will route the result. If you have an economic mechanism which handles this function instead, and an abundance of resources (e.g. IPv6), then it might be possible to operate under very different assumptions than the present Internet registry system, and the resulting costs of operating the registry portion could be minimal. The implementation of this is left as an exercise for the reader... /John p.s. These are my personal thoughts only and in no way reflect any position of ARIN or the ARIN Board of Trustees. I provide them solely to help outline some of the tradeoffs inherent in the current Registry system.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Joe Greco wrote: Eventually InterNIC was disbanded, and components went in various directions. ARIN landed the numbering assignment portion of InterNIC. Along with that, maintenance of the legacy resources drifted along to ARIN. Correct (ARIN is the successor registry) ARIN might not have a contract with us, or with other legacy holders. It wasn't our choice for ARIN to be tasked with holding up InterNIC's end of things. However, it's likely that they've concluded that they better do so, because if they don't, it'll probably turn into a costly legal battle on many fronts, and I doubt ARIN has the budget for that. ARIN has a budget which includes legal reserves for contingencies such as these, but would need to have a clear direction supported by the community before taking any action in this area. As a legacy holder, we don't really care who is currently responsible for legacy maintenance/etc. However, whoever it is, if they're not going to take on those responsibilities, that's a problem. The previous poster asked, If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything? Well, the flip side to that is, ARIN doesn't have a contract with us, but we still have copies of the InterNIC policies under which we were assigned space, and ARIN undertook those duties, so ARIN is actually the one with significant worries if they were to try to pull anything, otherwise, we don't really care. Alas, Joe, ARIN will follow the policies directed by the community with respect to service provided to legacy address holders, and invites you to participate in that community to help establish those policies. If the community directs ARIN to provide some set of services to legacy address holders for free, or on a cost recovery, or whatever, ARIN will comply. You may not have realized it when you received your address allocation, but you were implicitly joining a community which includes the IAB/IETF, IANA, and ARIN, and opting to ignore that community does not necessarily mean you won't be affected by its policies. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 9, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote: According to the docs that I read that's 1250 for the first year and 100/yr thereafter. The big boys pay more up front, but pay $100.00 per year thereafter. There's the competitive disadvantage. ATT, Comcast, Time-Warner pay $100.00/yr for huge address space while the little by pays $100.00/yr for a comparatively tiny one. Something's not quite right with that structure. A large *end-user* pays maintenance fees of $100/year. ISPs pay an annual registration services subscription fee each year, proportional to the size of aggregate address space held. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 4/8/2010 10:32 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: On 07 Apr 2010 18:40, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote: I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is *always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being unregulated to regulated, whatever that means. ARIN is not a regulator. The jump is from not paying for services that you have no contract for to paying for services that you do have a contract for. BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator. I would think multiple times before making that jump. Hence my suggestion to set up a separate organization to request IPv6 space, and thus not 'endanger' whatever I had before. Signing an RSA to get new space does not _in any way_ endanger or otherwise affect legacy resources. Putting legacy resources under LRSA (or RSA, if you wished) is a completely separate action and is, for now at least, completely optional. You do not need to set up a separate organization; all that does is waste your time and ARIN's. S attachment: tglassey.vcf
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 4/9/2010 10:10 AM, John Curran wrote: A large *end-user* pays maintenance fees of $100/year. ISPs pay an annual registration services subscription fee each year, proportional to the size of aggregate address space held. I stand corrected. I misunderstood the doc. I could never read. :-) --Curtis
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:09 AM, Joe Greco wrote: 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 numbering resources, Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way. And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to ICANN that would replace ARIN. Using the organization to justify the need for the organization is circular reasoning. He didn't use the organization. He used the members of the organizations. The fact is that the majority of the members of the organization(s) are sufficiently happy with the status quo that they have not seen fit to change it. If the members of ARIN want to change or eliminate the organization, it is within their power to do so. 2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR. Because the ARIN members, who pay most of ARIN's fees, are not complaining about the level of those fees. This means that they think the fees are cheap enough, or else they would demand that the fees be changed. All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members. Again, ... Anyways, the non-answers to these questions are very illuminating. While this may not be the answer you wanted, I do not think it is a non-answer. ARIN is a membership driven organization. The members have the power to change the organization. There will be another election this fall. If you think there is significant support for changing the organization, then you should run for the Board of Trustees and champion those changes. Owen
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
This is an answer though. The vast majority of people who need address space in North America are ARIN members. These ARIN members are happy with the current organisation. If the set of people who need IP address tend towards being happy with the current system, there is no reason to change it for a new system, which they may not be happy with. Actually, I don't believe that is completely true. The vast majority of address space in North America is given to ARIN members. However, the vast majority of people who need address space in North America are end users, most of whom get their address space from ARIN members or descendent LIRs from ARIN members. In some cases, they are end users who get address space from ARIN but are not ARIN members. Some end users are ARIN members, but, I do not believe the majority of them are. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it being this way, just that it is an important distinction in address consumption vs. membership. Owen
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:39 AM, Martin Barry wrote: $quoted_author = Joe Greco ; Perhaps the true issue is that what you see as broken is perceived as working as intended by much of the community and membership? That's a great point. Would you agree, then, that much of the community and membership implicitly sees little value in IPv6? I really don't know how much or how little value is seen in IPv6 by much of the community. I see tremendous value in IPv6. I also see a number of flaws in IPv6 (failure to include a scalable routing paradigm, for example). Nonetheless, IPv4 is unsustainable going forward (NAT is bad enough, LSN is even worse). I do believe that IPv6 is being deployed and that deployment is accelerating. I'm actually in a pretty good position to see that happen since I have access to flow statistics for a good portion of the IPv6 internet. The IPv6 internet today is already carrying more traffic than the IPv4 internet carried 10 years ago. Many others see value in IPv6. Comcast and Verizon have both announced residential customer IPv6 trials. Google, You Tube and Netflix are all available as production services on IPv6. Yahoo has publicly announced plans to have production services on IPv6 in the near future although they have not yet announced specific dates. I leave it up to you to consider whether that constitutes much of the community or not. Is that orthogonal to Owen's statement? I don't see how the term orthogonal would apply here. You can claim that's a bit of a stretch, but quite frankly, the RIR policies, the sketchy support by providers, the lack of v6 support in much common gear, and so many other things seem to be all conspiring against v6 adoption. I need only point to v6 adoption rates to support that statement. Which rates would those be? http://www.ipv6actnow.org/info/statistics/ IPv6 has had a slow start but it's certainly picking up. IPv6 started approximately 20 years behind IPv4. It's already caught up with IPv4 traffic levels of 10 years ago. Deployment is accelerating and IPv4 will hit a sustainability wall in the near future. Owen
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6 policies regarding address space? Reasons: + Fear People simply fear deploying new technology to their environment. + Uncertainty The future is uncertain. Many people fail to realize that IPv4's future is even more uncertain than that of IPv6. + Doubt You are not the only one expressing doubt in IPv6. The reality, however, is that I think that LSN and a multi-layer NAT internet are even more worthy of doubt than IPv6. + Inertia Many people are approaching this like driving at night with the headlights off. They refuse to alter course until they can see the wall. There is a wall coming in two years whether you can see it or not. If you have not begun to deploy IPv6 (changed course), then there will soon come a point where the accident has already occurred, even though you cannot yet see the wall and have not yet made physical contact with it. A classic example of this phenomenon would be a certain large unsinkable ship where the captain chose to try and make better time to New York rather than use a lower speed to have time to avoid ice bergs. The ship never arrived in New York and its name became an adjective to describe large disasters. Owen
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 4/9/2010 12:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6 policies regarding address space? Reasons: (many excellent reasons removed) Let me just add on: +Bonus Fear: Because IPv6 deployments are small and vendors are still ironing out software, there's concern that deploying it in a production network could cause issues. (Whether or not this fear is legitimate with vendor x, y, or z isn't the issue. The fear exists.) +Bonus Uncertainty: There is a lack of consensus on how IPv6 is to be deployed. For example, look at the ongoing debates on point to point network sizes and the /64 network boundary in general. There's also no tangible benefit to deploying IPv6 right now, and the tangible danger that your v6 deployment will just have to be redone because there's some flaw in the current v6 protocol or best practices that will be uncovered. +Bonus Doubt: Because we've been told that IPv4 will be dead in 2 years for the last 20 years, and that IPv6 will be deployed and a way of life in 2 years for the past 10, nobody really believes it anymore. There's been an ongoing chant of wolf for so long, many people won't believe it until things are much, much worse. -Dave
