Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Seth Mattinen]

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

[Gordon Cook]

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_docman&task=cat_view&gid=37&Itemid=61
  
 Cook's Collaborative Edge Blog http://gordoncook.net/wp/   Subscription info: 
http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=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

[David Conrad]

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

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:23 AM, John Curran  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: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Joe Greco]

> 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

[John Curran]

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

[Joe Greco]

> 
> 
> 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:
> >> 
> >> RFC2050November, 1996
> >> RFC1466May, 1993
> >> RFC1174August, 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. 

Certainly legacy holders have some responsibilities.

> 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.

And what, exactly, does that mean?  Aside from things that were
documented at the time we received our allocation, what sort of
"responsibilities" do we have?

We agree

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[William Herrin]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:08 PM, John Curran  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: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[David Conrad]

John,

On Apr 11, 2010, at 1:08 PM, John Curran 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,

Not surprising.

> but for sake of clarity - 
> when do you think this "no restriction" period actually occurred?

Hard for me to tell, since my interaction with Jon in terms of obtaining IP 
addresses was limited to getting 202/7 back in '93 or so.  If I remember 
correctly, Jon simply said addresses from that block should be used for 
assignments in the AP region in keeping with RFC 1466.  He did not impose any 
sort of restrictions on "transfers" (why bother since all you needed to do was 
ask for addresses) nor were there any formal agreements.  I suppose the 
limitation of allocation to the AP region could be considered a restriction, 
but that's probably a bit pedantic.

However, pragmatically speaking, both of our views are irrelevant.  My 
impression is that folks who have legacy space believe that it is their asset.  
As I said in response to Owen, I suspect a legal decision will be needed to 
definitively resolve this question.

Regards,
-drc

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[John Curran]

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. 

David - 
 
 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

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

  

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[David Conrad]

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

[Owen DeLong]

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

[David Conrad]

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

[Owen DeLong]

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 registrant

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Joe Greco]

> > 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.

> > 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. 

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.

> > 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.

That's only one possible interpretation.  A court might well reach a more
general conclusion that ARIN is the successor to InterNIC, and has agreed 
to honor legacy registrations.  That'd be inconvenient for ARIN, but is a 
very reasonable possible outcome.

> > 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 ac

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[JC Dill]

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

[Brandon Ross]

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

[Bill Stewart]

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

[Owen DeLong]

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

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:43 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong  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

[Joel Jaeggli]

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

[Randy Bush]

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

[Joel Jaeggli]

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

[Joel Jaeggli]

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

[N. Yaakov Ziskind]

Michael Dillon wrote (on Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:31:43PM +0100):
> On 9 April 2010 18:36, David Conrad  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 :
> 
>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

Uh, that's NOT the same thing.

Or, do you believe you have control of the taxes you pay? *I* sure
don't.

-- 
_
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

[Michael Dillon]

On 9 April 2010 18:36, David Conrad  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 :

   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

[Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks)]

 

-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

[Warren Bailey]

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

[Curtis Maurand]

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

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 09 Apr 2010 12:43, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong  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

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:50 PM, 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?

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: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Brian Raaen]

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

[Stephen Sprunk]

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

[John Curran]

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

[Brandon Ross]

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

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong  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: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[David Conrad]

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

[David Conrad]

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

[David Conrad]

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 DeLong]

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

[Owen DeLong]

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.  AT&T, 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.  AT&T, 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

[Owen DeLong]

> 
> 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

[Dave Israel]

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

[Owen DeLong]

> 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

[Owen DeLong]

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

[Owen DeLong]

>> 
> 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

[Owen DeLong]

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

[Curtis Maurand]

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

[todd glassey]

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
> 

<>

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[John Curran]

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.  AT&T, 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

[Curtis Maurand]

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.  AT&T, 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

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[John Curran]

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

[John Curran]

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

[Joe Greco]

[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

[John Curran]

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

[Randy Bush]

> 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

[TJ]

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"  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

[Martin Barry]

$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

[Cian Brennan]

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

[Martin Barry]

$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

[Joe Greco]

> > 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

[Joe Greco]

> > 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

[Randy Bush]

> 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

[Randy Bush]

> 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

[Joel Jaeggli]

On 04/08/2010 06:00 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> 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.

The growth of the internet since 1992 has occurred under conditions of
gradually increasing scarcity.that scarcity is so normal that people
don't really think about what it's like not to have it.

