Hello, We're setting up IPv6 network is USA. Our company has branches and different legal entities in EU and US. We've some ipv6 PI subnets already allocated by RIPE for EU datacenters. I have few questions: 1) Is it possible to reuse some portion of RIPE allocated ipv6 addresses in USA ? Or we need to ask for the new ones by requesting in ARIN ? 2) Can i request in ARIN just ipv6 subnets for USA DCs, but to use the same AS number which was allocated by RIPE in EU ? Thanks
Both options work, there’s no need to pay additional fee to ARIN unless you need something like unblock some websites. You can of course use RIPE IP and ASN in United Sates. xTom GmbH ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+david=xtom.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Edvinas Kairys <edvinas.email@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2021 4:44:58 AM To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation Hello, We're setting up IPv6 network is USA. Our company has branches and different legal entities in EU and US. We've some ipv6 PI subnets already allocated by RIPE for EU datacenters. I have few questions: 1) Is it possible to reuse some portion of RIPE allocated ipv6 addresses in USA ? Or we need to ask for the new ones by requesting in ARIN ? 2) Can i request in ARIN just ipv6 subnets for USA DCs, but to use the same AS number which was allocated by RIPE in EU ? Thanks
Just for clarity - ARIN’s fee schedule is such that ISP customers (i.e. those with registration service plans) pay an annual services fee based on their higher category of IPv4 or IPv6 resources – i.e. those with IPv4 resources can obtain a corresponding size of IPv6 resources without any change in size category or increase in their annual fee. [Also worth noting - as of January 2022, all end-user customers are moving to the same registration services plan, and similarly those with just IPv4 number resources be able to obtain corresponding IPv6 resources without change to their annual fee.] None of the above is a comment or recommendation one way or the other one what address space to use for your US datacenter; it’s solely for clarity regarding the ARIN cost side. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On 4 Dec 2021, at 12:06 AM, David Guo via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: Both options work, there’s no need to pay additional fee to ARIN unless you need something like unblock some websites. You can of course use RIPE IP and ASN in United Sates. xTom GmbH ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+david=xtom.com@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces+david=xtom.com@nanog.org>> on behalf of Edvinas Kairys <edvinas.email@gmail.com<mailto:edvinas.email@gmail.com>> Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2021 4:44:58 AM To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation Hello, We're setting up IPv6 network is USA. Our company has branches and different legal entities in EU and US. We've some ipv6 PI subnets already allocated by RIPE for EU datacenters. I have few questions: 1) Is it possible to reuse some portion of RIPE allocated ipv6 addresses in USA ? Or we need to ask for the new ones by requesting in ARIN ? 2) Can i request in ARIN just ipv6 subnets for USA DCs, but to use the same AS number which was allocated by RIPE in EU ? Thanks
On Dec 4, 2021, at 8:59 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Just for clarity - ARIN’s fee schedule is such that ISP customers (i.e. those with registration service plans) pay an annual services fee based on their higher category of IPv4 or IPv6 resources – i.e. those with IPv4 resources can obtain a corresponding size of IPv6 resources without any change in size category or increase in their annual fee.
[Also worth noting - as of January 2022, all end-user customers are moving to the same registration services plan, and similarly those with just IPv4 number resources be able to obtain corresponding IPv6 resources without change to their annual fee.]
This, whether they want to or not… In many cases resulting in significant unwanted fee increases, especially if you have a mix of resources covered under RSA and LRSA due to ARIN’s accounting limitations that they are perversely disincentivized against fixing because it allows them to essentially double-bill. Owen
Yes Owen, that is correct… If an organization insists on maintaining multiple contractual relationships with ARIN (for whatever reason) then they will be billed for each relation separately - and that is indeed likely to be more than having a single consolidated agreement for all number resources. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On Dec 4, 2021, at 7:09 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote: On Dec 4, 2021, at 8:59 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote: Just for clarity - ARIN’s fee schedule is such that ISP customers (i.e. those with registration service plans) pay an annual services fee based on their higher category of IPv4 or IPv6 resources – i.e. those with IPv4 resources can obtain a corresponding size of IPv6 resources without any change in size category or increase in their annual fee. [Also worth noting - as of January 2022, all end-user customers are moving to the same registration services plan, and similarly those with just IPv4 number resources be able to obtain corresponding IPv6 resources without change to their annual fee.] This, whether they want to or not… In many cases resulting in significant unwanted fee increases, especially if you have a mix of resources covered under RSA and LRSA due to ARIN’s accounting limitations that they are perversely disincentivized against fixing because it allows them to essentially double-bill. Owen
I would be more than happy to consilolidate my ipv6 addresses under my lrsa, but ARIN will not allow it. Owen
On Dec 4, 2021, at 17:43, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Yes Owen, that is correct…
If an organization insists on maintaining multiple contractual relationships with ARIN (for whatever reason) then they will be billed for each relation separately - and that is indeed likely to be more than having a single consolidated agreement for all number resources.
Thanks, /John
John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Dec 4, 2021, at 7:09 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2021, at 8:59 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Just for clarity - ARIN’s fee schedule is such that ISP customers (i.e. those with registration service plans) pay an annual services fee based on their higher category of IPv4 or IPv6 resources – i.e. those with IPv4 resources can obtain a corresponding size of IPv6 resources without any change in size category or increase in their annual fee.