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Put less tersely: We were assigned space, under a policy whose purpose was primarily to guarantee uniqueness in IPv4 numbering. As with other legacy holders, we obtained portable space to avoid the technical problems associated with renumbering, problems with in-addr.arpa subdelegation, etc. So far, correct. Part of that was an understanding that the space was ours (let's not get distracted by any ownership debate, but just agree for the sake of this point that it was definitely understood that we'd possess it). This served the good of the Internet by promoting stability within an AS and allowed us to spend engineering time on finer points (such as maintaining PTR's) rather than renumbering gear every time we changed upstreams. This is fictitious unless you are claiming that your allocation predates: RFC2050 November, 1996 RFC1466 May, 1993 RFC1174 August, 1990 Prior to that, it was less clear, but, the concept was still generally justified need so long as that need persisted. Eventually InterNIC was disbanded, and components went in various directions. ARIN landed the numbering assignment portion of InterNIC. Along with that, maintenance of the legacy resources drifted along to ARIN. Actually, ARIN was spun off from InterNIC (containing most of the same staff that had been doing the job at InterNIC) well before InterNIC was disbanded. ARIN might not have a contract with us, or with other legacy holders. It wasn't our choice for ARIN to be tasked with holding up InterNIC's end of things. However, it's likely that they've concluded that they better do so, because if they don't, it'll probably turn into a costly legal battle on many fronts, and I doubt ARIN has the budget for that. This is going to be one of those situations that could become a legal battle on many fronts either way. On the one hand you have legacy holders who have no contractual right to services from anyone (If you want to pursue InterNIC for failing to live up to whatever agreement you have/had with them, I wish you the very best of luck in that endeavor, especially since you don't have a written contract from them, either). On the other hand, in a relatively short timeframe, you are likely to have litigants asking why ARIN has failed to reclaim/reuse the underutilized IPv4 space sitting in so many legacy registrations. Which of those two bodies of litigants is larger or better funded is left as an exercise for the reader. Nonetheless, ARIN is going to be in an interesting position between those two groups (which one is rock and which is hard place is also left as an exercise for the reader) going forward regardless of what action is taken by ARIN in this area. That is why the legacy RSA is important. It represents ARIN trying very hard to codify and defend the rights of the legacy holders. As a legacy holder, we don't really care who is currently responsible for legacy maintenance/etc. However, whoever it is, if they're not going to take on those responsibilities, that's a problem. You assume that anyone is currently responsible. What documentation do you have that there is any such responsibility? As a point in fact, ARIN has, for the good of the community, extended the courtesy of maintaining those records and providing services to legacy holders free of charge because it is perceived as being in the best interests of the community. The previous poster asked, If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything? Well, the flip side to that is, ARIN doesn't have a contract with us, but we still have copies of the InterNIC policies under which we were assigned space, and ARIN undertook those duties, so ARIN is actually the one with significant worries if they were to try to pull anything, otherwise, we don't really care. Could you please provide those to Steve Ryan, John Curran, and, ideally, I'd like to see them too. Is that a suitable defense of that statement (which might not have been saying quite what you thought)? I don't know. I have yet to see the content of the documents which you claim are your defense. Owen
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:58 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote: On 4/8/2010 7:18 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote: Since I just need one /64 that is $1,250/yr for the /64. That puts me at a large competitive disadvantage to the big boys. According to the docs that I read that's 1250 for the first year and 100/yr thereafter. The big boys pay more up front, but pay $100.00 per year thereafter. There's the competitive disadvantage. ATT, Comcast, Time-Warner pay $100.00/yr for huge address space while the little by pays $100.00/yr for a comparatively tiny one. Something's not quite right with that structure. Cheers, Curtis No. ATT, Comcast, Time-Warner are not End-Users. They are ISPs. They pay ISP fees. I believe each of the ones you mention are in the X-large category, thus paying $18,000/year, not $100/year. An ISP which needs less than a /40 (which currently has no supporting allocation policy) would pay $1250/year. However, the nature of current IPv6 allocation policy is that an ISP would get a /32 and the minimum ISP IPv6 fee would, therefore, be $2,250/year. An end user pays $1,250 for anything smaller than a /40 (usually a /48) once, then, $100/year thereafter for ALL of their resources. Owen
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote: On 4/8/2010 10:32 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: On 07 Apr 2010 18:40, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote: I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is *always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being unregulated to regulated, whatever that means. ARIN is not a regulator. The jump is from not paying for services that you have no contract for to paying for services that you do have a contract for. BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator. No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. The FCC is a regulator. The California PUC is a regulator. ARIN is not a regulator. Owen
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:34 AM, John Curran wrote: Another bright gentleman many years ago suggested that we have an online website which allows anyone to pay a fee and get an address block. This is not inconceivable, but does completely set aside hierarchical routing which is currently an underlying mechanism for making our addressing framework scalable. Doesn't end user PI assignment already do this? Note I'm not arguing against end user PI assignment policy, rather just making the observation that given IPv6 did not address routing scalability, the path we're heading down is obvious, the only question is how fast. The problem is that ARIN is getting in the way of people (some of which are ARIN members) dumping nitrous into the combustion chamber. This doesn't seem like a stable, long term viable situation to me. Regards, -drc
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Owen, On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making. Today, ARIN can remove whois data/reverse delegations as a way of enforcing 'regulations'. In the future, assuming RPKI is deployed, ARIN could, in theory, revoke the certification of a resource. While not a gun, these are means of coercion. Are you being literal when you say gun or figurative? Regards, -drc
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members. No they are not. Regards, -drc
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote: BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator. No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. The FCC is a regulator. The California PUC is a regulator. ARIN is not a regulator. Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote: Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really. Oh really? So if I start using a frequency that requires a license and I don't have one, won't they tell me to stop? And if I say no, I won't stop, what happens then? Will they never call the cops and have them show up and forcibly shut down my equipment? And if I try to defend my equipment, will the cops not shoot me? Sorry, all government policies are enforced by guns. ARIN is not government, if I don't pay ARIN for my address space and keep using it anyway, no cops will show up at my door. Sure my upstreams may decide to shut off my announcements, but a gun never gets involved. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:26 PM, David Conrad wrote: Doesn't end user PI assignment already do this? Note I'm not arguing against end user PI assignment policy, rather just making the observation that given IPv6 did not address routing scalability, the path we're heading down is obvious, the only question is how fast. David, The ISPs participating in ARIN get to disusss the impact of various allocation thresholds on their routing during the policy development process. If you have a magic vendor machine issuing prefixes to all comers regardless of need, then the routing scalability problem becomes much, much poignant, and the ability of the community to course correct is zero. /John
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 09 Apr 2010 12:34, David Conrad wrote: On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making. Today, ARIN can remove whois data/reverse delegations as a way of enforcing 'regulations'. In the future, assuming RPKI is deployed, ARIN could, in theory, revoke the certification of a resource. While not a gun, these are means of coercion. Are you being literal when you say gun or figurative? As Mao famously said, power grows from the barrel of a gun. Regulators have (either directly or indirectly) lots of guns at their disposal to enforce their will on those they regulate, i.e. their regulations have the force of law. In contrast, ARIN's policies do not have the force of law. If operators choose not to look in ARIN's WHOIS database to verify addresses are registered to some org, or they choose to use another RDNS provider, or they choose to use a RPKI certificate scheme not rooted at ARIN/ICANN, that is their choice and ARIN couldn't do a damn thing to stop them. ARIN has no guns. S -- Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Unless the ip you takes belongs to the rbn, mafia, or a three letter government org. -- -- Brian Raaen Network Engineer bra...@zcorum.com On Friday 09 April 2010, Brandon Ross wrote: On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote: Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really. Oh really? So if I start using a frequency that requires a license and I don't have one, won't they tell me to stop? And if I say no, I won't stop, what happens then? Will they never call the cops and have them show up and forcibly shut down my equipment? And if I try to defend my equipment, will the cops not shoot me? Sorry, all government policies are enforced by guns. ARIN is not government, if I don't pay ARIN for my address space and keep using it anyway, no cops will show up at my door. Sure my upstreams may decide to shut off my announcements, but a gun never gets involved. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote: On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote: Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really. Oh really? So if I start using a frequency that requires a license and I don't have one, won't they tell me to stop? And if I say no, I won't stop, what happens then? Brandon, Fun movies notwithstanding, they generally issue a fine and work it through the civil courts. If you were doing something extraordinary, like jamming emergency communications, I expect they might well call the police for assistance. But those are police, not FCC agents, and they're acting as much on behalf of the folks whose signals you're jamming as they are on behalf of the FCC. You'll find that any of us (including ARIN) can summon police for assistance with assaults upon us. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 09 Apr 2010 12:43, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote: BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator. No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. The FCC is a regulator. The California PUC is a regulator. ARIN is not a regulator. Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really. If you violate FCC regulations, their first step is to take you to court for violating their regulations, but if you ignore the court's ruling against you, people with guns (the FBI, IIRC) _will_ come stop your violations, whether that means putting you in jail or putting you in the ground. That is what the force of law means. ARIN's authority ends at the contract you signed with them, and their only remedy (not providing any further services) is specified in that contract. If you did not sign a contract with them, they have no authority at all--and no obligation to provide any services to you. ARIN policy therefore does _not_ have the force of law. You are free to ignore them if you wish, unlike a regulator. S -- Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 4/9/2010 1:43 PM, William Herrin wrote: No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. The FCC is a regulator. The California PUC is a regulator. ARIN is not a regulator. Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really. ARIN can act by de-allocating your network and revoking your ASN's. They can't fine you, but if you violate the RSA, they can revoke your stuff. That seems regulatory to me. --Curtis
RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Regulatory bodies can fine you. Not all regulation comes with guns, hippies. ;) And .. The FCC does have access to people with guns, as does any US Federal Agency. Try transmitting illegally on an FM band for a while and see who shows up. I'd be shocked if people with guns didn't arrive in record time. -Original Message- From: Curtis Maurand [mailto:cmaur...@xyonet.com] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 10:15 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space On 4/9/2010 1:43 PM, William Herrin wrote: No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. The FCC is a regulator. The California PUC is a regulator. ARIN is not a regulator. Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really. ARIN can act by de-allocating your network and revoking your ASN's. They can't fine you, but if you violate the RSA, they can revoke your stuff. That seems regulatory to me. --Curtis
RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
