RE: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:r...@seastrom.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:12 AM To: Randy Bush Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Randy Bush writes: > mtu clue is also useful. here on tokyo b-flets, and i would guess in > many other ppoe e

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Randy Bush writes: > mtu clue is also useful. here on tokyo b-flets, and i would guess in > many other ppoe environments, you need to tune or lose big-time. But not difficult to beneficially MiM: in pf: scrub in on gre0 max-mss 1400 scrub out on gre0 max-mss 1400 in cisco-land: ip tcp adjust

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

I can assure you that based on my own experiences in very large companies that I'd have few issues complying with this new requirement. I like the idea and honestly, ARIN is damned if they do (see this pretty inane thread) and damned if they don't (wait until RIR exhaustion 'day' comes and goes an

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:12:42PM +0100, Michael Dillon wrote: > > I think that many company officers will ask to see the results of an audit > before they sign this document, and they will want the audit to be performed > by qualified CPAs. Are your IPv4 records in good enough shape that an > ac

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

> A good web site to read a bout getting fast bulk data transfers is: > http://fasterdata.es.net indeed mtu clue is also useful. here on tokyo b-flets, and i would guess in many other ppoe environments, you need to tune or lose big-time. randy

RE: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

: Friday, April 24, 2009 13:39 To: Skywing Cc: Jo Rhett ; Joe Greco ; bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests > From: Skywing > Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:55:07 -0500 > > Of course, sftp and other ssh-based protocol

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

> From: Skywing > Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:55:07 -0500 > > Of course, sftp and other ssh-based protocols are *still* hamstrung to > a maximum of 32k data outstanding due to hardcoded SSH channel window > sizes by default for most people, unless you're patching up both your > clients and servers.

RE: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

even modest high-bitrate requirements over moderate-BDP links. - S -Original Message- From: Jo Rhett Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 23:27 To: Joe Greco Cc: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests On Apr 22, 2009, at 7:

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:05:26 +1200 > From: Perry Lorier > > > > > > > > Large data sets? So you are saying that 512-byte packets with no > > windowing work better? Bill, have you measured this? > > > > Time to download a 100mb file over HTTP and a 100mb interface: 20 > > seconds. > > Ti

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re"impacting revenue"]

On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Manish Karir wrote: Would there be interest in trying to organize a day long mini-nanog with the ietf in March 2010? The regular nanog mtg is scheduled for Feb 22 2010 so this would have to be an extra meeting. and would require all sorts of help and interest fro

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

> Actually, being a CTO of a company, I know that my CEO signs things ALL the > time based just on my say so. I don't see how signing a document for ARIN > would land them in court, further if he were to go to court, he'd simply say > that he relied on the opinions of his technical staff since he d

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:57:31AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:30 -0400, Chris Adams wrote: >>> SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. >> No they aren't. SSL will work just fine as

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Large data sets? So you are saying that 512-byte packets with no windowing work better? Bill, have you measured this? Time to download a 100mb file over HTTP and a 100mb interface: 20 seconds. Time to download a 100mb file over FTP and a 100mb interface: ~7 minutes. And yes, that was F

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 22, 2009, at 7:42 AM, Joe Greco wrote: While HTTP remains popular as a way to interact with humans, especially if you want to try to do redirects, acknowledge license agreements, etc., FTP is the file transfer protocol of choice for basic file transfer Speak for yourself. I haven't

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:50 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: FTP? Who uses FTP these days? Certainly not consumers. Even Cisco well, pretty much anyone who has large datasets to move around. that default 64k buffer in the openssl libs pretty much sucks rocks for

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote: Then they come back with a request for IPs for SSL certificates, which is a valid technical justification. BTDT. People will find a way to do the stupid thing they want to do. Most of the stupid people don't, actually. That's the funny

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote: Oh, you lucky, lucky person. We've got a couple of customers at the day job that constantly come back to us for more IP addresses for bandwidth accounting purposes for their colo machine(s). Attempts at education are like talking to a part