> 
> 
> 
> Adrian
> 
> 

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[John Curran]

On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:29 PM, joe mcguckin wrote:
> I think the more interesting discussion is:  
>  - Where is ARIN and the RIR's headed? 
>  - What will ARIN look like 10 years from now?


Joe - 
 
  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:
  - If you have the community to elect AC and Board members, then
  you have a membership/election function (which implies specific 
  costs in the organization).  
  - If you have the community set policy via an open policy process, 
  then you have a policy process, policy proposal administration, 
  and public policy meetings (which again implies more costs to 
  the organization, roughly proportional to the policy activity).  
  - If you participate in the global policy process (coordinating 
  with other RIR's, ICANN, and now the ITU), then there is yet 
  another set of costs to be covered by the organization.

  I'm committed to keeping the costs reasonable and proper for 
  the mission, but its the community that needs to think about
  that mission and what they want ARIN (and the RIR community 
  as a whole) to be doing 10+ years from now...  Input can be
  provided in many forms, including on the mailing lists, 
  in-person and remotely in the Public Policy Meeting, via the
  various consultations that ARIN does with respect to services
  and fees, and directly via running for the ARIN Board in the 
  annual election process.  

Thank you for raising this topic!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Matthew Kaufman]

Owen DeLong wrote:

You are mistaken.

If you only need one /64, you cannot possibly be an IPv6 ISP.

As such, you would only pay the end-user price of $1250 one-time and $100/year.

That $100/year also covers your IPv4 space and your autonomous system number.

  

Only $100/year (and an RSA) more than you're paying now.

Or, infinitely more, for those of us who think in percentages.

Matthew Kaufman

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[bmanning]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:05:09PM -0500, Dan White wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   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?
> 
> The assumption that ARIN allocations are based on anything other than 12-24
> month need (with only a few exceptions).

allocations are based on:

) current policy
) demonstrated need

always have (even pre-ARIN, pre-RIR) ... when the policy was "there is
a network and host split" then every qualified applicant got a /8.
and your point about getting "enough" for a 12-24 month need backs
up my assertion that you are allocated more than you need.

there is some "padding" for you to grow into.  which you may or may not
do. strict needs based allocation would give you -exactly- what you need
at the time of the request - sort of like a DHCP assignment no?

> If there are a significant number of sparse allocations of IPv4 blocks in
> ARIN, then that's a good indication that allocation rules need to be
> updated.

the tricky parts there are:

) how is utilization defined?
) how to accomodate historical and legacy delegations that had different
  assignment rules than are currently in effect.
) is it -worth- the cost to effectively manage a resource pool or are we
  willing to unilterally declare a "chernobyl Zone of Alienation" 
around 
  the IPv4 pool that we have, by our own unwillingness, agreed to 
consider
  "toxic" and too costly to manage...  and proceed to use the exact same
  policies/procedures on the IPv6 pool - which despite zelots claims to
  the contrary - is finite and we stand a very real chance of screwing 
it
  up too.   I'd like to see the community work toward a real 80% 
utiliztion
  of the IPv4 pool (since I know for a fact taht there is lots of sparse
  allocation out there...)

Just saying.

> -- 
> Dan White

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Owen DeLong]

You are mistaken.

If you only need one /64, you cannot possibly be an IPv6 ISP.

As such, you would only pay the end-user price of $1250 one-time and $100/year.

That $100/year also covers your IPv4 space and your autonomous system number.

Owen

On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Yo Owen!
> 
> 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.
> 
> RGDS
> GARY
> - ---
> Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701
>   g...@rellim.com  Tel:+1(541)382-8588
> 
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFLvmQxBmnRqz71OvMRAr2dAKC4BrqBI94hvvyKEa+mLh4oML7yVwCfScFR
> 60z+bDBMHOvTRQwQJPW6SCo=
> =9zBu
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Gary E. Miller]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Yo Owen!

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.

RGDS
GARY
- ---
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701
g...@rellim.com  Tel:+1(541)382-8588

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLvmQxBmnRqz71OvMRAr2dAKC4BrqBI94hvvyKEa+mLh4oML7yVwCfScFR
60z+bDBMHOvTRQwQJPW6SCo=
=9zBu
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Dan White]

On 08/04/10 18:00 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

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


We did, on our first allocation. We were well over 90% utilization and when
we asked our upstream ISP for more addresses, we were informed they would
not provide us a 17th /24. We scrambled to get our documentation together
for ARIN. We had to show efficient use of those 16 /24s, and we had to
document our immediate (12-24 month) need for addresses to get them.