-Original Message- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:14 PM To: John Payne Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote: IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years to come. So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6? Why should WE care what you do to the point of creating new rules so YOU don't have to pay like everyone else? Flip it around: Why should WE care about IPv6? WE would have to sign an onerous RSA with ARIN, giving up some of our rights in the process. WE have sufficient IP space to sit it out awhile; by doing that, WE save cash in a tight economy. WE are not so large that we spend four figures without batting an eyelash, so that's attractive. You don't. No one is going to make you set up IPv6. If you don't ever want or need to reach v6 enabled hosts, that's fine... Depending on your business, you may never need to change. But maybe someday you will want to, and you can set up v6 then. For a lot of folks, especially ISP's and content providers, there is much to be gained by deploying early: operational experience, and competitive advantage. It may not all go smoothly, so the sooner folks who know they will need IPv6, get started, the more time they have to work out any kinks. I think that is one of the interesting things about this problem. Unlike y2k, the deadline is different for everyone - and depends a lot on what your business is. Seriously? an onerous RSA What, specifically, do you consider so onerous? Are there no other situations where you willingly give up certain rights in order to obtain a service, or for the betterment or stability of your community/society? When you purchase internet transit, you surely sign a contract that has some terms of service, including an Acceptable Use Policy. You likely give up the right to spam, host copyrighted works, the right to intentionally disrupt networks, etc. It's likely that your provider can terminate services for violations. Do you consider this onerous? Even if you did, it didn't stop you from purchasing service. Further, anyone who is providing IPv6-only content has cut off most of the Internet, so basically no significant content is available on IPv6- only. That means there is no motivation for US to jump on the IPv6 bandwagon. Even more, anyone who is on an IPv6-only eyeball network is cut off from most of the content of the Internet; this means that ISP's will be having to provide IPv6-to-v4 services. Either they'll be good, or if customers complain, WE will be telling them how badly their ISP sucks. *I* am personally convinced that IPv6 is great, but on the other hand, I do not see so much value in v6 that I am prepared to compel the budgeting for ARIN v6 fees, especially since someone from ARIN just described all the ways in which they fritter away money. You can get IPv6 addresses from your upstream provider, often times free of charge, you don't ever have to deal with ARIN if you don't want to. You won't ever have tosign and agreement with ARIN if you don't want to. But, if you want to get a direct allocation, you got to pay to play - and also, agree to play by the same rules that everyone else is - it's a social contract of sorts- give up some rights in order to gain some benefits. As a result, the state of affairs simply retards the uptake and adoption of v6 among networks that would otherwise be agreeable to the idea; so, tell me, do you see that as being beneficial to the Internet community at large, or not? Note that I'm taking a strongly opposing stance for the sake of debate, the reality is a bit softer. Given a moderately good offer, we'd almost certainly adopt IPv6. Moderately good offer Like getting a prefix from your provider? Probably for free, without signing anything from ARIN. Have you talked to your provider? Or a certain well known tunnel broker will give you a /48 along w/ a free tunnel. http://nlayer.net/ipv6 route-views6.routeviews.org sh bgp ipv6 2001:0590::::::/32 BGP routing table entry for 2001:590::/32 Paths: (15 available, best #6, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 33437 6939 4436 2001:4810::1 from 2001:4810::1 (66.117.34.140) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Thu Apr 8 20:43:30 2010 ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 9 April 2010 18:36, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members. No they are not. According to https://www.arin.net/fees/overview.html: The Fee Schedule, is continually reviewed by ARIN's membership, and its Advisory Council, and Board of Trustees to identify ways in which ARIN can improve service to the community and to ensure that ARIN's operational needs are met Since the AC and Board of Trustees are elected by the Members, ultimately the members have control of fees. -- Michael Dillon
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 04/09/2010 09:56 AM, Dave Israel wrote: +Bonus Uncertainty: There is a lack of consensus on how IPv6 is to be deployed. For example, look at the ongoing debates on point to point network sizes and the /64 network boundary in general. There's also no tangible benefit to deploying IPv6 right now, and the tangible danger that your v6 deployment will just have to be redone because there's some flaw in the current v6 protocol or best practices that will be uncovered. This lack of consensus seems to most be associated with people who haven't deployed. those of us who have in some cases a decade ago, don't wonder very much... You can deploy point-to-points as /112s or /64s. if you do anything that isn't aligned on a byte boundary the brains will leak out of the ears of your engineers. If you don't believe me go ahead and try it. any subnet that has more than 2 devices on it is a /64 do anything else and you'll shoot yourself or someone else in the foot and probably sooner rather than later. +Bonus Doubt: Because we've been told that IPv4 will be dead in 2 years for the last 20 years, and that IPv6 will be deployed and a way of life in 2 years for the past 10, nobody really believes it anymore. There's been an ongoing chant of wolf for so long, many people won't believe it until things are much, much worse. I bet you're really good at predicting the stock market as well. you can be right and still go bankrupt. It is posisble to mistake postive but nearly random outcomes for skill or insight. I don't have to be right about needing an ipv6 deployment plan or even believe that ipv6 is deployable in it's present form (I happen to believe that, buts it's beside the point), because I need a business continuity plan for what happens around ipv4 exhaustion, I may have more than one, but I have a fiduciary duty to my company to not fly this particular plane into avoidable terrain. -Dave
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 04/09/2010 11:01 AM, William Herrin wrote: Fun movies notwithstanding, they generally issue a fine and work it through the civil courts. If you were doing something extraordinary, like jamming emergency communications, I expect they might well call the police for assistance. But those are police, not FCC agents, and they're acting as much on behalf of the folks whose signals you're jamming as they are on behalf of the FCC. You'll find that any of us (including ARIN) can summon police for assistance with assaults upon us. No, the FCC uses the US Marshalls service and the unites states attorney for this sort of activity, and it has statutory authority to do so... google up FCC raid if you want some background. Regards, Bill Herrin
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
some nut i procmail wrote No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making. confusion between the army and the fcc, who, even under cheney, did not use guns. randy
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 04/09/2010 07:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote: some nut i procmail wrote No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making. confusion between the army and the fcc, who, even under cheney, did not use guns. Gewaltmonopol des Staates... Failure to restrain the use of coercive violence is one (modern) definition of a failed state. randy
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:43 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote: BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator. No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. The FCC is a regulator. The California PUC is a regulator. ARIN is not a regulator. Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really. If the FCC finds that you have violated an FCC regulation, they are well and truly capable of bringing in the FBI and State or Local law enforcement to enforce their regulation. All three of those entities have guns. To do so, the FCC does not need a court order. ARIN cannot get the FBI, State, or Local law enforcement to enforce ARIN policy unless that policy is further backed by a court order. (Of course, at that point, they are acting under the force of a regulator in the form of the court more than under ARIN). Owen
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:34 AM, David Conrad wrote: Owen, On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making. Today, ARIN can remove whois data/reverse delegations as a way of enforcing 'regulations'. In the future, assuming RPKI is deployed, ARIN could, in theory, revoke the certification of a resource. While not a gun, these are means of coercion. Are you being literal when you say gun or figurative? Regards, -drc Nothing forces anyone who wants to route a prefix to follow the IANA or ARIN RPKI. It is followed by agreement of the community, if it gets followed at all. There is no regulation that would prevent someone from setting up an alternate RPKI certificate authority and issuing certificates for resources alternative to the RIR system. Try doing that with Callsigns and using them on the air. The FCC will either fine you or have you locked up in relatively short order. ARIN cannot. It cannot become a criminal offense subject to incarceration for you to violate ARIN policy. It is a purely civil matter. Actual regulators have the force of law. ARIN does not. Owen
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
One really good thing about spam was that, before it became a big problem, all Usenet / Internet discussions had a risk of devolving into libertarians vs. socialists flamewars, but that got replaced by *%^%* spammers, and eventually we got that nice little checklist as a way to quiet even those discussions. Let's put the regulators with guns discussion back into the pre-spam bin, and take this back to the making IPv6 actually work topics, of which there are plenty. (Because after all, the IPv6ian People's Front side is wrong, wrong, wrong! :-) -- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Mark Keymer wrote: I guess I am confused. Don't you have to pay for IP4 space? I know I am still fairly new to things. So maybe I just don't get it. Legacy IPv4 holders have no obligation to ARIN until they sign an RSA. Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: t...@lava.net
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 8, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote: On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Mark Keymer wrote: I guess I am confused. Don't you have to pay for IP4 space? I know I am still fairly new to things. So maybe I just don't get it. Legacy IPv4 holders have no obligation to ARIN until they sign an RSA. The obligation of legacy holders to ARIN (if any exists) and the obligation of ARIN to legacy holders (again, if any exists) is definitely an open question. One which, so far, ARIN has tried to be very gentle about, providing services to legacy holders without asking much (anything) in return. The Legacy RSA is a particularly generous version of the RSA which is intended to preserve most of the perceived benefits legacy holders currently receive while bringing their resources clearly under ARIN stewardship and imposing a few of the obligations which exist for all other resource holding members of the community. Owen
Content via IPv4/IPv6 (was: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space)
On Apr 7, 2010, at 5:49 PM, David Conrad wrote: On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:52 AM, William Pitcock wrote: And when there are no eyeballs to look at your IPv4 content because your average comcast user is on IPv6? The chances of this actually occurring in our lifetime are so small as to be meaningless. There are (according to published reports) between 1 and 2 billion people reachable on IPv4. No rational commercial Internet organization is going to block themselves off from that customer base. Folks like Comcast will probably add IPv6 support _in addition to_ IPv4. Eventually, they may even add a surcharge to encourage people to migrate off IPv4, but I'd imagine that's way down the line. By way of analogy, how long did pulse dialing continue to be supported in the phone system after DTMF was introduced? David - Your assessment matches mine, with one important difference: While I'm certain that almost any new broadband user from any provider will be able to reach IPv4-only sites (required in order to meet consumer expectations of This is Internet service), the ability to provide scalable high-performance, low-latency, low-jitter path to IPv4 resources is questionable. If you are a hosting/content provider, and you decide to only source the content via IPv4 connectivity going forward, the assumption you're making is that each and every ISP out is in charge of the quality of your service, even when the ISPs are internally doing engineering gymnastics with types of NAT to provide the connectivity. /John
