- Test - lists.nanog.org

Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters
by Heinrich Strauss 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

Hi, NANOG. Something's just struck me: every IPv4 allocation over a certain threshold has a monetary cost (sometimes in the tens of thousands of USD) and according to our RIR, the first equivalent IPv6 allocation is given as a freebie (to encourage migration). (Disclaimer: I'm on the Dark Continent of Africa) So once the "early" adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to the free pool, since Business would see it as an unnecessary cost. This would seem to counteract the forced move to IPv6, since, once the early adopters move their services exclusively to IPv6 (or maintaining very small IPv4 blocks), there would be plenty of IPv4 space for the late adopters to request (after the RIR quarantine period, etc). Naturally, 6to4 functionality must remain for a while to interoperability reasons, so their resources would be available to the IPv6 world for time to come. Unless I'm misunderstanding the RIRs policy regarding IPv4 allocations; has it been stated by all RIRs that IPv4 blocks are unallocatable once the exhaustion phase kicks in? Or is there another mechanism to ensure that we don't hand out the space being handed back once IPv6 is the norm? :) Regards, -H.

12 15

US Warships jamming Lebanon Internet
by Joly MacFie 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the country's Internet.. http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E00… "The problem, however, is due to a coordination error related to waves," > Nahhas told OTV, adding that an investigation was underway to find out > whether this act is "intentional or not." also at http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/Lebanon/EFCEF203B3C315A5C225… -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------

7 6

Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
by John Curran 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators > don't participate much in the standards setting process so its > no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) "blind-spots" when it comes to > operational reality. > > and pragmatically, I am not sure that one could come to a single > consistent suite of polciy for management of number resource. there's > just too many ways (some conflicting) to use them. but this might be > a sigma-six outlying POV. ARIN's community certinly is dominated by > a particular type of network operator. To the extent that the operator community does not participate in the open standards setting process in the IETF, and also opts not to participate in the open policy development process in the Regional Internet Registries, it is indeed challenging to make sure that the outcomes meet any operational reality. Since the results are useless for everyone if they don't work for the operator community, there is obviously pressure to try to fairly consider those needs as best understood, but it takes good inputs into the system somewhere if we want reasonable outcomes. (my humble opinion alone) /John

14 24

nlayer contact
by William Pitcock 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

Hi, Could an nLayer network engineer contact me offlist regarding a service or core router at I'm guessing One Wilshire that is having serious problems? Thanks. William

1 0

Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
by John Curran 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:33 PM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > decides current policy. when current policy directly contridicts the policies > under which old address space was allocated, which policy trumps? Bill - RFC 2050 is the document which provides the registry system framework. Jon Postel is an author of same, as well as a founder of ARIN. We've adhered to these principles from RFC 2050 in address management without exception, and even in policy development today. When you speak of the policies of old allocations, please be specific. If they predated Jon, that would indeed be quite interesting. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

2 1

External sanity checks
by Philip Lavine 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

To all, Does any one know a Vendor (NOT Keynote) that can do sanity checks against your web/smtp/ftp farms with pings, traceroutes, latency checks as well as application checks (GET, POST, ESMTP, etc) Thank you, Philip

16 16

Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
by John Curran 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:27 PM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote: >> ... >> It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates. >> >> Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one of those truisms that applies across the whole spectrum of Internet governance: constrained-resource allocation, protocol definition, route and capacity forecasting, carrier interconnect, what-have-you. It's the people who sit back and say that someone else is doing it who don't get represented and don't get their way. So while I absolutely recognize the phenomenon you're describing and wish it were otherwise, the solution is action, not complaint. >> >> -Bill > > there is no complaint here bill. there is simply the observation that > if I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, > that it is, at best, presumptious to presume the power of expropriation > without taking into account the doctrine of eminent domain. If the > RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away - > I expect to be compensated at fair market value. ... Bill - That seems like a particularly strong reason on your part to participate in the policy development process. I happen to believe that the community needs to be particularly respectful of the ability of all address holders to use their space undisturbed, but at the end of the day we have to run according to whatever policies the community develops. /John

1 0

Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
by John Curran 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:18 PM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > this report suggests that the question is not RIR specific. > http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20… > but thats just me. FYI - Also remember to consider the views from papers that have actually been peer-reviewed and published (attached)... /John > "Legal And Policy Aspects Of Internet Number Resources" > > Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal. > > Volume 24 > Issue 2 > Page 335 > > Authors: Stephen M. Ryan, Esq. , Raymond A. Plzak , and John Curran > > http://www.chtlj.org/sites/default/files/media/articles/v024/v024.i2.Ryan.p…

1 0

Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
by John Curran 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: >> For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform >> in the presence of such activity ("leasing" IP addresses by ISP not providing >> connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to simply >> be ignored, it's also possible that such should be considered a fraudulent >> transfer and the resources reclaimed. At the end of the day, the policy is >> set by this community, and clarity over ambiguity is very helpful. >> ... > > the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW... Good to know; it makes its omission from RFC2050 even more significant and highlights the need for clear policy in this area. Ultimately, the question is simply how the operator community wishes to have this treated, and there should be alignment between that consensus and the number resource policy. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

2 1

Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters
by Brandon Butterworth 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

> ARIN might decide that since we're ineligible for an allocation under > the current rules, we're no longer eligible to maintain the space we > have, and take it away from us. ARIN don't know that > As the remaining space gets smaller, I expect that the number needed > to justify keeping my addresses is going to go up. I fear I'm already > on thin ice. Nobody reads this list, your secret is safe brandon

1 0