[Also worth noting - as of January 2022, all end-user customers are moving to the same registration services plan, and similarly those with just IPv4 number resources be able to obtain corresponding IPv6 resources without change to their annual fee.]
This, whether they want to or not… In many cases resulting in significant unwanted fee increases, especially if you have a mix of resources covered under RSA and LRSA due to ARIN’s accounting limitations that they are perversely disincentivized against fixing because it allows them to essentially double-bill.
Owen
Owen - Correct - ARIN will not allow you to bring non-legacy resources under an LRSA agreement. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On 4 Dec 2021, at 9:59 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I would be more than happy to consilolidate my ipv6 addresses under my lrsa, but ARIN will not allow it.
Owen
On Dec 4, 2021, at 17:43, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Yes Owen, that is correct…
If an organization insists on maintaining multiple contractual relationships with ARIN (for whatever reason) then they will be billed for each relation separately - and that is indeed likely to be more than having a single consolidated agreement for all number resources.
Thanks, /John
John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Dec 4, 2021, at 7:09 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2021, at 8:59 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Just for clarity - ARIN’s fee schedule is such that ISP customers (i.e. those with registration service plans) pay an annual services fee based on their higher category of IPv4 or IPv6 resources – i.e. those with IPv4 resources can obtain a corresponding size of IPv6 resources without any change in size category or increase in their annual fee.
[Also worth noting - as of January 2022, all end-user customers are moving to the same registration services plan, and similarly those with just IPv4 number resources be able to obtain corresponding IPv6 resources without change to their annual fee.]
This, whether they want to or not… In many cases resulting in significant unwanted fee increases, especially if you have a mix of resources covered under RSA and LRSA due to ARIN’s accounting limitations that they are perversely disincentivized against fixing because it allows them to essentially double-bill.
Owen
I’d also be willing to consolidate under RSA if I could get the same protections I have under LRSA. ARIN won’t do that, either. Owen
On Dec 4, 2021, at 7:12 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Owen -
Correct - ARIN will not allow you to bring non-legacy resources under an LRSA agreement.
Thanks, /John
John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On 4 Dec 2021, at 9:59 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I would be more than happy to consilolidate my ipv6 addresses under my lrsa, but ARIN will not allow it.
Owen
On Dec 4, 2021, at 17:43, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Yes Owen, that is correct…
If an organization insists on maintaining multiple contractual relationships with ARIN (for whatever reason) then they will be billed for each relation separately - and that is indeed likely to be more than having a single consolidated agreement for all number resources.
Thanks, /John
John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Dec 4, 2021, at 7:09 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2021, at 8:59 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Just for clarity - ARIN’s fee schedule is such that ISP customers (i.e. those with registration service plans) pay an annual services fee based on their higher category of IPv4 or IPv6 resources – i.e. those with IPv4 resources can obtain a corresponding size of IPv6 resources without any change in size category or increase in their annual fee.
[Also worth noting - as of January 2022, all end-user customers are moving to the same registration services plan, and similarly those with just IPv4 number resources be able to obtain corresponding IPv6 resources without change to their annual fee.]
This, whether they want to or not… In many cases resulting in significant unwanted fee increases, especially if you have a mix of resources covered under RSA and LRSA due to ARIN’s accounting limitations that they are perversely disincentivized against fixing because it allows them to essentially double-bill.
Owen
Owen - The RSA and LRSA agreements are identical, however, it is true that you would lose legacy holder resource status (for those IPv4 resources issued to you before ARIN’s formation) if you consolidate to a single Org with one bill under the RSA. For the curious, there are two implications to such a change: a) you lose the $25 per year cap on fee increases (unclear if this is a substantial benefit at this point since we tend not to adjust the fees except every 3 or 4 years and the fees have been almost for those with the smaller total block sizes), and b) there is different agreement exit conditions in the result of prevailing against ARIN in an arbitration dispute. You have the choice to consolidate or not as you see fit; none of this is particularly germane to the original question of whether ARIN IPv4-only resource holders can obtain an IPv6 block without increase in their annual fees — to that that the answer is yes. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Dec 5, 2021, at 10:11 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I’d also be willing to consolidate under RSA if I could get the same protections I have under LRSA. ARIN won’t do that, either.
Owen
On Dec 4, 2021, at 7:12 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Owen -
Correct - ARIN will not allow you to bring non-legacy resources under an LRSA agreement.
Thanks, /John
John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On 4 Dec 2021, at 9:59 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I would be more than happy to consilolidate my ipv6 addresses under my lrsa, but ARIN will not allow it.
Owen
On Dec 4, 2021, at 17:43, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Yes Owen, that is correct…
If an organization insists on maintaining multiple contractual relationships with ARIN (for whatever reason) then they will be billed for each relation separately - and that is indeed likely to be more than having a single consolidated agreement for all number resources.
Thanks, /John
John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Dec 4, 2021, at 7:09 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2021, at 8:59 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Just for clarity - ARIN’s fee schedule is such that ISP customers (i.e. those with registration service plans) pay an annual services fee based on their higher category of IPv4 or IPv6 resources – i.e. those with IPv4 resources can obtain a corresponding size of IPv6 resources without any change in size category or increase in their annual fee.
[Also worth noting - as of January 2022, all end-user customers are moving to the same registration services plan, and similarly those with just IPv4 number resources be able to obtain corresponding IPv6 resources without change to their annual fee.]