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who have IP4 legacy space. Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6? Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6? Those with legacy IP4 space should have the equivalent IP6 space under the same terms. Or am I missing something? If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything? Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN; a legacy holder has usable space that cannot be reclaimed by ARIN and who is not paying anything to ARIN. The point here is that this situation does not encourage adoption of IPv6, where suddenly there'd be an annual fee and a contract for the space. ARIN is incidental, simply the RIR responsible in this case. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010, Joe Greco wrote: Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN; a legacy holder has usable space that cannot be reclaimed by ARIN and who is not paying anything to ARIN. The point here is that this situation does not encourage adoption of IPv6, where suddenly there'd be an annual fee and a contract for the space. ARIN is incidental, simply the RIR responsible in this case. Out of curiousity, I wonder whether the adoption of the internet in the 90s would have occured if IPv4 addresses were allocated, managed and controlled like they are today. Adrian
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Joe Greco wrote: It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space. We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it stands, there isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the form of the fees. ... JG I have to agree ... why such high charges when a similar service like GoDaddy provides (domain name registrar) is $15 a year? Is it REALLY X times the level of difficulty of registering a domain name, and thus the charges are justified? I will let someone who is very technical explain this to me. Because when ARIN gets into a legal p***ing match with someone (Kremen, etc), the cash to fight that comes from somewhere. When you're registering many millions of domain names, that's going to generate more revenue even at the lower price than what ARIN brings in. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote: On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who have IP4 legacy space. Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6? Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6? Those with legacy IP4 space should have the equivalent IP6 space under the same terms. Or am I missing something? If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything? Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN; a legacy holder has usable space that cannot be reclaimed by ARIN and who is not paying anything to ARIN. The point here is that this situation does not encourage adoption of IPv6, where suddenly there'd be an annual fee and a contract for the space. ARIN is incidental, simply the RIR responsible in this case. Umm, ARIN should provide a legacy holder with IPv6 space because the legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN? Legacy holders have been holding parts (possibly more than they would be able to justify from an RIR) of a finite global shared resource without sharing in the costs associated, and it's unfair to _them_ that they're not _entitled_ to do the same in the IPv6 space? Yep, makes perfect sense to me. If the rest of the world moving to IPv6 isn't enough encouragement for you, then bleh. I'm only interested in encouraging my employer and my providers. If you have no need to reach IPv6-only content or eyeballs, and you don't care about NAT or geolocation issues with centralized NAT or then sure, you have no encouragement or need to adopt IPv6. If you do need to reach IPv6-only content or eyeballs, then that is your encouragement to play in the same playing field as everyone else in your RIR-area.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:31 PM, John Payne j...@sackheads.org wrote: Those with legacy IP4 space should have the equivalent IP6 space under the same terms. Or am I missing something? If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything? Because ARIN is one of the guardians of Internet public policy and it is in the public's best interest for every individual private organization to spend the money and effort deploying IPv6 sooner rather than later, regardless of their individual relationships with ARIN. It's like government services for the elderly. Though today many are a net drain on society, they've mostly earned their place with past action and it's the decent and charitable thing to do for the folks who created the possibility of the lives we enjoy today. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] It's like government services for the elderly. Though today many are a net drain on society, they've mostly earned their place with past action and it's the decent and charitable thing to do for the folks who created the possibility of the lives we enjoy today. LOL! I'm sure most legacy orgs are living on a fixed income and just trying to get by; here I was not even feeling sorry for them that they can't have some free IPv6 allocations when they're just trying to survive. ARIN's fees are hardly unreasonable, they need to stop crying and join the rest of us that haven't had to make their businesses work without the luxury of a free handout.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote: On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who have IP4 legacy space. Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6? Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6? Those with legacy IP4 space should have the equivalent IP6 space under the same terms. Or am I missing something? If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything? Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN; a legacy holder has usable space that cannot be reclaimed by ARIN and who is not paying anything to ARIN. The point here is that this situation does not encourage adoption of IPv6, where suddenly there'd be an annual fee and a contract for the space. ARIN is incidental, simply the RIR responsible in this case. Umm, ARIN should provide a legacy holder with IPv6 space because the legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN? No. Legacy holders have little incentive to implement IPv6 because they have their v4 resources; this is a partial impediment to forward progress in the implementation of v6. If the Internet community really wanted to motivate transition to v6, it would make reasonable sense to allocate space to all interested v4 stakeholders at rates and preferably on terms similar to what those stakeholders currently have. This is independent of any particular RIR; the only reason ARIN might be involved is that ARIN is currently vaguely responsible for those legacy delegations, and is therefore the logically responsible entity for such a policy. ICANN could make the decision for all I care. Legacy holders have been holding parts (possibly more than they would be able to justify from an RIR) of a finite global shared resource without sharing in the costs associated, and it's unfair to _them_ that they're not _entitled_ to do the same in the IPv6 space? When ARIN's costs are largely legal costs to go enforcing v4 policy and a bureaucracy to go through all the policy and paperwork? The finiteness of the resource is irrelevant; it does not cost ARIN any more or less to do its task in the v4 arena. There is a cost to the global Internet for v4 depletion, yes, but ARIN is not paying any of us for forwarding table entries or forced use of NAT due to lack of space, so to imply that ARIN's expenses are in any way related to the finiteness of the resource is a laughable argument (you're 8 days late). It would be better to dismantle the current ARIN v6 framework and do a separate v6 RIR. In v6, there's an extremely limited need to go battling things in court, one could reduce expenses simply by giving the benefit of the doubt and avoiding stuff like Kremen entirely. In the old days, nearly anyone could request -and receive- a Class C or even Class B with very little more than some handwaving. The main reason to tighten that up was depletion; with IPv6, it isn't clear that the allocation function needs to be any more complex than what used to exist, especially for organizations already holding v4 resources. So, my challenges to you: 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 numbering resources, 2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR. Yep, makes perfect sense to me. If the rest of the world moving to IPv6 isn't enough encouragement for you, then bleh. So far, the rest of the world ISN'T moving to IPv6. A small percentage is, and it's almost entirely dual-stack anyways. I'm only interested in encouraging my employer and my providers. If you have no need to reach IPv6-only content or eyeballs, and you don't care about NAT or geolocation issues with centralized NAT or then sure, you have no encouragement or need to adopt IPv6. If you do need to reach IPv6-only content or eyeballs, then that is your encouragement to play in the same playing field as everyone else in your RIR-area. IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years to come. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
David Hubbard wrote (on Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:07:05AM -0400): From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] It's like government services for the elderly. Though today many are a net drain on society, they've mostly earned their place with past action and it's the decent and charitable thing to do for the folks who created the possibility of the lives we enjoy today. LOL! I'm sure most legacy orgs are living on a fixed income and just trying to get by; here I was not even feeling sorry for them that they can't have some free IPv6 allocations when they're just trying to survive. ARIN's fees are hardly unreasonable, they need to stop crying and join the rest of us that haven't had to make their businesses work without the luxury of a free handout. Is this just an argument about the money? Or, are there other issues (you agree that we can revoke your allocation at any time, for any reason, as we see fit)? -- _ Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM aw...@ziskind.us Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years to come. To be fair - IPv6 only content may not exactly be commonplace, but there are IPv6-only networks out there ... they just tend to consist of things rather than people. For the surfable internet, the chicken-and-egg scenario continues - as more services get reachable, it should create impetus for users - all dual stack (hopefully) ... until a threshold is crossed, when it becomes more feasible to be a general consumer who was IPv6-only (or really bad IPv4 alongside it). I also think for years and for many years are very relative terms :) ... /TJ
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Is this just an argument about the money? Or, are there other issues (you agree that we can revoke your allocation at any time, for any reason, as we see fit)? I'd be curious to know what the justification for such a policy would be under v6. Even if space were obtained under false pretenses, the cost of reclaiming it (in terms of lawsuits, etc) is essentially being shoveled onto the shoulders of others who have received allocations. It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
This assumes that small = /40 and large = /22. Still, with more realistic numbers: The small guy (/48) pays $0.019073486 per /64 The large guy (/24) pays $0.00032741808 per /64 FWIW. Owen On Apr 7, 2010, at 2:48 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:17:49 PDT, Gary E. Miller said: Then scroll down to the fees you can expect in 2013. Especially note how the small guys get hit much harder per IP. The small guys pay: $0.74505805969 per /64. ($1250 / (2^(64-40)) The big guys pay: $0.8185452 per /64. ($36000 / (2^(64-22)) The small guys are still paying less than 1/100th of a penny per /64. Assuming your salary plus overhead is $40/hour, each *second* of your time is worth more than the cost of 150 /64s. Oh, the inhumanity.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:54 AM, TJ wrote: IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years to come. To be fair - IPv6 only content may not exactly be commonplace, but there are IPv6-only networks out there ... they just tend to consist of things rather than people. For the surfable internet, the chicken-and-egg scenario continues - as more services get reachable, it should create impetus for users - all dual stack (hopefully) ... until a threshold is crossed, when it becomes more feasible to be a general consumer who was IPv6-only (or really bad IPv4 alongside it). I also think for years and for many years are very relative terms :) ... /TJ I think that the creation of consumers with IPv6-only or really bad IPv4 along side it will result sooner than any threshold of IPv6-ready content is reached. I think this will be the result of not having IPv4 addresses to give those consumers rather than the result of IPv6 deployment. Owen
RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
