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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
$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
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
$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?
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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?
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 288 matches
Mail list logo