>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?


The assumption that ARIN allocations are based on anything other than 12-24
month need (with only a few exceptions).

If there are a significant number of sparse allocations of IPv4 blocks in
ARIN, then that's a good indication that allocation rules need to be
updated.

--
Dan White

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[John Payne]

On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:



*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.


Well, if you join ARIN you could propose policy to get you IPv6  
space for free, so you can continue to not support the registration  
services you implicitly rely on.

Just sayin'.


Clarification required here:

You do not have to join ARIN to propose policy.

Fees are not policy.

You do not have to join ARIN to propose changes to fees through the  
ACSP.


You do have to join ARIN to vote in AC and BoT elections.


Thanks Owen.. I was taking member driven literally :)

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:26 PM, John Payne  wrote:
> b) ARIN or RIRv6 has costs that are covered by registration fees.
>  How does having a whole bunch of freeloaders save me money?

'Cause if you're clever about it, they're not freeloaders forever...
they only get to be freeloaders until, as you so succinctly put it,
their presence pushes you into the majority that finds it acceptable
to deploy IPv6-only servers.

What I might do, and I'm just talking here, but what I might do in
ARIN's shoes is preemptively allocate /32s or assign /48s to ARIN orgs
whose ASes currently announce only IPv4 prefixes. The deal is:
everybody gets em, no assignment fee or evaluation beyond the fact
that you're announcing IPv4 now, free for two years after which you
either sign the contract and start paying the annual, or you don't and
the address block is reclaimed by ARIN.

Gives me a $1250 incentive to deploy IPv6 now instead of waiting, and
costs you nothing now since I wouldn't have spent the $1250 now
anyway. Probably costs you nothing later too, because after two years
I'll be paying annuals that I might not otherwise have had to pay
-and- since my assignment was done in bulk, ARIN staff will never
spend the time (time=money) individually processing my initial
assignment.


>> Inducing behavior that ultimately reduces everybody's cost "serves the
>> public interest." That's what organizations like ARIN are for: serving
>> the public interest.
>
> But I don't agree that giving you a free ride reduces everyone's
>costs.  In fact, I think it increases everyone else's costs.

Fair enough. I won't begrudge you the choice. Just remember years from
now when you cough up the cash for that extra v4 address: you had
another option.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Owen DeLong]

> 
> 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?

Owen

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Michael Dillon]

> You're aware that RIPE has already made some /19 and /20 IPv6 allocations?

10 years ago ARIN rarely allocated less than a /19 or a /20 in IPv4. And we
are still breathing today.

> Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out
> of IPv6 quickly.

Fortunately, there haven't been any questionable IPv6 delegations
noticed anywhere yet.

--Michael Dillon

P.S. A block of /19 in IPv4 is the same percentage of the total IPV4
address space as a block of /19 in IPv6 is of the total IPv6 address space.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Owen DeLong]

> 
>> *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.
> 
> Well, if you join ARIN you could propose policy to get you IPv6 space for 
> free, so you can continue to not support the registration services you 
> implicitly rely on.
> Just sayin'.

Clarification required here:

You do not have to join ARIN to propose policy.

Fees are not policy.

You do not have to join ARIN to propose changes to fees through the ACSP.

You do have to join ARIN to vote in AC and BoT elections.

Owen

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Michael Dillon]

> 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.

> 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.

--Michael Dillon
P.S. When you send your proposal to ICANN, please post a notice
here on the NANOG list so that we can all go have a look at it.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[John Payne]

On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:14 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:51 PM, John Payne  wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:44 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
>>> I think you'll find that the guy deploying the IPv6-only client -or-
>>> server is going to be in the minority for a long time to come. But if
>>> you want to bet against me, more power to you.
>> 
>> I hope you're right, but you put up the scenario of me being unable to get a
>> v4 address. I suspect I won't be the first there, and I hope that by the
>> time that is an issue for me, I will be in the majority already :)
> 
> John,
> 
> You'll be able to get another v4 address. It'll cost you noticeably
> more than it does now, but you'll be able to afford it. Thing is, if
> you induce me and others to deploy IPv6 now, you may not have to get
> another v4 address then, nor pay for it. So if there's a way you can
> induce me to deploy IPv6 now that doesn't cost you any money now or
> later, well, that's ultimately money that stays in your pocket.

