The initial connecting pirates must be unique and independent
from each other.
I think this part is even more important than making the number "3"
instead of "2".
Too much game playing is being done with this section, allowing
corporately related parties to obtain this space to connect thems
Actually in the phone number space, there are LARGE blocks of numbers that
cannot easily be returned because of legacy issues.
The legacy technology is pagers, which ironically I still use to alert me
to network outages by automatic means. Texting cannot be used to alert to
internet failures,
I speak in favor of this proposal.
Since address space has always been considered not to be property, and
ONLY for the use in active networks, leasing companies violate these
standards by holding addresses that are not in active use.
I agree that companies should not be able to hold or obtain
Honestly, the simple adoption of IPv6 in CPE provided by major ISP's, as
well as the already in place adoption of IPv6 in major operating systems,
along with the adding of records by many of the top destinations on
the internet has done more to drive traffic to travel via IPv6 than any
oth
Sorry for the typo, the block is 192.68.112.0/24. I am used to RFC1918
space, and that block number is NOT RFC1918 space. I typoed the netblock.
I am aware of Berea College, and know that they do not pay for this legacy
block. I did notice another block associated with them when I just did a
Is there any numbers of exactly:
How much space is legacy without an RSA/LRSA and
How much space of that number has had no contact/invalid contact?
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022, John Curran wrote:
On 14 Apr 2022, at 12:43 PM, Fernando Fr
I think some resource holders have avoided even signing the LRSA because
doing so gives them something "Free", and who does not like "Free".
I often wonder if those who do this are also the leaders in the avoid IPv6
movement, since IPv6 major adoption ends their free lunch.
Albert Erdmann
Net
I agree with you regarding these persons. These legacy holders, who would
have to have enough knowledge to route communications using the assigned
addresses, but not enough knowledge of what happened and who currently
takes care of these legacy assignments after they received them on the
back
Does there not still exist some legacy addresses that pay NO fees? While
there are those legacy blocks without contact addresses, there also appear
to be addresses who have updated contacts, but are not paying fees to
ARIN.
For example, 192.168.112.0/24 is a legacy block controled by Berea
C
My report is not the problem, it is instead the problem of operators that
demand all reports be entered into their system, ignoring the CURRENT
standard of abuse email reports as the ONLY reporting means other than
phone for current abuse.
I suspect that is because they are trying to gather in
I Oppose this.
Already there are operators that have set up autoresponders to "demand"
you report abuse by their web application and stating that they are
choosing to ignore your email submission. I think that is wrong, since
email IS the current standard for reporting abuse.
While I can se
The ONLY antitrust issue I see being expressed in the discussion that we
have been having is that of ARIN.
ARIN has specifically positioned itself as THE source of internet
addresses within its region. That itself looks like a classic antitrust
issue by itself. Even LIR's are required to apply
There are basically three "Products" that ARIN provides. These are IPv4
addresses, IPv6 addresses and ASN's Prior to the general expansion of
ASN's to 32 bit, there were 2 of the three products that had no real free
pool. After that change, ASN's and IPv6 have no real shortage, a
condition th
Using leases as justification for more addresses I believe is wrong.
I think that ARIN worked better when there was a free pool, and people
received from ARIN what they needed, and returned those addresses that
were no longer needed. That day has long passed in the IPv4 world.
Notice how muc
Remember, another proposal related to IPv6 was withdrawn when it was
realized the limited resource is the Routing table. This adds more
entries in the routing table that do not benefit anyone except the lessor.
If the addresses were provided with the circuit, the default route for
that block
I am opposed to this proposal, for the reasons cited below.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021, Fernando Frediani wrote:
Just want to say that I also oppose this proposal for similar reasons as
stated by Bill Herrin and Chris Woodfiled.