This, whether they want to or not… In many cases resulting in significant unwanted fee increases, especially if you have a mix of resources covered under RSA and LRSA due to ARIN’s accounting limitations that they are perversely disincentivized against fixing because it allows them to essentially double-bill.
Owen
On Dec 5, 2021, at 9:03 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Owen -
The RSA and LRSA agreements are identical, however, it is true that you would lose legacy holder resource status (for those IPv4 resources issued to you before ARIN’s formation) if you consolidate to a single Org with one bill under the RSA.
I see no difference in the status of legacy holder resources vs. resources. I care not about that. However, there is (to some extent) a limit on how badly the board can elect to screw me financially year over year in the LRSA which simply does not exist in the RSA. To claim that an agreement which limits my fee increases year over year to $25 is identical to an agreement which has no cap on fee increases is ludicrous at best, and certainly a bit disingenuous, if not worse.
For the curious, there are two implications to such a change:
a) you lose the $25 per year cap on fee increases (unclear if this is a substantial benefit at this point since we tend not to adjust the fees except every 3 or 4 years and the fees have been almost for those with the smaller total block sizes), and
The last time you did a major change to fees, my fees tripled immediately as a result. This time, they will more than double.
b) there is different agreement exit conditions in the result of prevailing against ARIN in an arbitration dispute.
You have the choice to consolidate or not as you see fit; none of this is particularly germane to the original question of whether ARIN IPv4-only resource holders can obtain an IPv6 block without increase in their annual fees — to that that the answer is yes.
But I was not given the choice to reconsolidate or not… When I signed, both contracts were under a single organization with a single annual fee for the organization. The board unilaterally changed that over my objections at the time and continues to take unfair advantage of their ability to do so, further compounding the fee increases. In fairness, it was my lack of foresight as to how the board could behave in this matter that is partly to blame here. Had I properly foreseen that a complete rewrite of the fee structure and a forced separation of my contracts into two separate ORG IDs would allow the board to increase fees well beyond the expectations at the time of my original agreement, I would simply have not signed the LRSA and there would be no issue at this time. Unfortunately, when the board did change the terms, it was made quite clear that the only way to terminate the LRSA was to surrender my resources in the process. This continues to be a thorn in my side and each and every time the issue of fee increases comes up, so will this. Owen
On 6 Dec 2021, at 2:07 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com<mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote: On Dec 5, 2021, at 9:03 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net<mailto:jcurran@arin.net>> wrote: Owen - The RSA and LRSA agreements are identical, however, it is true that you would lose legacy holder resource status (for those IPv4 resources issued to you before ARIN’s formation) if you consolidate to a single Org with one bill under the RSA. I see no difference in the status of legacy holder resources vs. resources. I care not about that. However, there is (to some extent) a limit on how badly the board can elect to screw me financially year over year in the LRSA which simply does not exist in the RSA. To claim that an agreement which limits my fee increases year over year to $25 is identical to an agreement which has no cap on fee increases is ludicrous at best, and certainly a bit disingenuous, if not worse. Owen - If you value the $25 per year cap in fee change, then feel free maintain a separate LRSA for your legacy resource services. If you’d prefer to consolidate under a single RSA and pay a single fee based on the larger IPv4 or IPv6 category based on total holdings in each, that’s also available to you – the choice is yours. If you choose to consolidate, then you will indeed have to pay the same fees as everyone else – even if a hypothecated future change to the fee schedule for that service category is greater than $25 annual. If you consider paying the same fee as other ARIN customers for your legacy resource services to be a form of hardship, then maintain a separate LRSA agreement for them if you wish, Back to the question raised in the original post: organizations that just have ARIN IPv4 number resources can obtain a corresponding-sized IPv6 block without increasing their registration services category and corresponding ARIN annual fee. Please direct followups on ARIN fee structure back to the ARIN-ppml mailing list as this thread is wandering far afield from the issue raised by the original post. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 19:08, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, when the board did change the terms, it was made quite clear that the only way to terminate the LRSA was to surrender my resources in the process.
You could transfer the resources to RIPE... :-)
You could transfer the resources to RIPE... :-)
been there. done that. 2016. "A Happy Story of Inter-RIR Transfer of Legacy Blocks from ARIN to RIPE" https://archive.psg.com/160524.ripe-transfer.pdf randy
Hello Randy , On Mon, 6 Dec 2021, Randy Bush wrote:
You could transfer the resources to RIPE... :-)
been there. done that. 2016.
"A Happy Story of Inter-RIR Transfer of Legacy Blocks from ARIN to RIPE"
https://archive.psg.com/160524.ripe-transfer.pdf In your slides above you mentioned '... just pay ...' , Most of the RIR's webpages (at least to me) are a warren of forward and backward references . Could you or any kind soul post a url that diffinatively defines the fee structure for services provided for Ripe members ?
randy
Tia , JimL -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network & System Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux | | jiml@system-techniques.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
In your slides above you mentioned '... just pay ...' , Most of the RIR's webpages (at least to me) are a warren of forward and backward references . Could you or any kind soul post a url that diffinatively defines the fee structure for services provided for Ripe members ?
pretty simple, https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment randy
On Dec 5, 2021, at 4:24 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 12:00 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
I would be more than happy to consilolidate my ipv6 addresses under my lrsa, but ARIN will not allow it.