a) if I don't have to get an IPv4 address then Ill be standing up a v6 only 
server, by which time, again, I hope to be in the majority :)
b) ARIN or RIRv6 has costs that are covered by registration fees.  How does 
having a whole bunch of freeloaders save me money?  Doesn't it increase my 
share of the costs?  Doesn't giving you free IPv6 now continue my costs into 
perpetuity whereas just ignoring you may add some operational cost until you're 
either in an insignificant percentage or you give up and start playing by the 
same rules as everyone else?

> 
> Keeps money in my pocket too since I'll have the same problem, but
> what do you care about that? It's your money that matters, not mine.
> 
> Inducing behavior that ultimately reduces everybody's cost "serves the
> public interest." That's what organizations like ARIN are for: serving
> the public interest.

But I don't agree that giving you a free ride reduces everyone's costs.  In 
fact, I think it increases everyone else's costs.

This comes on top of my annual reading of the distribution of the US tax 
burden there are some parallels to be drawn in terms of fairness.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:51 PM, John Payne  wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:44 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
>> I think you'll find that the guy deploying the IPv6-only client -or-
>> server is going to be in the minority for a long time to come. But if
>> you want to bet against me, more power to you.
>
> I hope you're right, but you put up the scenario of me being unable to get a
> v4 address. I suspect I won't be the first there, and I hope that by the
> time that is an issue for me, I will be in the majority already :)

John,

You'll be able to get another v4 address. It'll cost you noticeably
more than it does now, but you'll be able to afford it. Thing is, if
you induce me and others to deploy IPv6 now, you may not have to get
another v4 address then, nor pay for it. So if there's a way you can
induce me to deploy IPv6 now that doesn't cost you any money now or
later, well, that's ultimately money that stays in your pocket.

Keeps money in my pocket too since I'll have the same problem, but
what do you care about that? It's your money that matters, not mine.

Inducing behavior that ultimately reduces everybody's cost "serves the
public interest." That's what organizations like ARIN are for: serving
the public interest.

Regards,
Bill


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: "Running out of IPv6" (Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space)

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 8, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:47, Jeroen Massar  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].
> 
Agreed

>> 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.
> 
Whether they need it or not, it is common allocation/assignment
practice. I agree that smaller (SOHO, for example) customers should
get a /56 by default and a /48 on request, but, this is by no means
a universal truth of current practice.

Owen

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[John Payne]

On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:44 PM, William Herrin  wrote:


On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM, John Payne  wrote:

On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Because when WE haven't deployed IPv6 yet and YOU have trouble  
finding

a free IPv4 address for your new server, it'll be YOUR problem too.


Sure... if I'm in the minority.  If/when I'm not, it's then more your
problem than mine :)


John,

I think you'll find that the guy deploying the IPv6-only client -or-
server is going to be in the minority for a long time to come. But if
you want to bet against me, more power to you.


I hope you're right, but you put up the scenario of me being unable to  
get a v4 address. I suspect I won't be the first there, and I hope  
that by the time that is an issue for me, I will be in the majority  
already :)

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM, John Payne  wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Because when WE haven't deployed IPv6 yet and YOU have trouble finding
>> a free IPv4 address for your new server, it'll be YOUR problem too.
>
> Sure... if I'm in the minority.  If/when I'm not, it's then more your
> problem than mine :)

John,

I think you'll find that the guy deploying the IPv6-only client -or-
server is going to be in the minority for a long time to come. But if
you want to bet against me, more power to you.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:01:55 EDT, William Herrin said:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, John Payne  wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Because when WE haven't deployed IPv6 yet and YOU have trouble finding
> a free IPv4 address for your new server, it'll be YOUR problem too.

No, because John will just deploy a IPv6-only server, and it will be *your*
support desk catching the "why can't I reach John's service" calls.

You *really* don't want to be the last guy to deploy IPv6 among your
competitors.




pgpY5jVzTucVq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Joe Greco]

> On 04/08/2010 02:17 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> >> If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of acces=
> s
> >> 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 thos=
> e
> >> people that "greedily" ate up as much space as they could.
> >=20
> > Then guard against _that_, which is a real problem.
> 
> That /is/ the RIRs' function now.  ARIN policy is not immutable.
> Proposals to change it are welcomed.  I see no reason that we have to
> throw ARIN out of this picture in order to solve your perceived problem
> of too much regulation and overhead.