Get them d
In the typical LRSA+RSA case, is the ASN number covered by the LRSA or the
RSA? If the RSA only covers V6, why not consider getting V6 from your
upstream and dumping the RSA to save money? I happen to get V6 addresses
from both of my V6 upstreams, without additonal cost. If the ASN is also
p
I have been running dual stack since 2007. Not only do I like to try out
the new technology, but as a Federal Contractor, there has been a
requirement for all networks that interconnect with the Feds to have IPv6
in place. They have also had a purchase requirement for technology that
all new p
While everyone is worried about their fee increase, maybe it is time to
look at the other side of the ledger and find out exactly what is being
paid for, and if things can be done to help control those costs.
Is there a breakdown of exactly what are the things that our fees pay for,
and are th
However, I do not think that is a good reason to withhold it.
I am not aware on how it was kept, but I am guessing it is in numeric
order, as that would be the logical way to avoid assigning the same range
to two different parties. That is how I maintained LAN assignments back
in the static d
Some have suggested the fee should not have a relationship to the number
of addresses, but I strongly disagree.
For the most part, the more addresses you have, the more SWIP transactions
and reverse lookups and customer service transactions are going to take
place, so it is quite proportional.
I think he is saying the categories did not change. He never said that
everyone pays the same. For as long as I can remember, us little ones pay
LOTS more per IP than the big guys. When this is brought up, they always
point out those large guys pay a whole lot more than us. What they fail
t
Is the overall impact of this fee change revenue neutral, or is this a
total increase or decrease??? If an increase or decrease, by how much?
Also, has anything been done regarding the cost difference per IP address
between those in the smallest brackets, versus the largest brackets. The
las
The only thing that ARIN can really do in your business plan is provide
numbering resources. The problems with sites, bandwidth, and other
providers have little to do with ARIN. However, other than the dedicated
pools for IX's and IPv6, the pot is nearly dry so this is not going to
help with
I still think that IPv6 is here to stay, and have tried tests with IPv4
disabled, and at this point I am guessing I can get about 75% of the
normal surfing to work. Of course arin.net works, as it is hard to push
v6 without eating your own dog food. I figure at this rate, I might get
toward 9
No, nat eliminates all the various translation tables, and the rewriting
of headers that NAT requires. This extra overhead shows in the form of
slower connections when NAT is used.
Also, did you forget (if you are in the USA) CALEA? If you translate all
your customers traffic, CALEA requirem
I was still in high school, and ARPA only ran at the university, so I
guess I missed this part. I got to play with it mostly after the
1/1/1983? date.
So running 2 protocols has already been done once already? I guess the
only thing we missed with this IPv4/IPv6 dual stack bit is we failed t
When NCP was changed to TCP in a hot cut, no one even considered that
maybe that would have been a good time to increase the number of bits in
IPv4 addresses. Because that was a hot cut, that would have been the
perfect time to do this, but of course this would have increased the work
load to
I do not see IPv6 as a failure. In most networks where both protocols are
available, more than 1/2 of the traffic flows the IPv6 way. That is NOT a
sign of failure. Lots of work has been done to extend the lifetime of
IPv4, and to drag as many unused IPv4 addresses back into active use.
There
I forgot to mention that I am OPPOSED to this.
I see the router slots in the DFZ of IPv6 as the limiting factor, and we
should not hand out PI addresses to those that are not actively using them
to multihome on larger networks. I agree with leaving the current
standards that require a minimum
The Federal Government has has an IPv6 requirement on networks and
purchases since 2008. We have federal contracts, and it is still
required.
As for private networks, it is rather foolish to buy any networking gear
for over the last 10 years that does not support IPv6, as at least you
should
The answer to this was supposed to be sending perferred lifetime=0
broadcasts from the router out on down networks, forcing the devices over
to one of the remaining networks that are active for new connections.
The issue of only operating on one of the two or more networks is not an
issue, as l
I dont have a problem with this space being private use. I DO have a
problem with these addresses appearing on the public internet, especially
when one of the biggest OS vendors does not support these addresses. Thus
I am opposed to the addresses being assigned to ARIN or any other RIR.
In fa
The MAJOR problem with the use of 240/4 is the hard coding of these
addresses in Router and Workstation operating systems. This is NOT an
ARIN problem.