And they are right in doing so. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Rubens
I actually agree… I’d much prefer that they solve the double-billing problem without forcing different agreements into different orgs rather than consolidate under LRSA. However, my point is that I’m open to any solution that allows me to preserve the fee increase protections for my IPv4 resources, yet get rid of the double-billing. The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources. IIRC, it was a year or two later when ARIN changed the fee structure to force the double billing issue. Unfortunately, the LRSA lacks a material adverse change clause allowing me to terminate without losing my resources, so for years now, I’ve been paying nearly triple what I signed up for not because of fee increases, but because of a change in the fee structure which altered the nature of ARIN billing. I’m not trying to have my cake and eat it too… I’m trying to get restored to billing on terms similar to every other ARIN resource holder, with the exception that I’d like to preserve the fee increase protections in my LRSA for determining the price paid each year for my IPv4 resources. Owen
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources.
There were some community participants that suggested that having a formal relationship with the ARIN organization by signing the LRSA was good for the resource holders, and good for the overall commons. There were other members that suggested that signing the LRSA would be potentially disadvantageous at some future time. While I still believe that having a formal relationship is the better approach, even if it costs a bit more(*), I do understand that some people may feel vindicated about not signing a LRSA, or have changed their opinion about whether they should have signed, or suggested others do so. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned here. (*) If the number resources no longer have value exceeding their fees for an organization, I understand there is a robust transfer market available :-)
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 7:43 AM Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources.
There were some community participants that suggested that having a formal relationship with the ARIN organization by signing the LRSA was good for the resource holders, and good for the overall commons.
I vaguely recall Owen being one of the most outspoken proponents.
There were other members that suggested that signing the LRSA would be potentially disadvantageous at some future time.
I confess: I do have the urge to say I told him so.
I do understand that some people may feel vindicated about not signing a LRSA,
Not yet. We're still at the stage where Darth Vader says, "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Dec 5, 2021, at 10:42 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 7:43 AM Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources.
There were some community participants that suggested that having a formal relationship with the ARIN organization by signing the LRSA was good for the resource holders, and good for the overall commons.
I vaguely recall Owen being one of the most outspoken proponents.
Indeed, I was. I was younger and foolish. I have learned my lesson and deeply regret that today.
There were other members that suggested that signing the LRSA would be potentially disadvantageous at some future time.
I confess: I do have the urge to say I told him so.
But you did not. Not until after it was too late to do anything about it.
I do understand that some people may feel vindicated about not signing a LRSA,
Not yet. We're still at the stage where Darth Vader says, "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Indeed, that sums up the current situation quite accurately IMHO. Owen
On Dec 5, 2021, at 7:41 AM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources.
There were some community participants that suggested that having a formal relationship with the ARIN organization by signing the LRSA was good for the resource holders, and good for the overall commons. There were other members that suggested that signing the LRSA would be potentially disadvantageous at some future time.
While I still believe that having a formal relationship is the better approach, even if it costs a bit more(*), I do understand that some people may feel vindicated about not signing a LRSA, or have changed their opinion about whether they should have signed, or suggested others do so. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned here.
(*) If the number resources no longer have value exceeding their fees for an organization, I understand there is a robust transfer market available :-)
The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would involve simply turning off IPv6. Obviously, I would rather not have to do that, but more importantly, I really dislike the idea that ARIN is once again creating financial disincentives for the adoption or continued use of IPv6. Owen
I strongly encourage my competitors to turn off IPv6, so I hope you convince one of them to do so. ;-) Rubens On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 2:59 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Dec 5, 2021, at 7:41 AM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources.
There were some community participants that suggested that having a formal relationship with the ARIN organization by signing the LRSA was good for the resource holders, and good for the overall commons. There were other members that suggested that signing the LRSA would be potentially disadvantageous at some future time.
While I still believe that having a formal relationship is the better approach, even if it costs a bit more(*), I do understand that some people may feel vindicated about not signing a LRSA, or have changed their opinion about whether they should have signed, or suggested others do so. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned here.
(*) If the number resources no longer have value exceeding their fees for an organization, I understand there is a robust transfer market available :-)
The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would involve simply turning off IPv6.
Obviously, I would rather not have to do that, but more importantly, I really dislike the idea that ARIN is once again creating financial disincentives for the adoption or continued use of IPv6.
Owen
On 12/6/21 09:59, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would involve simply turning off IPv6.
If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO. -- Jay Hennigan - jay@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 1:00 PM Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:
If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO.
Hi Jay, Nearly a decade ago I ran for the ARIN Board of Trustees on the platform that IPv6 fees should be abolished until IPv4 use began to wane. My basis for that platform was that ARIN's fee structure, in and of itself, makes it financially advantageous for some network operators to turn off or fail to implement IPv6. As you say: they're doing it wrong. Alas I was not elected. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:
On 12/6/21 09:59, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would involve simply turning off IPv6.
If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO.
Jay - The situation is exactly opposite, as ARIN’s fee schedule allows customers to obtain a corresponding-sized IPv6 block without any increase to their annual fee - this actually removes the financial disincentive that would otherwise be present for network operators to deploy IPv6. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:25 AM John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:
If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO.