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

> Net-Admin: This IPv6 stuff is important, we should already be deploying >it full-tilt. > Manager:Some IPv6 testing should be reflected in next years budget. > > Director: I hear IPv6 is the future, but customers just aren't >demanding it. > VP Network: Humm, may

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Chris Grundemann wrote: "They" is YOU. ARIN policy is created by the community - "Your voice, your community." ... If you participated in the ARIN PDP (1)... Ok, so am I the only one who missed which policy proposal this was that generated the new requirement that an officer sign off on th

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Apologies for a somewhat latent response - I was attending an IPv6 Seminar (of which ARIN was a sponsor) the last two days and am just getting to nanog mail today. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 15:42, Shane Ronan wrote: > I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but these responses seem like a big > cop

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF,was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re"impacting revenue"]

Would there be interest in trying to organize a day long mini-nanog with the ietf in March 2010? The regular nanog mtg is scheduled for Feb 22 2010 so this would have to be an extra meeting. and would require all sorts of help and interest from the ietf to put together. Perhaps the NANOG SC ca

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On 23 apr 2009, at 14:17, Adrian Chadd wrote: Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should represent at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group. That would be how change is brought about in a participative organisation, no? :) Why don't you start by simpling

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On 24/04/2009, at 12:14 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nathan Ward wrote: After trying to participate on mailing lists for about 2 or 3 years, it's pretty hard to get anything done without going to meetings. Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date,

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 08:17:07PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote: > > > Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not > > Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years > > If the people with operational experience

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote: > Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not > Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years If the people with operational experience stop going, you can't blame the group for being full of vendors. Methink

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nathan Ward wrote: After trying to participate on mailing lists for about 2 or 3 years, it's pretty hard to get anything done without going to meetings. Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date, but not so good for getting things changed. That's

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF, it's hard to undo that. That's an understatement. Also don't expect too much from IETF participation: if doing X is going to make a vendor more money than doing Y, they're going to favor X,

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

>> It appears that ARIN wants to raise the IP addressing space issue to >> the CxO >> level -- if it was interested in honesty, ARIN would have required a >> notarized statement by the person submitting the request. > > No. Those are two entirely different problems. > > A notary signs only that t

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On 23 apr 2009, at 12:23, Nathan Ward wrote: Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date, but not so good for getting things changed. That's what I've found, anyway. Might not always be true. Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF, it's

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On 23/04/2009, at 8:37 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 22 apr 2009, at 23:39, Jack Bates wrote: Serious input and participation means work and money. You can participate on mailinglists without attending meetings, so in that sense it doesn't have to cost money. As an operator, it woul

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On 22 apr 2009, at 23:39, Jack Bates wrote: What really would help is more people who are not on NANOG pushing vendors to support IPv6. Even my Juniper SE has mentioned that I'm one of 2 people he's had seriously pushing for IPv6 features. Other vendors have just blown me off all together (

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Jack Bates wrote: > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it >> should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your >> broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the >> IPv6 will be routed without requi

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On 23/04/2009, at 3:33 AM, Joe Abley wrote: However, I take some small issue with the assertion that FTP is easier to script than HTTP. The only way I have ever found it easy to script FTP (outside of writing dedicated expect scripts to drive clients, which really seems like cheating) is to

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On 23/04/2009, at 8:12 AM, Jack Bates wrote: Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the IPv6 will be

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: What would have helped here is more push in this direction. What really would help is more people who are not on NANOG pushing vendors to support IPv6. Even my Juniper SE has mentioned that I'm one of 2 people he's had seriously pushing for IPv6 features. Other ve

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Ron Bonica is leading a BOF during NANOG46 in Philly which may be of interest - BOF: IETF OPS & MGMT Area, Ron Bonica, Juniper Networks Presentation Date: June 14, 2009, 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM Abstract: The IETF OPS & MGMT Area documents management technologies and operational best common practices. T

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On 22 apr 2009, at 22:12, Jack Bates wrote: I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY published? That's certainly one way to loo

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user.