I understand it is just a flag and a recompile in Linux, but trying to get
Cisco and Microsoft to go along with this idea is going to take a
Here in Central Florida, electric cars effectively run on coal, the
primary local source at night of the main power provider.
However, I still see electric cars as a good move for certain uses,
including short trips and things like the Post office.
In the case of the Post Office, they have to
The true problem with the digital TV problem was twofold:
1) The FCC should have mandated DTV tuners PRIOR to the first DTV stations
going on the air. This mistake was similar to the FCC waiting on the UHF
tuner mandate until a lot of UHF licenses were already issued and were
operating.
2)
Of course, if their were any serious possibility of IPv6 exhaustion, IETF
might change the rules for the next /3, or maybe one of the later /3's.
For example, instead of a /64 assigned and /64 local part, they might opt
to make the local part smaller, resulting in many many more addresses.
Eac
It is my hope that eventually the cost of IPv4 will eventually get so high
that it will finally tip a majority of the world's networks over to the
world of IPv6. Most access providers have it. Most equipment vendors
have it, as well as nearly every operating system on the planet.
My guess is
I am aware of such districts in the panhandle of Florida. Generally they
obtain internet access much the same way as any resident or commercial
customer at each school and use the provided devices in the default
configuration. Sometimes they request a static address for remote
management, or t
All major operating systems and major brands of networking gear have IPv6
enabled. In fact, the latest windows server networking requires IPv6, and
features will fail if you were to turn IPv6 off.
I understand good designs can be done with IPv4 with little or no
configuration. In fact the CP
What expensive technology are you talking about? Windows has had IPv6
since Windows 2000. Ditto with Apple or Chromebooks or any other tech
that is commonly used in schools.
Use of RFC1918 Ipv4 addresses is quite common in every school I have ever
dealt with. Even at the university level, it
I am also opposed.
The limited amount of addresses that will come into the wait list at this
point do not make it worth having that waiting list. I would rather
divert all returns into the reserved pools such as 4.10.
I also agree that it appears to have been drafted to benefit limited
part
But is not the real unfairness issue being able to receive more space from
the list than those that apply now?
That is the issue I have a problem with. Along with the fact that without
free pools, there is little to give out in the first place.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On
The most extreme example is if that person was the very last IPv4 ONLY
network operator. They then complain that their network has been made
useless because everyone else decided to finally turn off IPv4 for lack of
use by everyone except that operator. At that point the remaining
operators of
I agree that the underlying transport could be IPv6 rather than IPv4. If
the development and use of this takes as much time as IPv6, IPv4 might be
mostly out of use before it gets anywhere toward a standard.
However, the discussion seems to be mostly directed like CIDR and NAT
before it toward
This protocol is NOT an end to end protocol, and therefore divides
addresses into 2 groups:
1) Directly addressable hosts, which are limited to the same 4.3B limit as
IP4, the protocol used to transmit it, and limits the use of direct
addresses to aware gateways of the "New IP".
2) Indirectl
I am opposed to this proposal.
There is no more IPv4 available, and I think that it is wrong to allow
these resources to be assigned to these people, simply because they
happened to be on the list at the time the waitlist was struck with fraud.
I personally think that all returned space shoul
How about "Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 OTHER THAN
A RETURN OF ALL IPv6 RESOURCES are not permitted regardless of the ISP’s
current or former IPv4 number resource holdings."
At least this avoids the "Hotel California" issue.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise
Even at $10/address, we are already past the point where this is viable.
And of course, if the only asset of the new company is the IPv4 resources,
selling the entire company to the new holder neatly bypasses any time
restrictions that the NRPM imposes. Likely this will be done right after
rec
I have a problem with this language:
"Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 are not permitted
regardless of the ISP’s current or former IPv4 number resource holdings."
Downgrades include in my mind a return, and thus a downgrade to 0. This
language seems to lock in anyone who
Has there actually been any effort toward another routing method in IPv6
other than BGP?
In theory, IPv6 should not require BGP for multihoming, unlike IPv4.