The situation is exactly opposite
And yet you have people reporting that ARIN's fee schedule offers dissuasion for their deployments of IPv6. Right here in this email thread. How can that be? Don't gaslight us John. Seriously, it's not cool. ARIN fees make IPv6 registration a neutral prospect for only a fraction of its registrants. You've presented something as broadly true that isn't. Those of us for whom your claim is false don't appreciate the insinuation that we've misrepresented ARIN's behavior. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Folks - Please remember this mail list is in place to provide for an exchange of technical information and the discussion of specific implementation issues that require cooperation among network service providers. The Mailing List is not an appropriate platform to resolve personal issues, engage in disputes, or file complaints. Admins encourage you to remember the Usage Guidelines <https://www.nanog.org/resources/nanog-mailing-list/usage-guidelines/>. Should you have any questions/concerns about this reminder, please send a message to admins@nanog.org <mailto:admins@nanog.org>. Valerie Wittkop Program Director vwittkop@nanog.org | +1 734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA ASN 19230
On Dec 7, 2021, at 11:34, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:25 AM John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:
If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO.
The situation is exactly opposite
And yet you have people reporting that ARIN's fee schedule offers dissuasion for their deployments of IPv6. Right here in this email thread. How can that be?
Don't gaslight us John. Seriously, it's not cool. ARIN fees make IPv6 registration a neutral prospect for only a fraction of its registrants. You've presented something as broadly true that isn't. Those of us for whom your claim is false don't appreciate the insinuation that we've misrepresented ARIN's behavior.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN members give a crap about what happens with legacy resources. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> To: "John Curran" <jcurran@arin.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:34:46 AM Subject: Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:25 AM John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:
If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO.
The situation is exactly opposite
And yet you have people reporting that ARIN's fee schedule offers dissuasion for their deployments of IPv6. Right here in this email thread. How can that be? Don't gaslight us John. Seriously, it's not cool. ARIN fees make IPv6 registration a neutral prospect for only a fraction of its registrants. You've presented something as broadly true that isn't. Those of us for whom your claim is false don't appreciate the insinuation that we've misrepresented ARIN's behavior. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On 12/7/21 8:48 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN members give a crap about what happens with legacy resources.
If I had legacy resources I might, but I don't so it's an issue that I bounce between fully ignore or don't see why I should care.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 10:53 AM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN members give a crap about what happens with legacy resources.
there are more legacy non-members than total members. wonder why?
The real issue with Mike's statement is that there are more non-legacy ARIN registrants under contract than there are ARIN members, all of whom must pay ARIN more for IPv6 and most of whom must deploy IPv6 if we're ever to be rid of IPv4. ARIN is attempting to partially resolve that with their upcoming fee schedule (with prior non-members paying more of course) but it still leaves a lot of folks out in the cold including some (like Owen and myself) who pay ARIN for services but can't and won't be able to have IPv6 addresses without paying ARIN more. I don't precisely view this as unfair but I do think it harms the community by creating an unnecessary drag on IPv6 deployment. Is ARIN fee fairness valuable enough to you that you're willing to extend the time you have to buy IPv4 addresses at market price? It shouldn't be! And if it isn't, you ought to let ARIN know because they seem pretty confident fee equity between IPv4 and IPv6 *is* that important, not in the future but right now. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On 7 Dec 2021, at 2:51 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote: I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN members give a crap about what happens with legacy resources. there are more legacy non-members than total members. wonder why? Randy - While that was inevitable at ARIN’s inception and continued for many years, it is not currently the case that there are more legacy customers than paying customers – as ARIN has more than 24000 paying registry customers (as increase of more than 500 from a year prior), and only 15233 non-contracted legacy customers. Even if one doesn’t count the 8000 or so paying customers who just have an ASN number, the contracted IPv4/IPv6 customers exceed the number of non-contracted legacy customers - and the non-contracted legacy customers continue to drop in number by hundreds each year while the contracted customers continue to grow. Note - the same effect is seen with IPv4 address space in the ARIN registry - as of December 2021, total uncontracted legacy IP resources now represent only 35.65% of total IP inventory and legacy resources in registry steadily declining over time – 638M in Dec 2020 to 596M today (-6.6% year over year drop.) While some of these blocks do transfer to other regions, the vast majority (result of NRPM 8./3 transfer) remain in the ARIN region receiving registry services under standard RSA. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
hi john
While that was inevitable at ARIN’s inception and continued for many years, it is not currently the case that there are more legacy customers than paying customers
i am easily confused. so just to keep my nouns the same over history, could you phrase that in terms of resource holders, members and non-members; where members == signed a *RSA? thanks. randy
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
While that was inevitable at ARIN’s inception and continued for many years, it is not currently the case that there are more legacy customers than paying customers
i am easily confused. so just to keep my nouns the same over history, could you phrase that in terms of resource holders, members and non-members; where members == signed a *RSA? thanks.
Hi Randy, Probably not since ARIN "members" are the specific class of ARIN registrants who have received an "allocation" of IP addresses. Everybody else, including folks who have received an "assignment" of IP addresses falls into the "end user" or "legacy" categories and are not "members." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:54 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
While that was inevitable at ARIN’s inception and continued for many years, it is not currently the case that there are more legacy customers than paying customers
i am easily confused. so just to keep my nouns the same over history, could you phrase that in terms of resource holders, members and non-members; where members == signed a *RSA? thanks.
Hi Randy,
Probably not since ARIN "members" are the specific class of ARIN registrants who have received an "allocation" of IP addresses. Everybody else, including folks who have received an "assignment" of IP addresses falls into the "end user" or "legacy" categories and are not "members."