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

At 18:39 -0500 4/20/09, Joe Greco wrote: Knowing that blatant lying about IP space justifications has been an ongoing game in the community, ARIN has decided to "do something" about it. I don't draw that direct conclusion. Although it may sound like "we know you've been lying so we want to h

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On 22 Apr 2009, at 10:42, Joe Greco wrote: While HTTP remains popular as a way to interact with humans, especially if you want to try to do redirects, acknowledge license agreements, etc., FTP is the file transfer protocol of choice for basic file transfer, and can be trivially automated,

NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On 22 apr 2009, at 0:19, Owen DeLong wrote: B) Again, while it might be the IETF's "job", shouldn't the group trusted with the management of the IP space at least have a public opinion about these solutions are designed. Ensuring that they are designed is such a way to guarantee maximum ado

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 09:42 -0500, Joe Greco wrote: > FTP is the file transfer protocol of choice for basic file transfer, > [...] > Does anyone know what "FTP" stands for, anyways? I've always > wondered... File Transfer Protocol. I know - it's a tricky one that, don't feel bad :-) Regards, K.

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:17:38AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > > > On 21-Apr-2009, at 21:50, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > >On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > > >> > > > > > >>FTP? Who uses FTP these days? Certainly not consumers. Even Cisco > > >>pu

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 02:27:14PM +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:17:38AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > > > On 21-Apr-2009, at 21:50, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > >On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > > >> > > > > >

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:17:38AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 21-Apr-2009, at 21:50, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > >On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > >> > > > >>FTP? Who uses FTP these days? Certainly not consumers. Even Cisco > >>pushes almost everyt

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On 21-Apr-2009, at 21:50, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: FTP? Who uses FTP these days? Certainly not consumers. Even Cisco pushes almost everything via a webserver. (they still have ftp servers, they just don't put muc

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Ricky Beam wrote: On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:22:08 -0400, Ken A wrote: Also, monthly bandwidth monitoring/shaping/capping are more easily done using one ip per hosted domain... That's why the infrastructure is "virtualized" and you monitor at or behind the firewall(s) and/or load balancer(s) --

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:57:31 -0400, Matthew Palmer wrote: FTP? Who uses FTP these days? ... A depressingly large number of people use FTP. Attempts to move them onto something less insane are fruitless. Even when the tools support it (and plenty of "web design" tools don't appear to do a

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Rich Kulawiec wrote: > If the effort that will go into administering this went instead > into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being > used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit. I use comcast space for abusive operations. I believe they charge me $40 a month for the priv

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:30 -0400, Chris Adams wrote: > >SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. > > No they aren't. SSL will work just fine as a name-based virtual host with > any modern webserver / browser. (

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:19 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Well... ARIN is structured with a bottom-up community driven policy process. That has served us well for many years, and, I think that changing it would be a mistake. However, in this case, that means that the following people are specifically

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Once upon a time, Ricky Beam said: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:30 -0400, Chris Adams wrote: > >SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. > > No they aren't. SSL will work just fine as a name-based virtual host with > any modern webserver / browser. (Server Name Indication (

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Not the annual report, the actual books and records, including details on individual expenses. On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Kevin Loch wrote: Shane Ronan wrote: C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be interesting for the group to see where all our money is going,

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

You really should go ask a CEO if he'd sign off on something that he doesn't understand. Really. I can assure you that your impression is wrong, and most CEOs don't prefer to be standing in court defending their actions. Actually, being a CTO of a company, I know that my CEO signs things

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:30 -0400, Chris Adams wrote: >> SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. > > No they aren't. SSL will work just fine as a name-based virtual host > with any modern webserver / browser. (Se

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On 22/04/2009, at 7:25 AM, Jo Rhett wrote: On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: Mr Curran, given the response you've seen from the group, and in particular the argument that most CEO's or Officers of firms will simply sign off on what they IT staff tells them (as they have litt

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:22:08 -0400, Ken A wrote: Also, monthly bandwidth monitoring/shaping/capping are more easily done using one ip per hosted domain... That's why the infrastructure is "virtualized" and you monitor at or behind the firewall(s) and/or load balancer(s) -- where it *is* one