According to the current IPv6 standards, one should be able to have more
than one router from more than one provider on a LAN. Each of
I am also against this proposal.
If we allow holders of larger blocks back onto the list, we take away
blocks that should go to smaller holders.
The waiting list is NOT a lottery to be "won", and I think the policy
should not change.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc
I am in favor of the proposal, as I think it is wrong to double someones
fees simply for having the minimum amount of IPv6 while holding the
minimum amount of IPv4. It appears that many at this level are currently
saying no to IPv6 rather than have their fees double. ARIN should not
have a pol
I look at it this way:
An ISP with only a /24 of IPv4 space only has 254 addresses to hand out to
its customers. If they receive a /40 of IPv6 space, they can assign up to
256 /48's to its customers, almost an exact match. Someone with so little
IPv4 either has few customers or is using CGnat
Looks to me not some but MOST. I agree, we should not put a fee doubling
in the way of these 3x folks doing the right thing and getting IPv6.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, Brian Jones wrote:
Looking at the numbers John posted concerning this
Is that very much because they found out if they accepted the IPv6 space,
their fees would double???
If so, this PROVES the need to adopt this plan. We should not have things
in place that prevent IPv6 adoption. We have already decided that IPv6
should be cost neutral. Lets fix this glitch
I oppose this.
Even with IPv4 addresses being worth merely $10 each, the value of a /22
of address space from the waiting list is $10,240. Clearly that is enough
of a value to incorporate. In reality, the current market rate is much
higher than that. I think a total NO SELL agreement is the
The graphs that I look at are not at Google, but the MRTG graphs generated
from my own routers. I have been passing between 55 and 60 percent of
total traffic via IPv6. In nighttime use, Netflix is king, and it is IPv6
enabled. In a 24 hour period, more v6 traffic happens during non business
h
This is NOT about inflating IPv6 adoption numbers, but trying to get
people to move in the right direction, since without adoption of IPv6, the
number of nodes on the internet will be fixed at a number that is not even
equal to one per living person on planet earth.
I am not a bit worried abou
Is this the correct list to monitor:
https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/
Albert
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, Fernando Frediani wrote:
I believe this is some kind of political correctness way of dealing with this
topic. While many support the adoption of IPv6 and recognize the critical
need
I see the exact opposite point of view.
Based on the original policies, there was no directed transfers. Those
who had surplus number resources were supposed to turn them back for
reissue to others who have shown demonstrated need.
Instead, ARIN and other RIR's have adopted a transfer policy
That is why I think a /48 only upon customer or equipment request, and a
smaller number by default is the best overall way to go.
"Upon Request" also includes devices that do dhcp prefix delegation as
well. It would be helpful if the makers of these devices would not
default to always request
I slipped up on the calculation. I assumed 2000::/3 was 2000:: to
2fff:::::::. It actually extends to
3fff:::::::. Guess I slipped up on the hex
math. My mind always thought the 6 bone addresses were in the next block,
but of course now t
I did not write this to open a debate on IPv6 exhaustion, but merely to
point out that policies could be changed in the future to reduce address
consumption within IPv6 if the community found it is needed.
Looking at the IANA assignments of the first 1/16 of the address space, it
is highly lik
I understand that there might have been some poor choices made with IPv6
in regard to address allocation that might lead to a future exhaust. The
main one is the 64 bit network and 64 bit host decision, considering that
it was based on 48 bit ethernet OUI's. I think it should have been 80 bits
The right answer is a return to an enviroment where there is no address
shortage. Of course that spells IPv6.
Getting back to the the simple record keeping role is already there in
IPv6 when there is no shortage of addresseses. The only issue is getting
to a tipping point where v6 is used mo
There are those that wanted to become landlords of IPv4. I think this
kinda shoots down those hopes.
Albert
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, Fernando Frediani wrote:
What a great thing to read about ARIN-2019-18 and a good message to
'lessors-to-be' or 'number resource landlords'. Well done AC.