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.

So when you run into expensive stuff, like litigation, the best course of
action is to avoid it unless you absolutely can't.

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.

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.

> >> 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 accountabl=
> e
> >> 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.
> >=20
> > That sets off my radar detector a bit.  If you're justifying the need=20
> > for current policies with that statement, I'd have to disagree...  the
> > desire to potentially make changes in the future is not itself a=20
> > compelling reason to have strongly worded agreements.  Even in v4land,
> > we've actually determined that one of the few relatively serious=20
> > reasons we'd like to reclaim space (depletion) is probably impractical.=
> 
> >=20
> > 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."
> 
> ARIN doesn't so simply say "trust us, we're in charge."  Every dealing
> I've ever had with the organization has encouraged me to participate in
> the policy making process in some regard.  Ideally policy should
> appropriately reflect how the regional users of IP resources feel things
> should be managed and hand down terms for allocation to match.
> 
> The intention is for the accountability to go in both directions, from
> resource holders to the RIR and from the RIR to the community.  If you
> don't think that's working for ARIN, I'm sure ARIN can be fixed.

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.

... 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

[John Payne]

On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Joe Greco wrote:

>> 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.

So don't.  If your business plan doesn't involve paying to adopt IPv6, don't 
adopt it.


> 
> 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.

If you have no motivation, don't jump.  You have enough IPv4 space to not worry 
about not being able to get more.  Don't create work for yourself that you 
don't need to.

> 
> 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.

Yep, and their ISP will be telling them how you suck because you haven't moved 
with the rest of the world to suppoorting IPv6 (whether or not that's true... 
same as whether or not their ISP sucks is true).


> *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.

Well, if you join ARIN you could propose policy to get you IPv6 space for free, 
so you can continue to not support the registration services you implicitly 
rely on.
Just sayin'.

> 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?


If you have content or eyeballs that are important to me, I will find a way of 
getting to you.  If you don't, I don't care.

> 
> 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.

If you gave me salad for free, I'd almost certainly eat healthier.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[John Payne]

On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, John Payne  wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Because when WE haven't deployed IPv6 yet and YOU have trouble finding
> a free IPv4 address for your new server, it'll be YOUR problem too.

Sure... if I'm in the minority.  If/when I'm not, it's then more your problem 
than mine :)

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Joe Greco]

> 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.

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.

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.

... 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

[Matthew Palmer]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> Well, yeah, but that is a separate problem.  Anyone for an
> announced-prefix-tax ? :)

Just add "announced prefixes" to the settlement charges, alongside bits
transferred...

- Matt

-- 
A friend is someone you can call to help you move. A best friend is someone
you can call to help you move a body.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Kevin Stange]

On 04/08/2010 02:17 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> 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.

That /is/ the RIRs' function now.  ARIN policy is not immutable.
Proposals to change it are welcomed.  I see no reason that we have to
throw ARIN out of this picture in order to solve your perceived problem
of too much regulation and overhead.

>> 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."

ARIN doesn't so simply say "trust us, we're in charge."  Every dealing
I've ever had with the organization has encouraged me to participate in
the policy making process in some regard.  Ideally policy should
appropriately reflect how the regional users of IP resources feel things
should be managed and hand down terms for allocation to match.

The intention is for the accountability to go in both directions, from
resource holders to the RIR and from the RIR to the community.  If you
don't think that's working for ARIN, I'm sure ARIN can be fixed.

-- 
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

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, John Payne  wrote:
> 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?

Because when WE haven't deployed IPv6 yet and YOU have trouble finding
a free IPv4 address for your new server, it'll be YOUR problem too.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[John Payne]

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?

Re: "Running out of IPv6" (Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space)

[David Conrad]

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

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Joe Greco]

> 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: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:37 PM,   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  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  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: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: "Running out of IPv6" (Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space)

[Chris Grundemann]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:47, Jeroen Massar  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

[Owen DeLong]

> 
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Owen DeLong  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: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Dorn Hetzel]

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  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

[Kevin Stange]

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

"Running out of IPv6" (Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space)

[Jeroen Massar]

[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  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

[Dorn Hetzel]

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  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
>
>