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:30 -0400, Chris Adams wrote: SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. No they aren't. SSL will work just fine as a name-based virtual host with any modern webserver / browser. (Server Name Indication (SNI) [RFC3546, sec 3.1]) FTP? Who uses

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 04:41:46PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote: > > On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Ken A wrote: >> Chris Adams wrote: >>> Once upon a time, Jo Rhett said: Since virtual web hosting has no technical justification for IP space, I refuse it. >>> SSL and FTP are techincal justifi

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 02:51:11PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote: > On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:58 PM, David Hubbard wrote: >> Raising the price won't help; there's already a huge amount >> of wasted address space by web hosts selling IP addresses >> to customers who need them solely for 'seo purposes' rather >

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: Some "customers" have wised up and when providing IP justification, they don't mention SEO anymore. However, I've seen several requests in the past couple weeks from customers/prospective customers wanting /24's or larger subnets (or they're not

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Jo Rhett wrote: It's a common request we see. We refuse it, and point them to the Google documentation that shows that unique IPs don't help or hurt their SEO standings. Some "customers" have wised up and when providing IP justification, they don't mention SEO anymore.

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Ken A wrote: Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Jo Rhett said: Since virtual web hosting has no technical justification for IP space, I refuse it. SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. Right. Also, monthly bandwidth monitoring/shapin

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Jo Rhett said: Since virtual web hosting has no technical justification for IP space, I refuse it. SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. Absolutely. But SEO on pure virtual sites is not ;-) -- Jo Rh

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Jo Rhett said: Since virtual web hosting has no technical justification for IP space, I refuse it. SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. Right. Also, monthly bandwidth monitoring/shaping/capping are more easily done using one i

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Jo Rhett wrote: Let's translate that: There is no consensus in the community who defines goals and objectives for ARIN to do Something. And there is no consensus because the process and/or community has not been capable of the task. Design-by-committee is a problem we are all familiar with.

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Once upon a time, Jo Rhett said: > Since > virtual web hosting has no technical justification for IP space, I > refuse it. SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but m

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but these responses seem like a big cop out to me. A) If ARIN is so concerned about the potential depletion of v4 resources, they should be taking a more proactive roll in proposing potential solutions

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

12+M divided by the 3300 "members" is just shy of $4,000 per customer. Small nit... Not all customers are members. Owen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

I suspect at more than a few companies the "Net Admin" can get a 10 minute slot on the CTO's calendarin 2042. In the wonderful game of pass it up the food chain it probably looks something like this: Net-Admin: This IPv6 stuff is important, we should already be deploying it full

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Kevin Loch wrote: > Shane Ronan wrote: > > C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be >> interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since it's >> obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Perhaps it is bein

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since it's obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Pe

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: Mr Curran, given the response you've seen from the group, and in particular the argument that most CEO's or Officers of firms will simply sign off on what they IT staff tells them (as they have little to no understanding of the situation), Yo

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Shane Ronan wrote: C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since it's obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Perhaps it is being spent in a reasonable manner, and the fees are where they n

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:58 PM, David Hubbard wrote: Raising the price won't help; there's already a huge amount of wasted address space by web hosts selling IP addresses to customers who need them solely for 'seo purposes' rather It's a common request we see. We refuse it, and point them to the

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote: There's a big difference between signing that the books are right (it matters!) and filling out paperwork for ARIN. The first is one of his primary duties as an officer of the company, the second won't even make his secretary's "to do

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but these responses seem like a big cop out to me. A) If ARIN is so concerned about the potential depletion of v4 resources, they should be taking a more proactive roll in proposing potential solutions and start conversation rather then saying that the

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: Thanks for the reply John, but PPML has not worked to-date. Too many legacy interests willing and able to veto any such attempt at a sustainable netblock return policy. Not sure how us folks, of a similar mind as it were, would be able to c

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

> Oddly enough, someone proposed something very much along these lines > at a couple of RIR meetings (see "IPv4 Soft Landing"), and in fact > used the 'driving into a brick wall' analogy. Many of the folks who > commented on that policy proposal felt it was inappropriate for RIRs > to dict