On 03/
As I understand it, all purchases since 2008 and all federal networks must
be IPv6 capable. They should already be close to dual stack, and a sale
would just involve getting rid of IPv4.
Unlike typical corporate networks, they should already be 99% there, since
all purchases in the last 11 ye
I did a bit of looking. The language did appear in House Bill 2500, but
that bill has ONLY passed the House. Those that track bills give it only
a 3 percent chance of passage. That language never made it to passage.
Therefore, it looks like it is going nowhere. The only US federal
governme
I thought the budget bill already passed. Did it contain the IPv4 sell
provisions or not? Anyone know what the bill number was, and if it was
signed by the President?
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Ca By wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:03
I see this as an instant headache for a lot of larger network operators
who are using portions of this DOD space like RFC1918 addresses. Once
these addresses become public, those operators are going to have to
renumber that space. That is 16.9 million hosts per block used.
Maybe these operato
My own entry into the IPv6 world began with a mandate issued by the
Executive Office of the President, which mandated that after a magic date
that all Federal networks, and therefore those of their connected
contractors have the ability to use IPv6.
Back in 2008, this was not as easy as it see
I actually hope too that it is not required, but I made the point to show
that the game playing could be caught.
Also, many are looking at the IPv6 policy as affecting everyone. It does
NOT. It will ONLY affect those who receive directed IPv4 transfers. If
you have an IPv4 network that is no
Then I guess we need to make the IPv6 connectivity an ongoing obligation
to keep the additional IPv4 blocks, rather than a one shot test during
transfer to eliminate the game playing.
Proof using a mixed web page after they have the block, showing a single
user with a cookie has fetched BOTH a
Well, we can step the standard up to 100% dual stack compliance, but I
doubt we can get consensus on that now. In a few years and a new draft,
maybe we can do it then.
I see it as baby steps to the goal of 100% IPv6.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2
That statement is true now, but will not stay that way.
On the residential side and even small business, I can see IPv4 public
addresses becoming a "value added" service at an additional cost, with
those without it sharing IPv4 public addresses via CGnat, or even an IPv6
only tier promoted for
Yes, this would be a good idea based upon the current IPv4 utilization
policy, just without a specific percentage of IPv6 use.
This would be a stronger step and statement to IPv6 adoption. In reality,
I suspect that the vast majority of the current directed transfers are
landing in the hands
I have a request for any numbers on IPv6 adoption of those who have
received directed transfers in the last year, or any other available
period.
I have looked at some of the blocks that have been transferred, and most
of them seem to be obtained by larger ISP or Mobile Wireless providers
that
No problem. However under this policy draft, you would no longer receive
any additional IPv4 addresses from ARIN. Further, getting a court order
to split the registry apart is even a greater stretch.
I have legacy stuff. However I have also had IPv6 since 2007. It was
initially done as a fed
Nor would IPv6 dns resolution be required in order to meet the proposal.
When it was discussed on the list, there was discussion of how you can
prove an IPv6 block is routed. This is a good answer, simply require that
you can actually use the block of IPv6 addresses to communicate. It could
Also, you can under this proposal still have that Windows 3.1 workstation,
or even a DOS workstation using packet drivers.
All it says is that 1) You have an IPv6 Assignment or Allocation from
ARIN, and 2) You have at least ONE workstation on it that is capable of
communicating using that IPv6
Arin also does not have to allow you to transfer any new IPv4 addresses to
your Org either. It is perfectly reasonable for ARIN to set forth
conditions that Orgs must meet in order to receive IPv4 resources. There
are already several other conditions in place. This proposal simply adds
one mo
I also agree with what has been said, and am also opposed to the proposal.
Some of the justification seems to be in the form of "I cannot afford to
buy a car, so I demand that someone permit me to lease one". Noone is
going to get into the car leasing business unless they can make money.
Gene
While someone can hire a professional registered agent in the US, that is
not the only problem. This kind of thing happens between states in the US
all the time. Most states require anyone doing business in their state to
have a place in their state to serve process on someone. Thus, the quite
We have some who has been hit hard with comment spam, mostly from RIPE and
APNIC address blocks. It used to be IPv4 only, but since making nearly
everything dual stack we have discovered in the last year or so that these
spammers have adopted IPv6 as well.