And since I wasn't clear: both "members" and "end users" have signed an RSA with ARIN and pay an annual fee while "legacy" organizations have not and do not. So, for example, the 8000 ASN-only organizations that John mentioned are paying, RSA-signatory end-users not members. They often have "legacy" addresses under a different organization name, hence the need for the AS number. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On 8 Dec 2021, at 1:47 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote: hi john While that was inevitable at ARIN’s inception and continued for many years, it is not currently the case that there are more legacy customers than paying customers i am easily confused. so just to keep my nouns the same over history, could you phrase that in terms of resource holders, members and non-members; where members == signed a *RSA? thanks. Randy - My apologies for the lack of clarity - the challenge is that having “signed an RSA” has never equated to being an ARIN Member – ARIN historically has only considered ISPs to be members – so even end-user organizations who signed an RSA and received IPv4 and/or IPv6 resources directly from ARIN have not been considered members. (Similarly for customers who signed an RSA and received just an ASN) The situation for ARIN’s IPv4/IPv6 customers will change in January, when all customers with IPv4 and/or IPv6 number resources will pay on the same fee table for ARIN registry services and will all be ARIN Members and will all have the opportunity to participate in ARIN governance if they wish. So we’re approximately here at the beginning of December 2021 - 7500 ISPs (i.e. services under an RSA / Members) 8500 End-users (i.e. services under an RSA / Not Members Today) 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / Not Members) In a month (January 2022) it will become - 16000 ARIN IPv4/IPv6 customers (i.e. services under an RSA and with membership rights) 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / Not Members) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 3:35 AM John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
So we’re approximately here at the beginning of December 2021 -
7500 ISPs (i.e. services under an RSA / Members) 8500 End-users (i.e. services under an RSA / Not Members Today) 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / Not Members)
In a month (January 2022) it will become -
16000 ARIN IPv4/IPv6 customers (i.e. services under an RSA and with membership rights) 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / Not Members)
Hi John, What happened to the count of ASN-only customers who, as you've previously mentioned, are under an RSA but are not converting to having membership rights? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On 9 Dec 2021, at 7:55 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us>> wrote: On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 3:35 AM John Curran <jcurran@arin.net<mailto:jcurran@arin.net>> wrote: So we’re approximately here at the beginning of December 2021 - 7500 ISPs (i.e. services under an RSA / Members) 8500 End-users (i.e. services under an RSA / Not Members Today) 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / Not Members) In a month (January 2022) it will become - 16000 ARIN IPv4/IPv6 customers (i.e. services under an RSA and with membership rights) 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / Not Members) Hi John, What happened to the count of ASN-only customers who, as you've previously mentioned, are under an RSA but are not converting to having membership rights? Bill - There are approximately 8000 ASN-only customers – they all have RSAs with ARIN, pay a $150 annual maintenance fee per ASN and are not ARIN members. Neither their fees nor relationship to ARIN changes in 2022. (ARIN customers with IPv4 or IPv6 number resources simply pay their annual registration plan based on total size of their number resource holdings but have no ASN maintenance fees – this is one reason why many smaller end-user customers see their overall ARIN fees drop with the 2022 fee schedule change.) Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 12:52:45PM +0000, John Curran:
So we’re approximately here at the beginning of December 2021 -
7500 ISPs (i.e. services under an RSA / Members) 8500 End-users (i.e. services under an RSA / Not Members Today) 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / Not Members)
In a month (January 2022) it will become -
16000 ARIN IPv4/IPv6 customers (i.e. services under an RSA and with membership rights) 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / Not Members)
Hi John,
What happened to the count of ASN-only customers who, as you've previously mentioned, are under an RSA but are not converting to having membership rights?
Bill -
There are approximately 8000 ASN-only customers – they all have RSAs with ARIN, pay a $150 annual maintenance fee per ASN and are not ARIN members. Neither their fees nor relationship to ARIN changes in 2022.
(ARIN customers with IPv4 or IPv6 number resources simply pay their annual registration plan based on total size of their number resource holdings but have no ASN maintenance fees – this is one reason why many smaller end-user customers see their overall ARIN fees drop with the 2022 fee schedule change.)
So, fees will be reduced, given all this new income?
On 9 Dec 2021, at 12:44 PM, heasley <heas@shrubbery.net<mailto:heas@shrubbery.net>> wrote: ... So, fees will be reduced, given all this new income? The existing 7500 ISP customers fees are unchanged. For the more than 8000 end-users customers, the fee structure change means they will now pay the same fees as ISPs (which is proportional to the total IPv4 and IPv6 number resources held.) The prior end-user fees were a flat fee per number of address blocks regardless of size of each block, and this change results in all ARIN registry customers paying the same fees for the same services. The change will result in 4,800 of them paying more annually – although the majority of these will see an increase of $200 or less. (Larger organizations that have very significant IPv4 number resources bear the brunt of the increase, as the fee structure change putting them in parity with ISPs of similar resources means that some see rather substantial increase.) The remaining 3,200 end-user customers changing to the RSP fee schedule will pay less than they presently pay under the present end-user fee schedule as noted above. (Organizations that choose - for whatever reason - to maintain multiple relations with ARIN pay based on the total resources held under each, and that is indeed likely to be more than would result with consolidation.) More details on the fee schedule are here - https://www.arin.net/announcements/20210712/ Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 4:52 AM John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
In a month (January 2022) it will become -
16000 ARIN IPv4/IPv6 customers (i.e. services under an RSA and with membership rights) 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / Not Members)
There are approximately 8000 ASN-only customers – they all have RSAs with ARIN, pay a $150 annual maintenance fee per ASN and are not ARIN members. Neither their fees nor relationship to ARIN changes in 2022.