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: B) Technical standards for NAT & NAPT are the IETF's job, not ARIN's. Too true, but no reason ARIN could not be taking a more active role. This is after all, in ARIN's best interest, not the IETF's. There is work happening in the behave

RE: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

From: Frank Bulk - iName.com [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] > > It appears that ARIN wants to raise the IP addressing space > issue to the CxO level -- if it was interested in honesty, > ARIN would have required a notarized statement by the person > submitting the request. If ARIN really wants to g

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:39:47 -0400, Joe Greco wrote: Knowing that blatant lying about IP space justifications has been an ongoing game in the community, ARIN has decided to "do something" about it. ... That game has been going on for over a decade. I've seen it first hand as far back as '96

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: John Curran wrote: A) ARIN's not ignoring unneeded legacy allocations, but can't take action without the Internet community first making some policy on what action should be taken... Please get together with folks of similar mind either via P

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Roger Marquis wrote: Not sure what could be cited as presidence either, except perhaps the transition from feudal landowning aristocracies a few centuries back. Except they weren't pushing to transition people to LANDv6, just fighting to determine who held control of the

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

David Conrad wrote: The term "legacy" here is relevant. Under what agreement would an RIR evaluate an allocation that occurred prior to the existence of the RIR? And when the folks who received legacy space and don't like this upstart RIR nosing around in their business, the legal fees that th

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

John Curran wrote: A) ARIN's not ignoring unneeded legacy allocations, but can't take action without the Internet community first making some policy on what action should be taken... Please get together with folks of similar mind either via PPML or via Public Policy meeting at the the Open P

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:01 AM, John Curran wrote: C) We've routinely lowered fees since inception, not raised them. Well I'm not sure what your definitely of "routinely" is, but we've not seen in decrease in our fees any time in the past 8 ye

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: Rich Kulawiec wrote: If the effort that will go into administering this went instead into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit. But they can't do that without impacting revenue

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: Rich Kulawiec wrote: If the effort that will go into administering this went instead into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit. But they can't do that without impacting reve

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: If the effort that will go into administering this went instead into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit. Report such cases to ARIN:

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Oddly enough, someone proposed something very much along these lines at a couple of RIR meetings (see "IPv4 Soft Landing"), and in fact used the 'driving into a brick wall' analogy. Many of the folks who commented on that policy proposal felt it was inappropriate for RIRs to dictate busine

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 21, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote: It appears that ARIN wants to raise the IP addressing space issue to the CxO level -- if it was interested in honesty, ARIN would have required a notarized statement by the person submitti

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Rich Kulawiec wrote: If the effort that will go into administering this went instead into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit. But they can't do that without impacting revenue. In order to continue charging fees that are who

RE: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

:jrh...@netconsonance.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:25 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests On Apr 20, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > So the "officer," most likely not being a technical person, is going > to > contac

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

If the effort that will go into administering this went instead into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit. ---Rsk

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Same reason urgent action networks work for amnesty International. Because when someone thinks other people are watching, truth is revealed. Kind Regards, Carl On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > Forwarded message: > > Subject: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests > > F

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 20, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Joe Greco wrote: So the "officer," most likely not being a technical person, is going to contact ... probably the same people who made the request, ask them if they need the space. Right? And why would the answer be any different, now? This is exactly identi

RE: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

yle-Croft [mailto:m...@internode.com.au] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 9:56 PM To: Joe Greco Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests ARIN should ask companies to demonstrate: - demonstration of routing of an IPv6 range/using IPv6 address space - demonstration o

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

I don't believe I saw anywhere that these attestations were being made under penalty of perjury or any other method of civil punishment. Do they have to notarized? What are the real benefits here, other then putting more people to work at ARIN and increase the workload of those who really d

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

ARIN should ask companies to demonstrate: - demonstration of routing of an IPv6 range/using IPv6 address space - demonstration of services being offered over IPv6 - a plan to migrate customers to IPv6 - automatic allocation of IPv6 range instead of IPv4 for those who can't do so. ie. No more

  1   2   >