In the IPv4 world we know there is s
As far as I can tell, this is the most current policy for allocation of
IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/allocation-ipv6-rirs-2012-02-25-en
There is nothing in it regarding transfering control of portions of these
blocks to a different RIR. In
The process of IPv6 is that IANA, which is a function of ICANN provides
blocks of IPv6 numbers to the RIR's for allocation and assignment.
Due to the shortage of IPv4 numbers and 16 bit ASN numbers, ICANN and IANA
has permitted inter RIR transfers to happen with these resources. However
this
I agree. The only reason for this transfer thing was the shortage of IPv4
addresses and 16 bit ASN numbers. There is no shortage of IPv6 addresses
or 32 bit ASN.
Therefore, I agree that IPv6 transfers and 32 bit ASN transfers should not
be permitted, even for M&A.
Albert Erdmann
Network Ad
When you talk about obtaining addresses for lease from RIPE, are these
addresses then transfered back into ARIN, or are they left with RIPE?
If they are left with RIPE, those addresses are not an ARIN issue.
On the other hand, if they transferred to ARIN, without the required
needs review, I t
My understanding is as part of this draft, the term "non connected
network" is not intended to have the meaning that normal network folks
would give it, but instead is meant to mean the organization that controls
the numbers does not offer any connectivity to itself over the numbers.
However it
I do not consider the requirement as "descended from heaven" but merely
the current policy which is always the starting point. Proponents of
policy change I believe need to be able to state clearly the reasons why a
change from the current policy is desired.
So that I can understand what you
The primary problem I have with the Draft Policy is that it eliminates the
"operational use" policy. Leasing is just a side issue. Right now,
obtaining addresses in the marketplace for the purposes of leasing them to
others is not permitted because of that "operational use" policy.
I also ha
Sticking to the actual draft policy which is being proposed, in a world of
IPv4 shortages I think that any available numbers available for directed
transfer continue the current policy of "operational use" in order to
receive IPv4 directed transfer addresses. The proposal would allow the
numbe
We may eventually get to that point of ARIN being a registration only
operation, but I do not think we are there.
In the beginning of IPv4 it was a registration only operation with no
fees, and it was in those days easy to get a class A or B assigned to you
with little effort or cost. Most of
I suspect the reason that RIPE address space has not been abused to the
extent of ARIN registered space is that a lot of operators already are
blocking non ARIN space in their networks, and the abusers are choosing
not to lease there.
As an example, I host a BBS type operation for a community
Like Fernando I am also strongly opposed to the leasing of IPv4 addresses
and oppose getting rid of the "operational use" requirement in 8.5.2.
I really DO NOT CARE what RIPE policy is, since we are discussing ARIN
policy on this list. I do not agree with RIPE policy on this subject, and
have
Been distracted by hurricane preps, so my response is a bit delayed.
I agree that a policy requiring IPv6 resources before allowing IPv4
directed transfers have to be "objective" so that ARIN staff can easily
determine if the requirement is being met.
At the low end of my proposal, the receiv
I noticed this item from 7 May 2007 that I think would support my
suggestion:
WHEREAS, community access to Internet Protocol (IP) numbering
Resources has proved essential to the successful growth of the Internet;
and,
WHEREAS, ongoing community access to Internet Protocol version 4
There has been quite a bit of discussion of the proposals to eliminate the
wait list by sending freed space to the 4.4 and 4.10 space, and
eliminating the waiting list. I have generally been in favor of this
since 4.10 space has a requirement to have/use IPv6 which I think is
something that we
I am in favor of this proposal.
4.10 will in effect become the new "waiting list", but with an additional
condition that I feel is important. That condition is a requirement for
the use of IPv6. The only other real change from the existing waiting is
the size of each "dip", and the total size
1 - 100 of 250 matches
Mail list logo