-Original Message- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net] It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap. For fairly liberally see: For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51 You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies, you get to choose which one). In another post you asked essentially why does ARIN charge so much? ARIN doesn't just maintain a notebook of address assignments. There are HA servers for Whois, IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA, research in things like SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6. You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy, but if you look at current proposals (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/) you'll see three that are IPv6-specific, and most of the others cover both IPv4 and IPv6. So ARIN will continue to maintain the mailing lists, and hold public policy meetings (with remote participation, so anyone can participate), and facilitate elections so you can throw the bums out if you don't like how we do things. We don't really know how much IPv6 will cost ARIN. If there were no more debate about allocation policies, and nobody else had any interest in us (politically or litigiously), and technology were fairly static, then we might just do periodic tech refreshes and be fine. I imagine all of those things will continue for a while, though, and ARIN will need to be financially solvent through the transition. Your ARIN fee does not cover me posting here. That's gratis, and worth it. Lee
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:54:21AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:54 AM, TJ wrote: IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years to come. To be fair - IPv6 only content may not exactly be commonplace, but there are IPv6-only networks out there ... they just tend to consist of things rather than people. For the surfable internet, the chicken-and-egg scenario continues - as more services get reachable, it should create impetus for users - all dual stack (hopefully) ... until a threshold is crossed, when it becomes more feasible to be a general consumer who was IPv6-only (or really bad IPv4 alongside it). I also think for years and for many years are very relative terms :) ... /TJ I think that the creation of consumers with IPv6-only or really bad IPv4 along side it will result sooner than any threshold of IPv6-ready content is reached. I think this will be the result of not having IPv4 addresses to give those consumers rather than the result of IPv6 deployment. Owen on the other side of the pond, the Euros are grappling with a desire to get actual utilization of assigned numbers into something above single digits. They are shooting for 80% utilization of all assets before assigning any additional numbers. this problem has been around for a -very- long time, predating the RIRs by a couple of decades. the gist is, virtually -every- allocation/delegation exceeds the actual demand - sometimes by many orders of magnitude. in the IPv4 space, it was common to have a min allocation size of a /20 ... or 4,096 addresses ... and yet this amnt of space was allocated to someone who only needed to address 3 servers... say six total out of a pool of four thousand ninty six. Thats a huge amnt of wasted space. If our wise and pragmatic leaders (drc, jc, et.al.) are correct, then IPv4 will be around for a very long time. What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the existant IPv4 pool? --bill
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 07 Apr 2010 16:17, Gary E. Miller wrote: On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: If you are an end-user type organization, the fee is only $100/year for all your resources, IPv4 and IPv6 included. Is that really what you would call significant? As always, the devil is in the deetails. From: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers The proper URL for the below quote is https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#legacy_fee. The annual fee will be $100 USD until 2013, at which time ARIN's Board of Trustees may choose to raise the fee. Note that the LRSA specifies that the fee increase cannot be more than $25/yr. Then scroll down to the fees you can expect in 2013. Especially note how the small guys get hit much harder per IP. This is the section at https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers. That section applies only to _allocations_, which are what ISPs get. The maintenance fee for _assignments_, which is what end users orgs get, has always been $100/yr. No waiver is necessary, and AFAIK the BoT has made never made any noises about increasing the assignment maintenance fee. And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation maintenance fee table, would that really be significant in the grand scheme of things? S -- Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 07 Apr 2010 18:40, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote: I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is *always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being unregulated to regulated, whatever that means. ARIN is not a regulator. The jump is from not paying for services that you have no contract for to paying for services that you do have a contract for. I would think multiple times before making that jump. Hence my suggestion to set up a separate organization to request IPv6 space, and thus not 'endanger' whatever I had before. Signing an RSA to get new space does not _in any way_ endanger or otherwise affect legacy resources. Putting legacy resources under LRSA (or RSA, if you wished) is a completely separate action and is, for now at least, completely optional. You do not need to set up a separate organization; all that does is waste your time and ARIN's. S -- Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Hello Lee , On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Lee Howard wrote: -Original Message- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net] It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap. For fairly liberally see: For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51 You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies, you get to choose which one). In another post you asked essentially why does ARIN charge so much? ARIN doesn't just maintain a notebook of address assignments. There are HA servers for Whois, IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA, research in things like SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6. You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy, but if you look at current proposals (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/) you'll see three that are IPv6-specific, and most of the others cover both IPv4 and IPv6. So ARIN will continue to maintain the mailing lists, and hold public policy meetings (with remote participation, so anyone can participate), and facilitate elections so you can throw the bums out if you don't like how we do things. We don't really know how much IPv6 will cost ARIN. If there were no more debate about allocation policies, and nobody else had any interest in us (politically or litigiously), and technology were fairly static, then we might just do periodic tech refreshes and be fine. I imagine all of those things will continue for a while, though, and ARIN will need to be financially solvent through the transition. Your ARIN fee does not cover me posting here. That's gratis, and worth it. Lee Thank you for posting those URL's I find a completely different interpretation to the prose there . Quote 6.5.8. Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations 6.5.8.1. Criteria To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must: 1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered by any current ARIN RSA, or be a qualifying Community Network as defined in Section 2.8, with assignment criteria defined in section 6.5.9. /Quote Note the 'd section above . I as a Legacy holder of netname baby-dragons HAVE to have a Signed RSA with Airn or I am NOT , by definition , Qualified . I find the present lRSA an indecent attempt to undermine the present Legacy ipv4 holders view of the rights presented them at the time of their Assignments or Allocations . If I could find my OLD Ultrix Tarball or Dump tapes from that era , and they are still readable , I might just be able to present the conversations I had at that time with InterNIC while acquiring that Legacy Space . Might someone else have a Document or some other Recorded conversation ? Twyl , JimL ps: Back to haunting mode . -- +--+ | James W. Laferriere | SystemTechniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkSystem Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux | | bab...@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP | +--+
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Hello Stephen , On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Stephen Sprunk wrote: On 07 Apr 2010 16:17, Gary E. Miller wrote: On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: If you are an end-user type organization, the fee is only $100/year for all your resources, IPv4 and IPv6 included. Is that really what you would call significant? As always, the devil is in the deetails. From: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers The proper URL for the below quote is https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#legacy_fee. The annual fee will be $100 USD until 2013, at which time ARIN's Board of Trustees may choose to raise the fee. Note that the LRSA specifies that the fee increase cannot be more than $25/yr. Then scroll down to the fees you can expect in 2013. Especially note how the small guys get hit much harder per IP. This is the section at https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers. That section applies only to _allocations_, which are what ISPs get. The maintenance fee for _assignments_, which is what end users orgs get, has always been $100/yr. No waiver is necessary, and AFAIK the BoT has made never made any noises about increasing the assignment maintenance fee. And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation maintenance fee table, would that really be significant in the grand scheme of things? S Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't make enough to cover that '.' . Sorry this is getting to be a too frequent line of out of eveyones mouth does not cover the facts for those who don't have the $ resources to break past this line of thinking to be able to forge ahead with plans to expand . Twyl , JimL -- +--+ | James W. Laferriere | SystemTechniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkSystem Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux | | bab...@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP | +--+
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 08/04/10 17:17 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: in the IPv4 space, it was common to have a min allocation size of a /20 ... or 4,096 addresses ... and yet this amnt of space was allocated to someone who only needed to address 3 servers... say six total out of a pool of four thousand ninty six. Granted, that may have been the case many years ago. However, this was not our experience when we obtained addresses, and the ARIN rules as I understand them would not allow such an allocation today. Thats a huge amnt of wasted space. If our wise and pragmatic leaders (drc, jc, et.al.) are correct, then IPv4 will be around for a very long time. What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the existant IPv4 pool? I believe your question is based on an outdated assumption. -- Dan White
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 8, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote: Hello Lee , On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Lee Howard wrote: -Original Message- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net] It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap. For fairly liberally see: For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51 You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies, you get to choose which one). In another post you asked essentially why does ARIN charge so much? ARIN doesn't just maintain a notebook of address assignments. There are HA servers for Whois, IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA, research in things like SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6. You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy, but if you look at current proposals (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/) you'll see three that are IPv6-specific, and most of the others cover both IPv4 and IPv6. So ARIN will continue to maintain the mailing lists, and hold public policy meetings (with remote participation, so anyone can participate), and facilitate elections so you can throw the bums out if you don't like how we do things. We don't really know how much IPv6 will cost ARIN. If there were no more debate about allocation policies, and nobody else had any interest in us (politically or litigiously), and technology were fairly static, then we might just do periodic tech refreshes and be fine. I imagine all of those things will continue for a while, though, and ARIN will need to be financially solvent through the transition. Your ARIN fee does not cover me posting here. That's gratis, and worth it. Lee Thank you for posting those URL's I find a completely different interpretation to the prose there . Quote 6.5.8. Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations 6.5.8.1. Criteria To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must: 1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered by any current ARIN RSA, or be a qualifying Community Network as defined in Section 2.8, with assignment criteria defined in section 6.5.9. /Quote Note the 'd section above . I as a Legacy holder of netname baby-dragons HAVE to have a Signed RSA with Airn or I am NOT , by definition , Qualified . You must meet 1 (not be an IPv6 LIR) You must meet one of the criteria in 2. Any ONE of: + Qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation under current ARIN policy OR demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must... OR be a qualifying Community Network as defined in section 2.8... I find the present lRSA an indecent attempt to undermine the present Legacy ipv4 holders view of the rights presented them at the time of their Assignments or Allocations . If I could find my OLD Ultrix Tarball or Dump tapes from that era , and they are still readable , I might just be able to present the conversations I had at that time with InterNIC while acquiring that Legacy Space . Might someone else have a Document or some other Recorded conversation ? What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA? Would it be equally onerous if ARIN simply stopped providing RDNS for you? Owen Twyl , JimL ps: Back to haunting mode . -- +--+ | James W. Laferriere | SystemTechniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkSystem Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux | | bab...@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP | +--+