Hi John, For clarity, is that: 16000 ARIN IPv4/IPv6 customers (i.e. services under an RSA and with membership rights) 8000 ARIN ASN-only customers (services under an RSA without membership rights) 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / Not Members) Or is it some other set of numbers? Is there any other set of ARIN customers not counted here? Thanks, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
hi joh, thanks for numbers in the shape i remember them. my only comment would be a nit
15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / Not Members) ^ some
as i do not follow arin news, i found this even more interesting
The situation for ARIN’s IPv4/IPv6 customers will change in January, when all customers with IPv4 and/or IPv6 number resources will pay on the same fee table for ARIN registry services and will all be ARIN Members and will all have the opportunity to participate in ARIN governance if they wish.
is arin going to a flat rate scheme from scaled while ripe is contemplating going from flat to scaled? i would be the proverbial fly on the wall if/when you and hans petter exchange lessons learned. randy
On 9 Dec 2021, at 1:57 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote: ... as i do not follow arin news, i found this even more interesting The situation for ARIN’s IPv4/IPv6 customers will change in January, when all customers with IPv4 and/or IPv6 number resources will pay on the same fee table for ARIN registry services and will all be ARIN Members and will all have the opportunity to participate in ARIN governance if they wish. is arin going to a flat rate scheme from scaled while ripe is contemplating going from flat to scaled? Not quite - we’ve always had an “ISP” fee schedule that is proportional to total number resource holdings. In ARIN’s case, ours is based on the highest Registration Services Plan (RSP) category that covers both IPv4 and IPv6 resources held. The specific table is here - https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/2022_fee_schedule/ - and start with annual fees of $250 per year for smallest category and then increase by a factor of two with each 4x increase in total IPv4 number resources held (or each 16x increase in IPv6 resources) The 2022 fee change is moving the end-users from a flat per-block maintenance fee structure to the same scaled fee structure (i.e. the RSP fee categories) that our ISPs have been paying for years. i would be the proverbial fly on the wall if/when you and hans petter exchange lessons learned. You’re unlikely to ever get such a chance, as those conversations don’t happen (they wouldn’t be particularly appropriate due to the risk of depriving the community of the diversity of thought and pricing independence to which it is entitled…) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:59 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would involve simply turning off IPv6.
While the details are certainly yours to keep private, from other statements made, or implied, it sounded as if consolidating all your resources under a single RSA was the most financially advantageous to you *today* (as in saving you money *today*). And all that while allowing you to continue to be connected to the entire Internet (which includes IPv6), which I would presume you wish to be. Of course, it does go without saying, that no one can predict future fees, so whether one would continue to save with a combined RSA, and for how long, is unknowable. You place your bets and take your chances (in ten to twenty years we will know if moving to a consolidated RSA would have saved you money vs. separate accounts). That those that feel their admitted foolishness in the past may influence their future choices, is a given.
On Dec 6, 2021, at 19:28, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:59 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would involve simply turning off IPv6.
While the details are certainly yours to keep private, from other statements made, or implied, it sounded as if consolidating all your resources under a single RSA was the most financially advantageous to you *today* (as in saving you money *today*). And all that while allowing you to continue to be connected to the entire Internet (which includes IPv6), which I would presume you wish to be.
No, if I consolidated under an RSA today, I would face a substantial fee increase (roughly double my 2021 fees). By abandoning my current RSA, I would achieve a nominal fee decrease. (Roughly half my 2021 fees).
Of course, it does go without saying, that no one can predict future fees, so whether one would continue to save with a combined RSA, and for how long, is unknowable.
I fully expected fee increases. What I didn’t predict was the board first changing from fee per organization to fee per record and now the change eliminating the ability of end users to pay per record instead of on the basis of total holdings. I further failed to anticipate that the change to fee per resource would cause ARIN to suddenly divide my existing single organization into two separate organizations.
You place your bets and take your chances (in ten to twenty years we will know if moving to a consolidated RSA would have saved you money vs. separate accounts). That those that feel their admitted foolishness in the past may influence their future choices, is a given.
Guaranteed eliminating my RSA is the most cost effective alternative both now and in the future. The trade off, of course is that means turning off IPv6 in my environment or going to PA for v6. Probably I’d just turn it off rather than go to PA. Owen
Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources.
Owen, the root of your problem is that you signed an LRSA with ARIN, rather than keeping your legacy resources un-tainted by an ARIN contract that deliberately reduced your rights. When ARDC transferred 44.192/10 via ARIN, the recipient lost the legacy status of the address block. That was an ARIN requirement, which was OK with that particular recipient. However, ARIN is not your only option. It is possible to transfer legacy resources such as IPv4 address blocks from ARIN to RIPE, having them be recognized as legacy blocks under RIPE jurisdiction. You can do this without signing any long term contract with RIPE, if you like; or you can choose to become a long-term paying RIPE member, under their fee schedule. All you need is to have any Internet resources in Europe -- like a virtual machine in a data center there, or a DNS server. I'm sure of this because I have done it; see https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/lookup?source=ripe&key=209.16.159.0%20-%20209.16.159.255&type=inetnum The short-term contract for the transfer honors and retains the legacy status of those resources: that you own them, not the ARIN fiction that an RIR now controls them and will steal them from you if you stop paying them annually. Randy Bush detailed a similar transfer process back in 2016: https://archive.psg.com/160524.ripe-transfer.pdf The process is more bureaucratic and cumbersome than you expect; Europeans named bureacracy in the 1800s, and RIPE has raised it to a painful art. But once it's done, you are out from under the ARIN anti-legacy mentality forever. John Gilmore PS: If you want RPKI, which I didn't, you can sign a RIPE long term contract, pay them annually, and (according to Randy) they will STILL honor your ownership of your resources, unlike ARIN.
