There are basically three "Products" that ARIN provides. These are IPv4
addresses, IPv6 addresses and ASN's Prior to the general expansion of
ASN's to 32 bit, there were 2 of the three products that had no real free
pool. After that change, ASN's and IPv6 have no real shortage, a
condition that is identical to the days of the famous notebook we were
talking about earlier.
As to ASN's and IPv6, there is no genie to put back, as just like the old
days, there is still an enviroment of show a need, and receive without any
need like in IPv4 to lease or buy addresses, then come to ARIN. There is
still a large free pool of both that can be drawn from, unlike IPv4.
The difference of ASN's and IPv6, versus IPv4 is the shortage of numbers
caused by exhaust. When issuing IPv6 or ASN's, ARIN is still applying the
same idea as the notebook, listing each resource in numeric order and
recording each assignment/allocation, and making sure that there is no
duplication.
I am without knowledge as to the exact amount of transactions regarding
each type of resource. I did ask during an earlier discussion, and was
told that very few holders of IPv6 resources have came back for more. I
also strongly suspect that those with more than one ASN is because of M&A
activity and keeping the original deployed number, rather than a desire to
have more than one ASN. Applying these principals, I am assuming that
there are actually very few transactions once the resources are provided.
On the other hand, anyone with a large amount of holdings of IPv4 hold
them in multiple blocks of addresses. Each transfer is at minimum often
involving splitting the block, leaving one portion for the original
holder, and the remainder registered to the transferee. These operations
clearly are the bulk of the ARIN transactions, and therefore should
reflect the bulk of the fees collected. This is why I would not be
opposed to increasing the transfer fees, to help control the increases in
other resources such as IPv6 and ASN's
Other operations such as enforcement are also more costly because of the
shortage of IPv4 addresses. There is more potential for cheating in IPv4
than in the other resources simply because of the shortage of addresses
I would like to see the cost of IPv4 resources be higher than IPv6 and
ASN's which have lower costs due to lower "churn".
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Albert,
Those idyllic days are gone with the free pool.
Trying to hearken back to them is ignoring current reality.
That genie won't go back in the bottle.
Also, strangely, I am leasing out IPv6 as well as IPv4.
Not sure why, the company I am leasing to has a much larger IPv6 block.
I wouldn't mind transfer costs accurately represented in ARIN transfer fee
charges.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 4:11 AM
To: Fernando Frediani <fhfredi...@gmail.com>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement
Using leases as justification for more addresses I believe is wrong.
I think that ARIN worked better when there was a free pool, and people received
from ARIN what they needed, and returned those addresses that were no longer
needed. That day has long passed in the IPv4 world.
Notice how much difference there is in the operation of ARIN in respect to
IPv4 resources, and compare that to 32 bit ASN's and IPv6.
This difference in behavior is caused by the shortage of IPv4 addresses.
As to the remaining items, ARIN operates much differently, because both ASN's
and IPv6 have a free pool. Because of this, there is no gaming the system, and
these pools work more like the original way that ARIN began.
Initial IPv6 amounts are generally large enough that most do not come back for
more, meaning less work for ARIN staff.
Note the absence of transfer options for IPv6, or any pressure to allow sales
and leasing of IPv6 addresses. Because IPv6 addresses can be obtained at any
justified level directly from ARIN, no one is going to try to promote sales and
leasing of IPv6 addresses, because there is a natural price cap, since they
always can be obtained directly from ARIN.
This, and the lack of IPv6 LRSA's means that we operate in IPv6 in a more
natural mode, where addresses are obtained as needed, and returned when they
are not. This is part of the reason that I like IPv6, because it is so much
easier to deal with. It is much the same mode that existed in
IPv4 before exhaust. It reminds me of a simpler time, where there is not that
Dog Eat Dog mode that seems to dominate IPv4 currently.
As predicted, we will likely drag this at least another 20 years before
IPv6 becomes the majority protocol, and the IPv4 market starts to collapse. I
recently learned that NCP and TCP were also run in a dual stack format before
NCP was turned off on 1/1/1983. I was originally misinformed that it was a hot
cut. The part we missed is that a shutoff date for IPv4 should have been set
long before IPv4 ran out, but this was never done, and I doubt that it would
ever happen now.
IPv6 and ASN's seem to take care of themselves. Most entities once they receive
their initial block of IPv6 and an ASN process very few transactions related to
those items. Very few have come back for a second byte of the IPv6 apple.
On the other hand, I believe that a large amount of the ARIN expenses and staff
time revolve around IPv4 and transfers. While the transfer fees help with
these expenses, I do not think that these fees cover all such costs. When we
get to the point that IPv6 is the main protocol, I believe that ARIN's Costs
will fall, since the staff spends so much time currently with things relating
to IPv4.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Fernando Frediani wrote:
On 22/09/2021 03:49, Noah wrote:
<clip>
So they choose to lease, and address holders are happy to monetize their
holdings while they appreciate in value.
By address holders you mean LIR. So what you are saying is that some
LIR out there who requested for IPv4 based on need from ARIN, are holding the
addresses which they no longer need artificially? So that they can lease to
small WISP?
So that the purpose for which those LIR obtained the addresses in the
first place?
Suppose the addresses those LIR are holding with no intension to use
them, were still under ARIN management, dont you think the new small WISP would
have better off being served by ARIN as new needs arise.?
If LIR dont pay ARIN lots of money, why not return the idle addresses to ARIN
so that those with genuine need can be served.
That's the whole point I have been saying about the absurd IP leasing is.
It is quiet logical these organizations to be better off served by
ARIN than a third party who probably doesn't even have justification to hold
those addresses anymore. So either transfer them to someone who justify them or
return them to ARIN so it can fullfil its mission by assigning directly to
this organization.
Fernando
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