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 12:50:26PM -0500, Dan White wrote: On 08/04/10 17:17 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: in the IPv4 space, it was common to have a min allocation size of a /20 ... or 4,096 addresses ... and yet this amnt of space was allocated to someone who only needed to address 3 servers... say six total out of a pool of four thousand ninty six. Granted, that may have been the case many years ago. However, this was not our experience when we obtained addresses, and the ARIN rules as I understand them would not allow such an allocation today. i picked a fairly recent example - the min allocation size has fluctuated over time. still it is not the case that most folks will get -exactly- what they need - they will - in nearly every case - get more address space than they need - due to the min allocation rules Thats a huge amnt of wasted space. If our wise and pragmatic leaders (drc, jc, et.al.) are correct, then IPv4 will be around for a very long time. What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the existant IPv4 pool? I believe your question is based on an outdated assumption. and that outdated assumption is? Dan White --bill
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 04/08/2010 11:00 AM, Joe Greco wrote: Is this just an argument about the money? Or, are there other issues (you agree that we can revoke your allocation at any time, for any reason, as we see fit)? I'd be curious to know what the justification for such a policy would be under v6. Even if space were obtained under false pretenses, the cost of reclaiming it (in terms of lawsuits, etc) is essentially being shoveled onto the shoulders of others who have received allocations. As I understand it ARIN does not like to reclaim space forcibly for this very reason. It's costly and they'd much rather resolve matters amicably and allow people to keep their resources. It's true that anyone that does accept terms to their IP allocations opens the possibility up, but recall that ARIN has a open and public policy making process. If they are going to change something and begin demanding IPs back from certain holders, if you are attentive to the process you should have plenty of opportunity to a) find out, and b) make your displeasure very clear. If you are a member, paying your dues, you also have the right to vote for those people who make the final decisions. But more to the point, how often do you hear that ARIN has decided to come to any IPv4 holder and just take back their allocation without cause? It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap. This is the current policy, even with respect to IPv4 to a large degree, at least for ARIN. As long as you can establish a fairly evident need for portable address space and can give them a vague plan for allocating it over time, they'll give you want you want, as long as you can pay the appropriate (and I feel quite reasonable) annual fees. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 08 Apr 2010 12:42, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote: Hello Lee , On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Lee Howard wrote: -Original Message- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net] It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap. For fairly liberally see: For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51 You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies, you get to choose which one). Thank you for posting those URL's I find a completely different interpretation to the prose there . Quote 6.5.8. Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations 6.5.8.1. Criteria To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must: 1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered by any current ARIN RSA, or be a qualifying Community Network as defined in Section 2.8, with assignment criteria defined in section 6.5.9. /Quote Note the 'd section above . I as a Legacy holder of netname baby-dragons HAVE to have a Signed RSA with Airn or I am NOT , by definition , Qualified . The section you quoted is the second of the three-part or statement. Unfortunately, recent policy changes have made a mess of that text, so I'll offer an edited version that has the same meaning but is much clearer: 6.5.8.1. Criteria To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must: 1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. one (or more) of the following: 1. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or 2. demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered by any current ARIN RSA, or 3. be a qualifying Community Network as defined in Section 2.8, with assignment criteria defined in section 6.5.9. IOW, even if you don't qualify under (b)(2) because you haven't signed an LRSA for your legacy space, you can still qualify under (b)(1) or (b)(3). Now, let's look at how one qualifies for (b)(1): 4.3.2. Minimum assignment 4.3.2.1 Single Connection The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-users is a /20. If assignments smaller than /20 are needed, end-users should contact their upstream provider. 4.3.2.2 Multihomed Connection For end-users who demonstrate an intent to announce the requested space in a multihomed fashion, the minimum block of IP address space assigned is a /22. If assignments smaller than a /22 are needed, multihomed end-users should contact their upstream providers. When prefixes are assigned which are longer than /20, they will be from a block reserved for that purpose. 4.3.3. Utilization rate Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. The basic criteria that must be met are: * A 25% immediate utilization rate, and * A 50% utilization rate within one year. A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on utilization guidelines. So, if you are multi-homed, you would need a 25-50% utilization of a /22, or 256-512 hosts; if you are single-homed, you would need a 25-50% utilization of a /20, or 1024-2048 hosts. That is an extremely low bar for any org to automatically qualify for a IPv6 /48 (and a slot in every DFZ router). I find the present lRSA an indecent attempt to undermine the present Legacy ipv4 holders view of the rights presented them at the time of their Assignments or Allocations . If I could find my OLD Ultrix Tarball or Dump tapes from that era , and they are still readable , I might just be able to present the conversations I had at that time with InterNIC while acquiring that Legacy Space . Might someone else have a Document or some other Recorded conversation ? If you have any documents or recordings that show ARIN has _any_ existing contractual obligations to you regarding your legacy space, either directly or as legal successor of some other organization, please present it. I'm sure ARIN's legal counsel would be quite interested, but AFAIK no legacy holder has _ever_ been able to do so. Until such time as someone proves otherwise, we must
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere bab...@baby-dragons.com wrote: And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation maintenance fee table, would that really be significant in the grand scheme of things? S Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't make enough to cover that Jim, Not much sympathy for folks crying the blues about the cost of an address assignment that they're going to turn around and announce into the DFZ... http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:17 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the existant IPv4 pool? Bill, ARIN has implemented a structure to facilitate IPv4 address transfers should an open market come to exist. Between an address market and the ever more creative use of NAT, it should be possible for IPv4 addressing to continue after free pool depletion as a zero-sum game. Exactly how long is a matter of debate with speculation ranging from months to decades. On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA? Owen, ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled throughout. Would it be equally onerous if ARIN simply stopped providing RDNS for you? Probably not. SMTP is the only major service any more that cares. But that's immaterial; ending RDNS for legacy registrants has been an empty threat from the day the notion was first hatched. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
-Original Message- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net] It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap. For fairly liberally see: For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51 You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies, you get to choose which one). In another post you asked essentially why does ARIN charge so much? ARIN doesn't just maintain a notebook of address assignments. There are HA servers for Whois, Yeah, real expensive... IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA, Ditto... research in things like SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6. None of which a RIR really /needs/ to do, of course. You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy, No, I argue there *could* be much less to argue about in IPv6 policy. but if you look at current proposals (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/) you'll see three that are IPv6-specific, and most of the others cover both IPv4 and IPv6. So ARIN will continue to maintain the mailing lists, and hold public policy meetings (with remote participation, so anyone can participate), and facilitate elections so you can throw the bums out if you don't like how we do things. None of which really addresses the point I made; that's the sound of a bureaucracy perpetuating itself. We don't really know how much IPv6 will cost ARIN. If there were no more debate about allocation policies, and nobody else had any interest in us (politically or litigiously), and technology were fairly static, then we might just do periodic tech refreshes and be fine. I imagine all of those things will continue for a while, though, and ARIN will need to be financially solvent through the transition. The point I was making is that after the transition, the justification for ARIN is one of maintaining the status quo and perpetuating itself. My question was, what purpose is served by that? With IPv6 designed the way it is, is there a realistic chance of running out of IPv6 even if some questionable delegations are made? What's the purpose of having the complex legal agreements? Handing out numbers without much fuss worked okay in the early days of IPv4, before it became clear that there would be eventual depletion. IPv6 was designed to avoid the depletion scenario, and with that in mind, is there a good reason that a much smaller RIRv6 model wouldn't work? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
This is a pretty boring topic. It's been argued many times over. I think the more interesting discussion is: - Where is ARIN and the RIR's headed? - What will ARIN look like 10 years from now? Mission creep seems to be pervasive in all organizations. ICANN with a headcount of over 100 and a budget exceeding 60MM fulfills a core function that used to be performed by what? 2.5 full-time persons? Is this the fate that awaits ARIN? The main justification for ARIN's size, budget - its existence, even - is that ARIN shepherds a limited set of resources. I find it interesting then, that a number of the pro-IPV6 folk seem to be saying just the opposite when it comes to IPV6. If they're not saying it outright, then the subtext of their argument is that IPV6 is so large, we'll never exhaust it. (Go ahead and give that customer with one computer a chunk of address space that is 2^32 larger than the entire existing IPV4 address space - we'll never miss it.) Well, if that's true; if IPV6 means that address space is no longer a scarce - limited, even - resource, why would there even be an ARIN? Why not collapse all the RIR's into a website that functions more as a title registry than as a justification/vetting organization? After all, IPV6 space is inexhaustible - right. So what if some idiot wants to grab 50 allocations... We'll never miss it. Joe Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications j...@via.net 650-207-0372 cell 650-213-1302 office 650-969-2124 fax PS: If we want to keep the size of the routing tables down, why isn't ARIN charging MORE for end-user assignments. A lot more, like the same or even more than what allocations cost.