On 10 Dec 2021, at 5:00 PM, John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com<mailto:gnu@toad.com>> wrote: ... Owen, the root of your problem is that you signed an LRSA with ARIN, rather than keeping your legacy resources un-tainted by an ARIN contract that deliberately reduced your rights Signing a contract with ARIN certainly clarifies and makes specific the rights involved, but it is not possible to say “reduces” with any certainty as the existing rights are rather unclear without a specific statement of what rights were granted at the time. Alas, issuance of number resources in the early days did not make the rights or associated obligations clear. Some legacy resource holders find entering into an RSA with ARIN to be quite useful and others prefer not to – that choice is up to them, and is not required as the the ARIN Board of Trustees has directed that ARIN continue to provide the same basic registration services available at our formation to all legacy resource holders without fee or contract. The short-term contract for the transfer honors and retains the legacy status of those resources: that you own them, not the ARIN fiction that an RIR now controls them and will steal them from you if you stop paying them annually. For organizations that do enter into a registration agreement with ARIN, there are indeed obligations (such as payment of registry fees) that are quite real but also benefits such as the ability to obtain new services funded by such fees and participation in the governance of ARIN. As noted above - folks can enter into an agreement (or not) as they deem best. Note one of the other advantages of the upcoming change to ARIN’s fee structure is that it will also open up ARIN membership and voting to all contracted registry customers with IPv4 or IPv6 number resources – rather than just those previously deemed ISPs – so those who do enter into a RSA and choose to participate in ARIN governance will have the equal ability to vote for the Board and set ARIN’s practices with regard to legacy resource holders. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Dec 11, 2021, at 02:44 , John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On 10 Dec 2021, at 5:00 PM, John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com <mailto:gnu@toad.com>> wrote: ... Owen, the root of your problem is that you signed an LRSA with ARIN, rather than keeping your legacy resources un-tainted by an ARIN contract that deliberately reduced your rights
Signing a contract with ARIN certainly clarifies and makes specific the rights involved, but it is not possible to say “reduces” with any certainty as the existing rights are rather unclear without a specific statement of what rights were granted at the time. Alas, issuance of number resources in the early days did not make the rights or associated obligations clear. Some legacy resource holders find entering into an RSA with ARIN to be quite useful and others prefer not to – that choice is up to them, and is not required as the the ARIN Board of Trustees has directed that ARIN continue to provide the same basic registration services available at our formation to all legacy resource holders without fee or contract.
There is at least one certain reduction… It removes the right to stop doing business with ARIN without surrendering the rights you had before you started.
The short-term contract for the transfer honors and retains the legacy status of those resources: that you own them, not the ARIN fiction that an RIR now controls them and will steal them from you if you stop paying them annually.
For organizations that do enter into a registration agreement with ARIN, there are indeed obligations (such as payment of registry fees) that are quite real but also benefits such as the ability to obtain new services funded by such fees and participation in the governance of ARIN. As noted above - folks can enter into an agreement (or not) as they deem best. Note one of the other advantages of the upcoming change to ARIN’s fee structure is that it will also open up ARIN membership and voting to all contracted registry customers with IPv4 or IPv6 number resources – rather than just those previously deemed ISPs – so those who do enter into a RSA and choose to participate in ARIN governance will have the equal ability to vote for the Board and set ARIN’s practices with regard to legacy resource holders.
I have no use for these supposed new services (which as near as I can tell boil down to RPKI and a new version of an IRR which equivalent service can be obtained elsewhere at no cost, such as ALTDB). Since I’ve never used any of these supposed new services and they are of no benefit to me, subsidizing them at an ever increasing price ins’t an attractive option. There was a time when entering into the agreement seemed best. Unfortunately, the problem is the hotel California nature of the agreement. You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave (at least not in tact). Owen
On Dec 3, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Edvinas Kairys <edvinas.email@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
We're setting up IPv6 network is USA. Our company has branches and different legal entities in EU and US. We've some ipv6 PI subnets already allocated by RIPE for EU datacenters. I have few questions:
1) Is it possible to reuse some portion of RIPE allocated ipv6 addresses in USA ? Or we need to ask for the new ones by requesting in ARIN ?
Generally, you are free to do either.
2) Can i request in ARIN just ipv6 subnets for USA DCs, but to use the same AS number which was allocated by RIPE in EU ?
Yes. Owen
participants (16)
-
babydr DBA James W. Laferriere -
Baldur Norddahl -
David Guo -
Edvinas Kairys -
Gary Buhrmaster -
heasley -
Jay Hennigan -
John Curran -
John Gilmore -
Mike Hammett -
Owen DeLong -
Randy Bush -
Rubens Kuhl -
Seth Mattinen -
Valerie Wittkop -
William Herrin