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote: With IPv6 designed the way it is, is there a realistic chance of running out of IPv6 even if some questionable delegations are made? Joe, You're aware that RIPE has already made some /19 and /20 IPv6 allocations? Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out of IPv6 quickly. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 04/08/2010 10:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote: Legacy holders have been holding parts (possibly more than they would be able to justify from an RIR) of a finite global shared resource without sharing in the costs associated, and it's unfair to _them_ that they're not _entitled_ to do the same in the IPv6 space? When ARIN's costs are largely legal costs to go enforcing v4 policy and a bureaucracy to go through all the policy and paperwork? The finiteness of the resource is irrelevant; it does not cost ARIN any more or less to do its task in the v4 arena. There is a cost to the global Internet for v4 depletion, yes, but ARIN is not paying any of us for forwarding table entries or forced use of NAT due to lack of space, so to imply that ARIN's expenses are in any way related to the finiteness of the resource is a laughable argument (you're 8 days late). It would be better to dismantle the current ARIN v6 framework and do a separate v6 RIR. In v6, there's an extremely limited need to go battling things in court, one could reduce expenses simply by giving the benefit of the doubt and avoiding stuff like Kremen entirely. In the old days, nearly anyone could request -and receive- a Class C or even Class B with very little more than some handwaving. The main reason to tighten that up was depletion; with IPv6, it isn't clear that the allocation function needs to be any more complex than what used to exist, especially for organizations already holding v4 resources. So, my challenges to you: 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 numbering resources, 2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR. Just because the benefit of being cautious isn't clear doesn't mean we should simply throw caution to the wind entirely and go back to the old ways. It seems clear to many now that a lot of the legacy allocations, /8's in particular were issued in a way that has left IPv4 inefficiently allocated and with lack of any agreements by the resource holders to have any responsibility to do anything about it. If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of access to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly we have to form these organizations again, and institute new allocation policies for new allocations, but again lack any recourse for all those people that greedily ate up as much space as they could. I think there's a continued need to keep an organization in charge of accounting for the space to whom we as resource holders are accountable and whom is also accountable to us. Later on, when we realize we've gone wrong somewhere (and it will happen) and need to make changes to policy, there is a process by which we can do it where all the parties involved already have an established relationship. I am not going to argue your second request. It'd certainly be cheaper to do things your way. I just think it's a terrible idea. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:22:29PM -0400, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere bab...@baby-dragons.com wrote: And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation maintenance fee table, would that really be significant in the grand scheme of things? S Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't make enough to cover that Jim, Not much sympathy for folks crying the blues about the cost of an address assignment that they're going to turn around and announce into the DFZ... assuming facts not in evidence there ... but ok. On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:17 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the existant IPv4 pool? Bill, ARIN has implemented a structure to facilitate IPv4 address transfers should an open market come to exist. Between an address market and the ever more creative use of NAT, it should be possible for IPv4 addressing to continue after free pool depletion as a zero-sum game. Exactly how long is a matter of debate with speculation ranging from months to decades. cool. I've used the transfer policy with limited success. I guess the interesting thing in your statement (and I suspect a trip to the ARIN NRPM is in order) is should an open market come into existence ... how do you see that happening? but more to my point. If I'm using a single /24 out of my /20 (using an antiquated example) - would there be: ) interest in the other 15 /24s ) how would that interest be expressed (so I would know about it) ) complaints from the folks running w/o default about the new prefixes on offer? ** ** remembering that as far as the routing system is concerned, a /32 is a /32 On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA? Owen, ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled throughout. Would it be equally onerous if ARIN simply stopped providing RDNS for you? Probably not. SMTP is the only major service any more that cares. But that's immaterial; ending RDNS for legacy registrants has been an empty threat from the day the notion was first hatched. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:29:25AM -0700, joe mcguckin wrote: This is a pretty boring topic. It's been argued many times over. I think the more interesting discussion is: - Where is ARIN and the RIR's headed? - What will ARIN look like 10 years from now? yuppers. this topic -could- engender those discussions Mission creep seems to be pervasive in all organizations. ICANN with a headcount of over 100 and a budget exceeding 60MM fulfills a core function that used to be performed by what? 2.5 full-time persons? the IANA budget was just north of 750K/yr and btwn 2 and 4.5 persons. the ICANN bduget, when new TLDs are approved in the next 18 months - is expected to be somewhat north of 500MM/year Is this the fate that awaits ARIN? nope - well i hope not. After all, IPV6 space is inexhaustible - right. So what if some idiot wants to grab 50 allocations... its not. If we want to keep the size of the routing tables down, why isn't ARIN charging MORE for end-user assignments. A lot more, like the same or even more than what allocations cost. 'cause ARIN isn't the routing police - yet. wait for widespread adoption of rPKI... :) --bill
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money. On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Kevin Stange ke...@steadfast.net wrote: On 04/08/2010 10:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote: Legacy holders have been holding parts (possibly more than they would be able to justify from an RIR) of a finite global shared resource without sharing in the costs associated, and it's unfair to _them_ that they're not _entitled_ to do the same in the IPv6 space? When ARIN's costs are largely legal costs to go enforcing v4 policy and a bureaucracy to go through all the policy and paperwork? The finiteness of the resource is irrelevant; it does not cost ARIN any more or less to do its task in the v4 arena. There is a cost to the global Internet for v4 depletion, yes, but ARIN is not paying any of us for forwarding table entries or forced use of NAT due to lack of space, so to imply that ARIN's expenses are in any way related to the finiteness of the resource is a laughable argument (you're 8 days late). It would be better to dismantle the current ARIN v6 framework and do a separate v6 RIR. In v6, there's an extremely limited need to go battling things in court, one could reduce expenses simply by giving the benefit of the doubt and avoiding stuff like Kremen entirely. In the old days, nearly anyone could request -and receive- a Class C or even Class B with very little more than some handwaving. The main reason to tighten that up was depletion; with IPv6, it isn't clear that the allocation function needs to be any more complex than what used to exist, especially for organizations already holding v4 resources. So, my challenges to you: 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 numbering resources, 2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR. Just because the benefit of being cautious isn't clear doesn't mean we should simply throw caution to the wind entirely and go back to the old ways. It seems clear to many now that a lot of the legacy allocations, /8's in particular were issued in a way that has left IPv4 inefficiently allocated and with lack of any agreements by the resource holders to have any responsibility to do anything about it. If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of access to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly we have to form these organizations again, and institute new allocation policies for new allocations, but again lack any recourse for all those people that greedily ate up as much space as they could. I think there's a continued need to keep an organization in charge of accounting for the space to whom we as resource holders are accountable and whom is also accountable to us. Later on, when we realize we've gone wrong somewhere (and it will happen) and need to make changes to policy, there is a process by which we can do it where all the parties involved already have an established relationship. I am not going to argue your second request. It'd certainly be cheaper to do things your way. I just think it's a terrible idea. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867
Running out of IPv6 (Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space)
[changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content] On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote: With IPv6 designed the way it is, is there a realistic chance of running out of IPv6 even if some questionable delegations are made? Joe, You're aware that RIPE has already made some /19 and /20 IPv6 allocations? Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out of IPv6 quickly. Ever noticed that fat /13 for a certain military network in the ARIN region!? At least those /19 are justifyiable under the HD rules (XX million customers times a /48 and voila). A /13 though, very hard to justify... Also, please note that the current policies and waste (ahem) is only for 2000::/3, if that runs out we can take another 7 looks at how we should distribute address space without waste. Indeed the folks now getting IPv6 will have an IPv4 A-class advantage, but heck, if 2000::/3 is full, we finally can say we properly deployed IPv6 straight all around to the rest of the universe... Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 04/08/2010 01:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote: If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money. I'd hate to see that routing table. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Well, yeah, but that is a separate problem. Anyone for an announced-prefix-tax ? :) On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Kevin Stange ke...@steadfast.net wrote: On 04/08/2010 01:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote: If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money. I'd hate to see that routing table. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA? Owen, ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled throughout. Let's clarify here, however... Nothing guarantees you that ARIN can not do so if you don't have any contract with them. There is a common fiction that ARIN somehow grants right to use or otherwise gives/transfers/leases/etc. Addresses. That is not the case. ARIN provides a REGISTRATION service which merely guarantees that neither ARIN, nor any of the other cooperating participants in the IANA/RIR system will register the same numbers to someone else. So, that clause really states that ARIN reserves the right to invalidate your registration if ARIN feels you are no longer playing by the rules under which that registration was granted. ARIN doesn't have the power to directly prevent you from using the address space. They merely have the ability to let the world know that it is no longer registered to you, and, the ability to register it to someone else. To the best of my knowledge, there is no legal reason ARIN could not do this with any legacy registration which is not the subject of an RSA or LRSA, as I do not believe there is a legal obligation for ARIN to provide services to customers without a service contract. I'm not saying that ARIN will or should do such a thing, but, signing the LRSA is about the only way to insure that ARIN can't do such a thing to your legacy resources. The perceived rights of legacy holders are dubious at best. The LRSA does not take any actual rights away, merely enumerates a very small number of the limitations that also exist without a contract. Would it be equally onerous if ARIN simply stopped providing RDNS for you? Probably not. SMTP is the only major service any more that cares. But that's immaterial; ending RDNS for legacy registrants has been an empty threat from the day the notion was first hatched. Sure... I'm not advocating any such thing, either. The point being that while I think continuing to provide a free ride to IPv4 legacy holders is a good idea, there is no reason to continue that concept into the IPv6 world. I would like to see fee waivers for IPv6 initial assignment fees to legacy holders who sign the LRSA. I think that would be a good incentive for both the LRSA and IPv6 adoption. However, when I suggested that, there was some negative feedback from the community and I don't think the idea achieved clear consensus for or against. Owen
Re: Running out of IPv6 (Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space)
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:47, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote: [changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content] On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote: Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out of IPv6 quickly. The bottom line (IMHO) is that IPv6 is NOT infinite and propagating that myth will lead to waste. That being said, the IPv6 space is MUCH larger than IPv4. Somewhere between 16 million and 17 billion times larger based on current standards by my math[1]. Ever noticed that fat /13 for a certain military network in the ARIN region!? At least those /19 are justifyiable under the HD rules (XX million customers times a /48 and voila). A /13 though, very hard to justify... Not every customer needs a /48. In fact most probably don't. Also, please note that the current policies and waste (ahem) is only for 2000::/3, if that runs out we can take another 7 looks at how we should distribute address space without waste. Indeed the folks now getting IPv6 will have an IPv4 A-class advantage, but heck, if 2000::/3 is full, we finally can say we properly deployed IPv6 straight all around to the rest of the universe... Very good point and likely our saving grace in v6. The space is big enough that we will get a sanity check after (possibly) burning through the first /3 much faster than expected. ~Chris [1] - How much IPv6 is there? http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/ Greets, Jeroen -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:37 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:22:29PM -0400, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't make enough to cover that Not much sympathy for folks crying the blues about the cost of an address assignment that they're going to turn around and announce into the DFZ... assuming facts not in evidence there ... but ok. Hi Bill, If you're not planning to announce a route into the DFZ, we have RFC1918 or IPv6's ULA, address pools that are 100% and completely free for your use. ARIN has implemented a structure to facilitate IPv4 address transfers should an open market come to exist. Between an address market and the ever more creative use of NAT, it should be possible for IPv4 addressing to continue after free pool depletion as a zero-sum game. Exactly how long is a matter of debate with speculation ranging from months to decades. cool. I've used the transfer policy with limited success. I guess the interesting thing in your statement (and I suspect a trip to the ARIN NRPM is in order) is should an open market come into existence ... how do you see that happening? eBay? Given a demand and a supply, markets don't traditionally need a whole lot of help to come into being. but more to my point. If I'm using a single /24 out of my /20 (using an antiquated example) - would there be: ) interest in the other 15 /24s ) how would that interest be expressed (so I would know about it) ) complaints from the folks running w/o default about the new prefixes on offer? ** The basic plan (ARIN NRPM section 8.3) is: 1. Request and be approved for addresses from ARIN (even though ARIN won't have any addresses to give). 2. Find (pay) someone who has ARIN-managed addresses that they're willing to give up in the quantity you want. 3. Current holder releases addresses to ARIN in the requested (paid) quantity with instructions to provide those addresses to the already-authorized recipient (in #1). 4. ARIN updates the registration accordingly. On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel dhet...@gmail.com wrote: If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money. 137 billion prefixes would crush the DFZ routers of course, but as we all know the routing table isn't ARIN's lookout. :-P On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled throughout. Let's clarify here, however... Nothing guarantees you that ARIN can not do so if you don't have any contract with them. Owen, Your uneducated YANAL opinion about the governing law in the matter is duly noted and filed beside my own differing viewpoint. Until and unless ARIN attempts to forcibly reclaim a block of legacy addresses from its legacy holder, the question remains theoretical. The point being that while I think continuing to provide a free ride to IPv4 legacy holders is a good idea, there is no reason to continue that concept into the IPv6 world. The reason is that it could be structured to increase the rate of IPv6 deployment, to the benefit of all. To what degree that would achieve value for cost is debatable, but it certainly qualifies as more than no reason. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
Just because the benefit of being cautious isn't clear doesn't mean we should simply throw caution to the wind entirely and go back to the old ways. It seems clear to many now that a lot of the legacy allocations, /8's in particular were issued in a way that has left IPv4 inefficiently allocated and with lack of any agreements by the resource holders to have any responsibility to do anything about it. There's a lot of space between throwing caution to the wind and the current set of agreements. The current v6 agreements read a lot like the v4 agreements. If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of access to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly we have to form these organizations again, and institute new allocation policies for new allocations, but again lack any recourse for all those people that greedily ate up as much space as they could. Then guard against _that_, which is a real problem. I think there's a continued need to keep an organization in charge of accounting for the space to whom we as resource holders are accountable and whom is also accountable to us. Later on, when we realize we've gone wrong somewhere (and it will happen) and need to make changes to policy, there is a process by which we can do it where all the parties involved already have an established relationship. That sets off my radar detector a bit. If you're justifying the need for current policies with that statement, I'd have to disagree... the desire to potentially make changes in the future is not itself a compelling reason to have strongly worded agreements. Even in v4land, we've actually determined that one of the few relatively serious reasons we'd like to reclaim space (depletion) is probably impractical. With that in mind, claims that there needs to be thorough accounting kind of comes off like trust us, we're in charge, we know what we need but we can't really explain it aside from invoking the boogeyman. On one hand? You absolutely don't want to go around delegating /20's to organizations that clearly have no need. On the other hand, you don't need heavyhanded agreements to avoid that in the first place. This is kind of off-topic for NANOG, so I'll stick with what I've said unless someone has a really good point. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Running out of IPv6 (Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space)
On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: [changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content] On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote: You're aware that RIPE has already made some /19 and /20 IPv6 allocations? Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out of IPv6 quickly. Ever noticed that fat /13 for a certain military network in the ARIN region!? I think that was William's point. At least those /19 are justifyiable under the HD rules (XX million customers times a /48 and voila). A /13 though, very hard to justify... Both are questionable, it's just a matter of degree. Also, please note that the current policies and waste (ahem) is only for 2000::/3, if that runs out we can take another 7 looks at how we should distribute address space without waste. Unfortunately, since address allocation policy is subject to the whims of the public policy definition process there is a risk (e.g., the proposal to allocate /24s of IPv6 if you knew the magic word or the proposals out of the ITU to allocate country blocks (/8s have been mentioned)). There is no finite resource that people can't waste. Regards, -drc
